six gear collapses & gear ups in one week

[EricJ]

13 hours ago, PT20J said:

Most everyone keeps complete aircraft maintenance logbooks for the life of the aircraft. But, FARs don't require that. Depending on the extent of the damage and the nature of the repairs, it can be legal to have three gear ups with only the last one in the current maintenance record.  Part 91.417(b)(1) states that

The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for one year after the work is performed.

Skip

Even the records of the last gear-up can be chucked if it's more than a year past.   Once it's had an annual and deemed airworthy, how it got there is not that important.

If repairs were bad enough to warrant a 337 it'll be in the FAA records.

 

[Hank]

56 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

My 430 gives me a terrain alert coming into my home airfield as it’s not in the database, but I believe it doesn’t for airports in the database, but I agree a “check wheels down” would be a good alert to be able to enable.

My 430W used to give a terrain warning on base leg at my (charted) home field, since it was flown directly at the ridge parallel to the runway. That ridge was also inside the downwind leg when landing the other direction; in the Mooney I extended one gap longer than in the Slowhawk. 

[PT20J]

One might think that a gear up would be a major repair requiring a 337, but probably not.  The previous owner of my airplane bashed a wingtip pretty badly requiring replacement of a couple of ribs and a wing skin and wingtip lens — all with factory parts. Since the repair amounted to simple parts replacement, only a logbook entry was required.

I’m not suggesting throwing away maintenance history. But, I think it’s good to understand what the law actually requires. One thing the FAA is very unforgiving about is falsifying records. I know of an IA that got caught back dating an annual  by a week for a flying club. The FAA revoked his mechanic AND pilot certificates. The owner tried to get the FAA off his mechanic’s back by pointing out that he ordered the mechanic to do it and so the FAA suspended his certificates for good measure.

Skip

 

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

Even the records of the last gear-up can be chucked if it's more than a year past.   Once it's had an annual and deemed airworthy, how it got there is not that important.

If repairs were bad enough to warrant a 337 it'll be in the FAA records.

 

How do you dispose of the logbook entries?

I’m not arguing that there are types of records that don’t have to be kept, but I don’t see how you could repair a gear up without some logbook entry, one that without advanced detective work will tell you it had a gear up.

‘I’ll give a for instance, my C-140 has a logbook entry from a long time ago that says something like “Replaced right Wing”

Now there may have been a work order that went into much greater detail about what replaced right wing detailed and it was likely lost or destroyed.

It doesn’t take a genius to determine that the likelihood of a ground loop is there, of course it could have been something else. Personally if I had made the entry I would have said replaced right wing due to ground loop or whatever the reason was, but some don’t in an attempt to claim “no damage history”

So when you see a logbook entry replacing several items that correspond with a gear up, it’s likely it had one.

But I don’t know how you could repair a gear up without a few logbook entries, a bunch actually as the engine usually comes off and disassembled and reassembled and a new prop is installed 

Edited July 13, 2021 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

37 minutes ago, PT20J said:

One thing the FAA is very unforgiving about is falsifying records. I know of an IA that got caught back dating an annual  by a week for a flying club. The FAA revoked his mechanic AND pilot certificates. The owner tried to get the FAA off his mechanic’s back by pointing out that he ordered the mechanic to do it and so the FAA suspended his certificates for good measure.

Skip

 

People get used to getting away with things and often sometimes believe the FAA won’t or can’t do anything.

I used to try to explain to one individual who was plainly doing illegal things that the FAA is like a bear in the woods, you walk by the woods everyday and pretty soon your sure nothing will happen, but then one day, just a day like all the others the bear comes out and rips you to pieces.

FSDO inspectors are Federal employees, and like most they are in all honesty, not real motivated, they most often had rather not go through all the work an enforcement action is, they had really just as soon you toe the line, unless you piss them off, then sometimes they will crucify a person.

‘Not saying all are like that, but very often when you hear of an FAA enforcement action that seems a little excessive, often there is more to the story.

[Hank]

24 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

How do you dispose of the logbook entries?

I’m not arguing that there are types of records that don’t have to be kept, but I don’t see how you could repair a gear up without some logbook entry, one that without advanced detective work will tell you it had a gear up.

