Gear collapse

[dzeleski]

This popped up on my feed today. I didn’t see anything posted about this accident before. 

 

Edited May 31 by dzeleski

[hammdo]

Lock blocks or poor rigging… would be interested to know if it’s electric gear…wow..

-Don

[skydvrboy]

2 hours ago, hammdo said:

would be interested to know if it’s electric gear

Yes, electric gear.

[N201MKTurbo]

It looked like all three went up at the same time. unless the actuator failed somehow. the only thing that would make all three go up, would be selecting gear up.

They said they flew gear down. It might be possible the gear was selected up and wouldn;t go up and they left the handle in the up position and didn't pull the breaker. When they touched down, it knocked the contactor, or whatever was the problem loose and the motor started running.

[N201MKTurbo]

https://extranet.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:95:::NO::P95_EVENT_LCL_DATE,P95_LOC_CITY_NAME,P95_REGIST_NBR:20-MAY-24,DALTON,N7767M

 

[MooneyMitch]

My gear failure in my 67 F (electric) in 1988 draws some parallels to this situation.

The pilot mentions breakers pulled and stiff lowering the gear with hand crank.  He doesn’t mention if floor indicator showed gear in the full down locked position (marks on gear in view window lined up) nor did he mention gear position lights.

In my situation, the Heim bearing had disengaged from the jack screw resulting in gear linkage disconnect.  I knew my gear was not fully down and locked via lights and floor window mark alignment prior to touchdown.

More information needed.

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, MooneyMitch said:

In my situation, the Heim bearing had disengaged from the jack screw resulting in gear linkage disconnect.  

Did you figure out what caused the disconnection?

[Shadrach]

This video is not doing the owner any favors with the investigators. 

Agree that all of the gear collapsed at the same time.  I think that it simply could not or was not cranked into the over-center position.

[MooneyMitch]

34 minutes ago, PT20J said:

Did you figure out what caused the disconnection?

Yes.  The Heim joint has a hex head screw on the side of it, and a lock nut on the shaft that secures the jack screw into the Heim joint.  For some unknown reason, both the hex head screw had backed out and the lock nut had become loose and eventually all separated during gear cycle.  

Once disconnected, the jack screw end fell downward.  As I attempted to lower the gear by the crank, the disconnected end of the jack screw extended further out and wedged itself into a longrone.  During the process, cranking became stiff and eventually would crank no further.  The crank handle broke off in my hand.  That was the end of any further action of trying to lower the gear manually.

 

[MooneyMitch]

The repair mechanic recommend to the FAA, an AD to secure install a lock nut that would allow it to be safety wired.  To my knowledge, that never happened.  From that time forward, a point was made at each annual to verify the integrity of the Heim/jackscrew connnection.

[PT20J]

4 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

Yes.  The Heim joint has a hex head screw on the side of it, and a lock nut on the shaft that secures the jack screw into the Heim joint.  For some unknown reason, both the hex head screw had backed out and the lock nut had become loose and eventually all separated during gear cycle.  

Once disconnected, the jack screw end fell downward.  As I attempted to lower the gear by the crank, the disconnected end of the jack screw extended further out and wedged itself into a longrone.  During the process, cranking became stiff and eventually would crank no further.  The crank handle broke off in my hand.  That was the end of any further action of trying to lower the gear manually.

 

Bummer. If the Hein can turn, friction will unscrew it when the actuator rotates. Something else to look more closely at during annual. Thanks. 

[MooneyMitch]

On the humorous side of all, I was performing a flight review with my instructor when this incident took place.  With the gear collapse and safe landing outcome, someone took a photo of my instructor sitting on the ground with my log book on the wing, signing me off for excellent emergency procedures. 

[RoundTwo]

The reason for the trip to Dalton was to get the gear fixed. If this is the case, it’s hard to understand why they didn’t make every effort possible to ensure the gear was down and locked before they departed. They stated they flew with the gear down, which means they knew there was a serious problem. I have to wonder if all of this background information can be used by the insurance company to deny the claim.

Would the airplane even be considered airworthy with known gear problems and if so, it would require a ferry permit to move it. In order to get the ferry permit, I would assume the FAA would require diligent effort to ensure the gear was down and locked as a condition of the permit. It seems like there were several conscious decisions made that could impact a ruling by the insurance company.

[dzeleski]

12 minutes ago, RoundTwo said:

The reason for the trip to Dalton was to get the gear fixed. If this is the case, it’s hard to understand why they didn’t make every effort possible to ensure the gear was down and locked before they departed. They stated they flew with the gear down, which means they knew there was a serious problem. I have to wonder if all of this background information can be used by the insurance company to deny the claim.

Would the airplane even be considered airworthy with known gear problems and if so, it would require a ferry permit to move it. In order to get the ferry permit, I would assume the FAA would require diligent effort to ensure the gear was down and locked as a condition of the permit. It seems like there were several conscious decisions made that could impact a ruling by the insurance company.

This is what I felt as well but decided to keep my mouth shut lol. Personally.... I dont think I would have even moved the airplane on the ground let alone fly it. I wouldve paid someone to show up with stands and cycle the gear on location rather then risk it. Obviously its very easy to Monday morning QB things but I dont mess around with gear issues.

3 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

It looked like all three went up at the same time. unless the actuator failed somehow. the only thing that would make all three go up, would be selecting gear up.

They said they flew gear down. It might be possible the gear was selected up and wouldn;t go up and they left the handle in the up position and didn't pull the breaker. When they touched down, it knocked the contactor, or whatever was the problem loose and the motor started running.

Is it possible that a limit switch wasnt stopping the motor from running and putting things past their limits to the point that a tube or link fails? With the CB blowing that was something I thought about but other then a basic understanding of our gear system I have never turned a wrench on it.

