Off airport landing

[67M20F]

If you loose power over something besides a very good landing site, would you land gear up or down?

[KSMooniac]

If it is muddy or not very flat I'd probably leave the gear up too, just to prevent a nose over or other drastic change-of-direction when the gear digs in or snags something.

[67M20F]

Quote: JimR

I'd probably land gear down unless I was landing with a minimal descent rate in water or some similar surface.  

 

I was taught that in water you will nose over and be on your back if you land with the gear down, no matter what your speed is.

I just don't like the fact of having something for the gear to grab is a good idea, screw the plane save your passengers.

Land with the gear up and you will simply slide to a stop.

What do you say????????????????????/

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: 67M20F

[KSMooniac]

Jim, it can absorb energy, certainly, but it could also breach the fuel tanks if they get ripped out...  (even if you have bladders.  )  It is most definitely a judgment call depending on circumstances, and I think it is best to be mentally prepared to leave them up or put them down as the situation warrants, and none of us will know it until we're looking at the spot we're headed for, I'm afraid.

[fantom]

If it's not a road or other smooth surface, my gear is staying in the wheel wells. I've seen the result of one wheel ripping off, the wing tip hitting a parked truck as the plane was cartwheeling. It was ugly. Certainly don't want one wheel absorbing energy and most times, I want to stop as fast as possible. If I need to depend on my gear ripping off as it absorbs energy I have bigger issues than if the gear is tucked away, most of the time.

Usually you'll do less damage with the gear up and tucked away, than with the gear down and mangled.

It sure does depend, but that's my perspective.

[Bob]

A Mooney went down last year in my area.  The pilot more than likely did not extend the gear due to panic and a very, very short time to react.  I believe the Mooney slowed faster and avoided hitting cars because the gear was up.  Just wanted to post as one example of an off field landing.  You slow down very fast while aluminum is grinding on the pavement!  Last year, when this happened, I thought much harder about the ideal emergency landing choices.  A google will give more details.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/09/plane-crashes-near-bolingbrook-airport.html

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6399256

[FlyDave]

KSMooniac

>> could also breach the fuel tanks if they get ripped out..

KSMooniac - Great point!! If, when it the heat of an incident, you have time to consider the condition of your plane after the incident, then I agree - I'd rather belly it in and not destroy the gear and wings.

 

fantom

>>If it's not a road or other smooth surface, my gear is staying in the wheel wells. I've seen the result of one wheel ripping off, the wing tip hitting a parked truck as the plane was cartwheeling. It was ugly. Certainly don't want one wheel absorbing energy and most times, I want to stop as fast as possible.

fantom - Another GREAT point!!! Until I read your post I pretty much thought that I would almost ALWAYS extend the gear if landing on a road or smooth surface. But after reading your post, unless there's a LONG smooth surface with NO OBSTRUCTIONS, I think landing gear up is probably a better idea. It's not as if you get to pick one or another place to land in an emergency. You choose your spot and make the safest landing you can.

This forum is the kind of place the breeds constructive discussion of so many topics. From a safety standpoint, I've learned an invaluable lesson tonight. But I'd like to see more discussion on this topic and almost  all the others I've see here.

[The-sky-captain]

The Mooney that crash landed here last year kept it's wheels up even though she landed in a flat, open field. The landing skid was only a couple hundred feet. I think in this case it was a spur of the moment decision because it was overcast at 1000 agl that day and the pilot was in unfamiliar terrritory. Luckily it was the right decision.

[jlunseth]

The issue that bothers me is not so much gear up or gear down, I think that is dictated by the circumstances.  Being a fairly new pilot, I scratched my head a little at the training approach to this, which is that a road is never an acceptable place to land (powerlines, cars, etc.), look for a good field.  Here in the cornbelt there is no such thing as a good field.  All the fields are either in crops, which can flip a plane, or they are plowed.  If you have ever walked a plowed field it is no place to try to make a landing with minimal damage. 

If I ever have to make an off-field engine out, I will be looking for the nearest, nice, country gravel road that angles into the wind.  There is no traffic and if there is, you can see the car for miles from the air, and from practicing off-field approaches out here, there is no such thing as a field without a power line issue, I would rather deal with the power lines on the sides of the road than trying to find a field clear of lines at the windward end.

[eaglebkh]

Being one that lives on a farm surrounded by open pastures, I would choose to leave the wheels up.  Pastures may look smooth from the sky, but the ones around here (North Alabama) can pack some surprises, such as small holes, underground springs, soft soil, and clumps of thick grass.  It's rough enough riding a quad around at 20-30 mph, much less a Mooney.  I'm going to let the superior design of the rollcage airframe absorb any impacts that result after making a smooth as possible touchdown.

Another aspect is this: the shorter the stopping distance, the less time you are "along for the ride", because I would imagine the airplane is not very controllable  - wheels up or down.  This is only to a certain extent though, because you don't want to come to an immediate stop, as could be the case with the wheels down and the gear snags something.

With the wheels up, the weight of the plane is distributed more evenly onto the terrain, which to me sounds more safe then riding on a tricycle gear.