‘I’ll give a for instance, my C-140 has a logbook entry from a long time ago that says something like “Replaced right Wing”

Now there may have been a work order that went into much greater detail about what replaced right wing detailed and it was likely lost or destroyed.

It doesn’t take a genius to determine that the likelihood of a ground loop is there, of course it could have been something else. Personally if I had made the entry I would have said replaced right wing due to ground loop or whatever the reason was, but some don’t in an attempt to claim “no damage history”

So when you see a logbook entry replacing several items that correspond with a gear up, it’s likely it had one.

But I don’t know how you could repair a gear up without a few logbook entries, a bunch actually as the engine usually comes off and disassembled and reassembled and a new prop is installed 

Logbooks record work done to the plane to maintain airworthiness. Landing gear up is not work being done to the plane--replacing belly panels is. 

When I installed an LED landing light, that's what is written in the logbook, nothing about the GE bulb working at preflight but dead when I landed 3 hours later in the mountains and couldn't see the treetops I knew were there on short final.

Logs record work, not causes . . . .

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

How do you dispose of the logbook entries?

Well, let's see, you could:

Throw them away.

Burn them.

Shred them and use them to line a pet cage.

Give them to the gerbils and let them shred them.

Or, if they're electronic and not paper, you can Ctrl-C, Ctrl-X, hit delete, or mouse them to the trash bin and then hit "Empty Trash".

The regs don't constrain methods for disposing of documents, so there's plenty of room for creativity.

 

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

Well, let's see, you could:

Throw them away.

Burn them.

Shred them and use them to line a pet cage.

Give them to the gerbils and let them shred them.

Or, if they're electronic and not paper, you can Ctrl-C, Ctrl-X, hit delete, or mouse them to the trash bin and then hit "Empty Trash".

The regs don't constrain methods for disposing of documents, so there's plenty of room for creativity.

 

Again, how do you dispose of logbook entries. I’m not talking work orders etc.

‘So are you saying cut out the pages or destroy the books? 

‘What do you think missing logbooks does to the value of an airplane? I’m also pretty sure that cutting out pages will get you into trouble.

Books are lost or destroyed, it happens, there is a process to reconstitute a logbook, and any newer more expensive airplane it’s a serious depreciation, the longer ago that it was, the smaller the hit.

‘This is the first entry of the logbook in my 1946 C-140.

 

[EricJ]

Just now, A64Pilot said:

Again, how do you dispose of logbook entries. I’m not talking work orders etc.

‘So are you saying cut out the pages or destroy the books? 

You can do either if they're past a year old and you're not using them for AD history or required STC records.   The regs say they're not required, very clearly so.

Physical paper logbooks are not required.   You can use only electronic records if you like.   You can delete maintenance records past a year old according to the FARs.

 

Just now, A64Pilot said:

‘What do you think missing logbooks does to the value of an airplane? I’m also pretty sure that cutting out pages will get you into trouble.

Into trouble with who?   Via what reg?   Show a reg that states you have to keep the documents that the regs say you don't need to keep.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Logs record work, not causes . . . .

Logbooks tell a story, and they do affect the value of an airplane, while you are not required to explain why parts are replaced, it often helps to explain why unusual actions are taken. Not for normal wear items of course like light bulbs or tires or whatever.

However a list of items being replaced that aren’t normal wear items like gear doors, belly panels etc of course means the aircraft was in some kind of accident, leaves a person wondering how bad the crash was, and what inspections if any were accomplished looking for hidden  damage.

Using my C-140 as an example, it woud have been better if instead of saying replaced right wing, the entry said replaced right wing due to ground loop,landing gear boxes, tail wheel attachment point and wing struts inspected and found OK.

That explains why the wing was replaced and also shows that the other items often damaged in a ground loop were inspected and found airworthy.

Edited July 13, 2021 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

Try selling an airplane that only has the last years logbooks and see how much value it has.

[Hank]

7 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Try selling an airplane that only has the last years logbooks and see how much value it has.

The FARs still say that's all we are required to keep. They aren't concerned about market value, just airworthiness (often paperwork overrides anything physical).

[A64Pilot]

91.417 gives a list of what information is only required to be kept for one year, and then has a separate list of the information that has to be transferred at the time of sale. 