[Shadrach]

10 minutes ago, RoundTwo said:

The reason for the trip to Dalton was to get the gear fixed. If this is the case, it’s hard to understand why they didn’t make every effort possible to ensure the gear was down and locked before they departed. They stated they flew with the gear down, which means they knew there was a serious problem. I have to wonder if all of this background information can be used by the insurance company to deny the claim.

Would the airplane even be considered airworthy with known gear problems and if so, it would require a ferry permit to move it. In order to get the ferry permit, I would assume the FAA would require diligent effort to ensure the gear was down and locked as a condition of the permit. It seems like there were several conscious decisions made that could impact a ruling by the insurance company.

Claims are not denied for questionable judgment.  Insurance companies are not in the business of delivering punitive actions against the customers that they insure.  That is the domain of the enforcement agency that regulates the activity .  It is with good reason that regulatory enforcement and indemnification are separated.

[RoundTwo]

3 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Claims are not denied for questionable judgment.  Insurance companies are not in the business of delivering punitive actions against the customers that they insure.  That is the domain of the enforcement agency that regulates the activity .  It is with good reason that regulatory enforcement and indemnification are separated.

I guess we have no reason to complain about the high cost of insurance if there is no downside to poor decision-making. I would have to assume things would be different, and maybe I’m oversimplifying things, if there was some sort of being held accountable for poor decision making that leads to expensive claims.

[N201MKTurbo]

17 minutes ago, dzeleski said:

This is what I felt as well but decided to keep my mouth shut lol. Personally.... I dont think I would have even moved the airplane on the ground let alone fly it. I wouldve paid someone to show up with stands and cycle the gear on location rather then risk it. Obviously its very easy to Monday morning QB things but I dont mess around with gear issues.

Is it possible that a limit switch wasnt stopping the motor from running and putting things past their limits to the point that a tube or link fails? With the CB blowing that was something I thought about but other then a basic understanding of our gear system I have never turned a wrench on it.

If that happened, it is unlikely the nose would have retracted. You push on the main rods to lower them. You pull on the nose to lower it. It takes a lot more force to pull a rod apart, then Buckle one in compression.

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, RoundTwo said:

I guess we have no reason to complain about the high cost of insurance if there is no downside to poor decision-making. I would have to assume things would be different, and maybe I’m oversimplifying things, if there was some sort of being held accountable for poor decision making that leads to expensive claims.

Insurance is designed to cover "poor decision-making". Nearly every accident I'm aware of has had at least some element of 'poor decision-making"!

While it's certainly easy to Monday morning QB OTHER people, do you really want the same done to YOU, after the fact?  Are you 100% confident that any accident you may be in will be COMPLETELY out of your control/responsibility?

[Shadrach]

15 minutes ago, RoundTwo said:

I guess we have no reason to complain about the high cost of insurance if there is no downside to poor decision-making. I would have to assume things would be different, and maybe I’m oversimplifying things, if there was some sort of being held accountable for poor decision making that leads to expensive claims.

There is a downside to poor decision making, it's called enforcement action.   Making judgments on decision and contributory negligence may seem clear from arms length.  That clarity often fades to opaque as the situation gets closer to home.  If you think your insurance is expensive, imagine having your loss denied because you made a mistake. I mean I know this board is populated with boy scouts, but hypothetically try to imagine the loss from a claim denied for questionable behavior...not that you would ever do anything questionable...never...especially not in the eyes of your insurance company....they would always see an incident from your perspective and agree with your way of thinking...it's only the baddies that would have denials...all other claims would always be fairly adjudicated...definitely. 

[RoundTwo]

4 hours ago, Shadrach said:

There is a downside to poor decision making, it's called enforcement action.   Making judgments on decision and contributory negligence may seem clear from arms length.  That clarity often fades to opaque as the situation gets closer to home.  If you think your insurance is expensive, imagine having your loss denied because you made a mistake. I mean I know this board is populated with boy scouts, but hypothetically try to imagine the loss from a claim denied for questionable behavior...not that you would ever do anything questionable...never...especially not in the eyes of your insurance company....they would always see an incident from your perspective and agree with your way of thinking...it's only the baddies that would have denials...all other claims would always be fairly adjudicated...definitely. 

Now you’re just being silly. 

[Mooneymite]

Deciding to get out of bed on the morning your accident occurred is proof of bad decision making.  Next time you'll be more careful.

[Shadrach]

21 minutes ago, RoundTwo said:

Now you’re just being silly. 

I’m not being silly. I’m using hyperbole as a rhetorical tool to illustrate my point. Punishment for poor decision-making that may have led to accident should be separate from indemnification for the loss. We do not want insurance companies approving or denying claims based on the circumstances of an incident, unless there is suspicion of fraud. 

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, RoundTwo said:

Now you’re just being silly. 

No, he's not.

You really do not want insurance companies to be deciding which mistakes to cover and which to deny based on some ethereal definition of what you believe constitutes a 'righteous mistake' vs. an egregious one.

Every time this debate about 'all of us' paying for some idiot's 'mistake' arises I always ask, so what mistake of yours should we all happily subsidize without complaint?

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

Deciding to get out of bed on the morning your accident occurred is proof of bad decision making.  Next time you'll be more careful.

I wonder how the risk of getting out of bed stacks up against the risk of relying on a Cirrus Jet brakes?
There have been at least five brake failures this year that caused accidents. One ended up partially submerged in water.   

[jetdriven]

If you watch that video carefully, the gear wasn’t all the way down. I can’t understand why somebody wouldn’t have a gear down and locked indication or the floor indicator wouldn’t be showing the gear down either and still go ahead and try to land it.