[KSMooniac]

While we're on this topic, I'd like to add that a huge safety/survivability improvement that should be made to all of our older planes is the addition of shoulder harnesses, at least in the front if not all 4 seats.  We sit relatively close to the panel with hard protruding bits, and an otherwise survivable forced landing might end with blunt-force trauma to one's face.  The cost of these belts vs. the benefit is trivial, and we should all have them IMO.

The new AMSafe airbag belts are available as an STC retrofit (or will be soon I think) and their cost isn't too horrible either if you really want peace of mind.

[mjc]

I'm surprised no one brought up what I believe is the main reason to land with the gear down if at all practical, which is that with the gear up, there is no steering (and no braking, but that's a secondary concern). There are times, such as on water or in a plowed field, that nosewheel steering won't be useful, but many more in which I think it would.

Is there any data available to show whether a belly slide is longer or shorter than landing on wheels and using maximum braking? I've seen a few videos of gear-up landings made at airports and the plane typically slides along the runway quite a ways. I'd be surprised if using maximum braking with the gear down would make the rollout significantly longer.

 

[fantom]

About 400 foot skid on the runway, when pilot has a brain fart, and leaves the gear up.

Even with hard braking on a runway, it could be three times that with the gear down. Off field, who knows.

[jlunseth]

We had one here at Flying Cloud yesterday.  Twin engine Beech.  It was not successful.  The news indicates that the pilot had been rebuilding the plane, took it up for a test flight, there was some problem on takeoff and they tried to get back to the airport.  The Miracle Turn will get you every time.

[The-sky-captain]

Quote: jlunseth

We had one here at Flying Cloud yesterday.  Twin engine Beech.  It was not successful.  The news indicates that the pilot had been rebuilding the plane, took it up for a test flight, there was some problem on takeoff and they tried to get back to the airport.  The Miracle Turn will get you every time.

[fantom]

We could have a most interesting discussion about the impossible-possible turn....back to home. I've had fun practicing it at altitude, with a safey pilot, many times.

It's a VERY strong reaction to get back to the airport when things go south on take off. Don't even think about it under 1,000 ft AGL, unless you're very experienced and have pricticed it recently. YM will not V on this one, my friends.

[jlunseth]

An uncle of mine was one of the three ballonists who made the trans-Atlantic crossing in the Double Eagle II.  Both he and one of his partners were experienced pilots.  A few years after the Double Eagle II crossing, the partner was taking off from a field north of ABQ to go skiing.  The luggage door popped open shortly after takeoff.  If I recall his aircraft correctly, it had a luggage compartment in the nose (unreachable from the cabin).  Apparently, the luggage compartment door caused considerable vibration, and consternation, so he attempted the Miracle Turn and there were no survivors.

There are two lessons to learn from such accidents.  One, do your own stuff, don't rely on anyone else.  Someone other than the pilot had closed the luggage door.  Two, at some point a decision needs to be made to sacrifice the aircraft in favor of the crew.

I hope I never have occasion to remember that last lesson, but if I do, I hope I have the will to make the right choice. 

[KSMooniac]

Always fly the plane!  I've had a door pop open on takeoff, and while alarming, it is quickly recognizable and most planes are quite controllable in that condition.  Don't panic, and just fly the plane normally to traffic pattern altitude, then fly a normal pattern and land.

[skyking]

Been there and done that, but in a fixed gear. We landed in a hay field and suffered no aircraft damage.

If i was over water, muddy field etc. i would leave the gear up too.

[GeorgePerry]

This happened last week at an airport I fly out of often.  3 BIG dudes, not much fuel, a poor preflight and some fuzzy math add up to a fuel exhaustion forced landing. (despite what's in the article).  Luckiy everyone walked away.

http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/news/2009/aug/04/faa-investigates-suffolk-plane-crash/

[The-sky-captain]

Glad to see a few bad decisions did not lead to any fatalities.

[skyking]

Mine was not due to a bad decision unless you count the decision the engine made to swallow a valve...LOL

We were at about 500 feet when it just quit so i went straight ahead.( never even considered trying to getback) landed in a hayfield and nobody hurt and no damage to the plane. That turn back was just not possible at that altitude.

The fun part was getting the plane back to the airport.

 

[Seth]

One of the reasons I originally was in the market for a retract was for the saftey factor of off airport landings and being able to belly it in rather than flip.  Though this did up the chance of an unexpected gear up landing (due to being stupid) I rationalized that it made sense to have the option in an emergency situation to land gear up if need be.  Though I have a healthy fear of water and drowning, knowing that I can ditch with a lesser potential of flipping the airplane is a good thing (though I never want to be in that situation nor fly over long bodies of water in a single on a regular basis). 

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: GeorgePerry

This happened last week at an airport I fly out of often.  3 BIG dudes, not much fuel, a poor preflight and some fuzzy math add up to a fuel exhaustion forced landing. (despite what's in the article).  Luckiy everyone walked away.

http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/news/2009/aug/04/faa-investigates-suffolk-plane-crash/