‘Now any normal person keeps all the data in the form of logbooks.

Reading one reg and going off of only that data can sometimes get you in trouble as there are any other regs that say other things. For example one may say that you have to keep records that show how many hours the airframe and prop and engine have accumulated, and if you destroy all of the logbooks back older than one year, how do you prove how many hours are on each, or what AD’s have been complied with and how they were complied with etc?

So this discussion is about what your required to do legally, and not what would be foolish to do?

 

On edit, I would say with the FAA paperwork always overrides physical. I’ve never had them look at the aircraft, just the records

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by A64Pilot

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

For example one may say that you have to keep records that show how many hours the airframe and prop and engine have accumulated, and if you destroy all of the logbooks back older than one year, how do you prove how many hours are on each, or what AD’s have been complied with and how they were complied with etc?

Why would the last years' records and the AD list not have that information?

Sometimes I get the impression you've never really been around airplanes very much.

 

[A64Pilot]

56 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Why would the last years' records and the AD list not have that information?

Sometimes I get the impression you've never really been around airplanes very much.

 

Yeah, I get the impression that you have had very little interaction with the FAA. You tell them you only have to show one years worth of records if they ever ask and see how it goes, they are going to be suspicious.

I suppose you only have one years worth of logbooks?

Yes, last years “records” would have that info, last years records are the logbook, how many other records does your airplane have? But with only one years worth I can’t show how many hours are on any component except the engine and the prop and airframe, so if an AD comes out and says any fuel pump or vacuum pump or prop governor or whatever with over xx hours on it has to be replaced, since you can’t determine how many hours are on it, your buying a new one, or are you just going to sign it off without records showing it’s hours?

This is a silly discussion, only a fool would only have one year of maintenance records. You go ahead, I’ll make sure the maintenance history of my airplane can be tracked all the way back to Kerville.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Yeah, I get the impression that you have had very little interaction with the FAA. You tell them you only have to show one years worth of records if they ever ask and see how it goes, they are going to be suspicious.

I'm not worried.   I've heard this explained directly by the FAA reps at the IA seminars.   

Plus, the regs on this topic aren't that hard to read and seem to be consistently understood by most people.   For those like you that may not understand them or have additional questions, there's a handy AC on the topic:   

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_43-9C_CHG_2.pdf

It has this nice tidbit, in plain English:

"Section 91.417(b) requires records of maintenance, alterations, and required or approved inspections to be retained until the work is repeated, superseded by other work, or for one year."

 

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

I suppose you only have one years worth of logbooks?

No, I like the history and don't see any benefit to me to not to keep the old records.   It is good to actually understand the regs, though, and if I saw a benefit to not retaining the old records, or lost them, I know there's no regulatory barrier to not having them.    Likewise I've helped other people with airplanes with spotty records or missing logs, and know that it's not a Big Deal.

Mike Busch, like him or not, has also opined on the topic.   In the past he's pointed out that one benefit of not allowing a mechanic physical access to your logs and getting records from maintainers in the form of self-stick pages, is that you aren't required to attach it to the logbook if it is something you'd rather not keep.   It has to be kept with the maintenance records for the required year, and then you can throw it away if you like.    So Mr. Busch has the same understanding of the regulations and suggests one way to use them to an owner's benefit that is completely within the regulatory guidelines.

 

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Yes, last years “records” would have that info, last years records are the logbook, how many other records does your airplane have? But with only one years worth I can’t show how many hours are on any component except the engine and the prop and airframe, so if an AD comes out and says any fuel pump or vacuum pump or prop governor or whatever with over xx hours on it has to be replaced, since you can’t determine how many hours are on it, your buying a new one, or are you just going to sign it off without records showing it’s hours?

Because, according the regs, most Part 91 fixed-wing private aircraft aren't required to track age or service time on all parts and maintenance is generally "on condition".   Relevant ADs are written with this in mind and you don't need to read very many ADs to know that there are quite a number of ways that this is easily handled.    

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

This is a silly discussion, only a fool would only have one year of maintenance records. You go ahead, I’ll make sure the maintenance history of my airplane can be tracked all the way back to Kerville.

Many GA aircraft owners do the same and see some benefit to doing so, sometimes just for posterity or history.   It is not, however, a regulatory requirement.   Lots of airplanes have missing logs or get sold with zero logs, e.g., at estate sales, gov't auctions after seizures, repossessions, etc., etc., and still wind up flying legally and safely and get by just fine.   The market is full of them.   I've not been able to see much price difference in the general market except for the case of entirely missing records, where some effort will be needed to reconstruct the required documentation, particularly the AD list and TTAF, for which there is FAA guidance on how to reconstruct without records.   You don't even need the time on the propeller or engine.  This has been done countless times over the years by enterprising individuals and is nothing particularly new or rare.

[PT20J]

I think one area of confusion is that most of us commonly use bound “logbooks“ to sequentially record maintenance. So, it seems like ripping out a page would be nefarious. But the regs don’t specify the form that maintenance records take. You can keep scraps of paper in a shoebox.

An IA friend tells a funny story: He got a special flight permit to ferry a damaged airplane to his shop. When he arrived, an FAA inspector just happened to be there on other business and questioned him about the airplane. He asked to see the paperwork, at which point my friend realized he had forgotten to make the necessary entry in the logbook stating that he had inspected and found the airplane airworthy for the specific flight. He excused himself to the bathroom pleading a full bladder after a long flight and wrote the necessary entry on the only thing he had available — a matchbook. The inspector looked at him a bit funny, but since he couldn’t actually prove it was done after the fact, and the wording was correct, he just let it go.

Skip

[steingar]

5 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Ask yourself HOW many times have you landed and forgotten on short final to push that prop in all the way?  Oh not set full flaps after a long trip, or not reset the DI to the compass as often a you should have done, THEN you can understand why people forget to put the gear down.

Except that lowering the gear makes huge changes in the airframe's flying characteristics.

[Skates97]

57 minutes ago, steingar said:

Except that lowering the gear makes huge changes in the airframe's flying characteristics.

This is true, unless you are just doing pattern work and not very fast, and possibly distracted. About 4 years ago after I had a JPI830 installed I was just taking some trips around the pattern to check it out. I think on the second takeoff the RPM on the JPI went crazy, first around 3,000 and then up to 4-5,000+. The engine didn't change in sound and the mechanical tach over on the right side was reading correctly, but the JPI in front of my face was showing the RPM in nice big RED numbers.

It was distracting enough I was actually saying out loud "Just fly the plane" over and over as I went around the pattern. On downwind abeam my touchdown point where I normally put the gear out I was pulling power when I heard a tone I don't normally hear. With the JPI still flashing in my face I thought "What now?" and then right after that realized it was the gear warning horn you get when you pull power back too far without the gear down. I put my gear out, had an uneventful landing, and the shop found there was a bad connection in one of the wires to the JPI.

I like to think my multiple gear checks, including one on short final will keep me out of trouble, and they have so far, but distractions are insidious. 

[A64Pilot]

Years ago the FAA funded a pretty big study with a few universities etc to determine why just out of the blue a very experienced Capt would do something totally out of the ordinary for them, like land way long and run off of the runway, the same runway they landed at a few times a week, or the guy who drives the same way to work every day for years, one day runs the stop sign that's always been there and he stops at every day, but today he doesn’t and has an accident.

A lot of money was spent and all we got from it was an Acronym called SLOJ or Sudden Loss of Judgement.

‘Apparently none of us is immune to rarely just getting stupid, we aren’t over worked or stressed just one day we put our foot in the gas in the car with it in reverse when we want to go forward or whatever.

‘The fix for SLOJ was to have more than one person present and to train the junior pilot to speak up and say something and the Senior pilot to not be overly aggressive if he did.

‘But as we often fly single pilot about the best defense is always following a checklist, but even that isn’t infallible

 

[Hank]

45 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

. . . an Acronym called SLOJ or Sudden Loss of Judgement.

. . . about the best defense is always following a checklist, but even that isn’t infallible

No prevention that involves people at any step is infallible. And yes, that includes the people who program the computer that sounds an alarm for you.

[steingar]

17 hours ago, Skates97 said:

This is true, unless you are just doing pattern work and not very fast, and possibly distracted.

One of the reasons I avoid pattern work in the Mooney like the plague.  Always worried about getting distracted and not doing the gear.  I got frazzled once and forgot to raise it on takeoff.  I know, how could I do that, especially with the J-bar?  But I was flying along trying to figure out why I was only going 100 miles an hour.  Finally saw the J-bar in the panel and the light clicked.  I wanted to do a couple landings last night, so I went to a couple neighboring airports.  I fly a Mooney, so getting to different airports doesn't take very long.

[0TreeLemur]

On 7/15/2021 at 2:38 PM, Skates97 said:

but distractions are insidious. 

Yesterday I read the article on Threat Error Management (TEM) in the most recent issue of IFR magazine.  I'd never heard of that concept.  It encourages you to become hyper vigilant any time you notice or even get the feeling that something is different or unusual in you, the environment, or the equipment.  Hyper vigilance means using whatever resources are available to detect, trap, and mitigate potential problems.  Checklists/procedures are a great part of this for not introducing new threats like failing to lower the gear, or catching the fact that you already forgot to lower the gear.

Here's one of many references I found online:

https://skybrary.aero/index.php/Threat_and_Error_Management_(TEM)_in_Flight_Operations

The SLOJ that @A64Pilot raises might be summed up as the condition of being "fat, dumb, and happy" as my instructors used to call it.  The opposite of hyper vigilance.

Any time things don't seem right, or when they seem unusual, distracting, etc.  That's the time to act like you just saw a rattlesnake and pay a lot of extra attention to all the details.   Anyone ever had TEM training?   Any good resources to recommend?   I enjoyed the article, it seems to provide a formalism for something that most of us do anyway most of the time.  Training and reinforcement can help to make this a more deliberate and thoughtful practice other than being "fat, dumb, and happy".

[T. Peterson]

On 5/30/2020 at 7:54 AM, irishpilot said:

The gear ups are directly related to lack of standardized training and various levels of proficiency. Humans are creatures of habit. If you are a pilot who puts the gear down as you think of it, and it occurs at a different place in the pattern, you are at an elevated risk to forget. CFIs should be teaching repeatable habits that apply multiple aircraft.

I teach and fly this: in the VFR pattern, gear goes down midfield downwind, and I'm trimmed and on speed prior to turning base. No gear down = no turn to base. For instrument practice, I am configured, trimmed, and on-speed at the FAF or GS Intercept. Regardless of approach, gear is reconfirmed short final.

Use GUMPS, GRUMPS or whatever neumonic, just as long as it's done exactly the same every time. For us CFI/IIs, we need to ensure pilots execute positive habits.

Finally, I don't care if you have 100 hrs or 10,000 - everyone need refresher training. BFR isn't enough.

Fly safe!

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 

I know it’s an old post, but that is very well said!

[cliffy]

Just a couple of thoughts-

It would be interesting to see a study of the age  breakdown of those who have landed gear up;

Maybe there is a correlation.

 

Secondly, for most, doing pattern work with T&Gs is NOT routine flying. Unless you are a flight instructor doing primary students all the time, your "routine" has changed. You are now in a different world than you usually fly in. 

We don't usually take off, clean up, climb, level off, slow down, configure, keep track of other traffic, make closely spaced radio calls, etc, all in a short period of time. 

Its actually hard work to do successive T&Gs! Especially in a complex aircraft as opposed to a Cessna 150.

On every landing approach you are now thinking ahead to how you will be doing the next takeoff instead of rolling out looking for the turnoff (a break in routine). A different way of thinking you're not usually doing. 

Changing your "routine" way of flying!

Its a different sequence of events you're not usually in. 

Distractions from the every day routine flying event.  

Distractions cause accidents

Not to say T&Gs shouldn't be done (I've even done them in 727s and 737s) BUT maybe given a lot more thought for the risk involved.  In the 727/737 we briefed thoroughly and we had a Check Airman in the right seat who's "routine" was instructing T&Gs. Never had an issue. Airline flying was actually easy as everything was a "routine" way of doing everything. Issues that caused a break in the "routine" we trained for. Follow the check list and things that don't match stick out like a sore thumb in the "routine". 

It can be done but it needs a different way of thinking than just jumping in and doing T&Gs.  If you are not used to doing it then you'd better give it a lot of thought before you just go out and do it.