Gear collapse

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

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.

I got the impression from the video that they had been flying around trying to get a 'gear down and locked' indication but could not.  Eventually you have to land, regardless!

[RoundTwo]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

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.

They knew they had a problem in Tennessee and we’re flying it to Georgia to get it fixed. The problem was severe enough in Tennessee that they made the decision to fly with the gear extended all the way to Georgia. The big question is why did they decide to take off if they did not have proper gear down and locked indication.

On the legal front, is the airplane declared unworthy if the gear is not confirmed to be operational?

[RoundTwo]

11 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I got the impression from the video that they had been flying around trying to get a 'gear down and locked' indication but could not.  Eventually you have to land, regardless!

They stayed in the video that they flew from Tennessee to Georgia with the gear extended because they know they had a problem. If that’s the case, they shouldn’t have taken off unless the gear was down and locked and then don’t touch the gear so you can assure a safe landing with structurally sound landing gear.

[MikeOH]

Just now, RoundTwo said:

They stayed in the video that they flew from Tennessee to Georgia with the gear extended because they know they had a problem. If that’s the case, they shouldn’t have taken off unless the gear was down and locked and then don’t touch the gear so you can assure a safe landing with structurally sound landing gear.

Correct.  TOTAL SPECULATION on my part is that they had verified the gear was down and locked and then DID touch the gear handle after take off, perhaps through habit.  Then they were in the position of trying to get it to lock down and failed!

[EricJ]

Flight Chops recently released a new vid on a similar, but better outcome, incident.   If the floor indicator indicates down, even if not illuminated, it is likely locked and fine.    In the original vid in question I've not seen any discussion of whether they followed any procedure to crank the gear down or not.
 

 

[skydvrboy]

On 6/1/2024 at 1:30 PM, RoundTwo said:

On the legal front, is the airplane declared unworthy if the gear is not confirmed to be operational?

As long as they slapped an "INOP" sticker on it... good to go!

[A64Pilot]

when I see these videos where the person is perfectly placed to video the incident, it make me curious. 

How often do you stand at the edge of the approach end of a runway to video landings?

 

[A64Pilot]

On 6/1/2024 at 2:30 PM, RoundTwo said:

On the legal front, is the airplane declared unworthy if the gear is not confirmed to be operational?

In my opinion not being confirmed to be operational isn’t an issue, but taking off with a KNOWN fault that renders the aircraft unairworthy is pretty bad, unless they had a ferry permit. I have no idea of the outcome but I think depending on the pilots attitude it could even be a suspension. From my limited observation of the Feds it’s not so much what you did as much as how you act afterward that gets you into hot water.

So there was a mechanism in place to ferry the aircraft to a maintenance facility that I suspect wasn’t used, which I think makes it worse.

Of course any inspector that would sign off on a ferry permit for a gear fault would be a fool, again an opinion.

Another opinion, while I think it unlikely that insurance if there is any will deny the claim, I think by the pilot knowingly flying an unairworthy aircraft gives them the right to do so, just like flying one over due an inspection like an Annual.

I know my insurance has a statement that the aircraft has to be airworthy or the insurance isn’t valid, I assume that’s a pretty common requirement.

I think insurance companies are somewhat concerned with their reputations and to protect that they may eat some claims that they could have denied, but in truth that’s a guess, I’ve never been in the insurance business.

[RoundTwo]

24 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

when I see these videos where the person is perfectly placed to video the incident, it make me curious. 

How often do you stand at the edge of the approach end of a runway to video landings?

 

It’s perfectly understandable in this situation because he was the owner to be, but drove to the repair shop and waited for the owner to fly his plane down to get it repaired.

[A64Pilot]

Just myself I have never gone to the end of a runway to video a landing.

Now if I thought there was a chance of a collapse, and I was the type to post videos on the internet, then I would.

 

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

In my opinion not being confirmed to be operational isn’t an issue, but taking off with a KNOWN fault that renders the aircraft unairworthy is pretty bad, unless they had a ferry permit. I have no idea of the outcome but I think depending on the pilots attitude it could even be a suspension. From my limited observation of the Feds it’s not so much what you did as much as how you act afterward that gets you into hot water.

So there was a mechanism in place to ferry the aircraft to a maintenance facility that I suspect wasn’t used, which I think makes it worse.

Of course any inspector that would sign off on a ferry permit for a gear fault would be a fool, again an opinion.

Another opinion, while I think it unlikely that insurance if there is any will deny the claim, I think by the pilot knowingly flying an unairworthy aircraft gives them the right to do so, just like flying one over due an inspection like an Annual.

I know my insurance has a statement that the aircraft has to be airworthy or the insurance isn’t valid, I assume that’s a pretty common requirement.

I think insurance companies are somewhat concerned with their reputations and to protect that they may eat some claims that they could have denied, but in truth that’s a guess, I’ve never been in the insurance business.

They claimed they took off with 3 green but because of previous issues with a gear swing on the ground, elected not to raise the gear.  I'm not saying what they did was a good idea, but the pilot has a plausible explanation that supports his thought process. While it certainly does not paint a picture of intellectual prowess, it does make a clear case as to his intent, or in this case, lack thereof regarding airworthiness.  

[Yetti]

On 5/31/2024 at 8:56 AM, 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.

This one gets my vote.    This is also placard/Operating Instructions way to handle things.   Seems on the flight over would be time to triple check the instructions.   Or could have been as simple at the pilots normal place they moved the gear lever.  Just happened to be the wrong way.

[A64Pilot]

On 6/6/2024 at 4:03 PM, Shadrach said:

They claimed they took off with 3 green but because of previous issues with a gear swing on the ground, elected not to raise the gear.  I'm not saying what they did was a good idea, but the pilot has a plausible explanation that supports his thought process. While it certainly does not paint a picture of intellectual prowess, it does make a clear case as to his intent, or in this case, lack thereof regarding airworthiness.  

Who knows, I’m going purely off of what I read in this thread.

But even using your example, they knew they had a gear problem and were proved right when they collapsed on landing. That’s a tough one to try to argue out of.

This is where getting a ferry permit would cover you if you had one. Who knows maybe you could get an FAA inspector to buy off on a one time flight with the gear down is OK? I know for instance one time flights for an inop engine was common on four engine airlines back in the day.

Of course I think maybe now the owner is wishing he had paid for the mechanic to come to him.

Then if it had worked out, we would have never heard anything.

 

I just looked at more of the video, it looks like there were two different people videoing?

At 2:25 into the video it shows a golf cart and I believe a red truck beside the runway, plus someone standing beside ran up to the airplane. So one videoing, one in a golf cart, another in a red truck, and another running.

Seems to be a lot of people on the side of a runway. People taking the video don’t seem excited. I’m thinking they were expecting the gear collapse?

I’m sitting at Sigsbee RV park using the Navy Wifi which is stupid slow so watching video is tough so I’m not sure.

[bpace]

The gear HAD to be down and locked when they taxied and took off. It collapsed with no effort so there was NO way they didn't do something while in flight.

Then they either flipped gear up out of habit or on purpose to test it in the air.

They knew something had changed or they would not have radioed ahead for help. 

 

 

 

 

[1980Mooney]

That M20F must have been underinsured and a gear collapse is a much more expensive repair than a clean gear up.  The insurance company scrapped it and it was auctioned off last month.

Although the owner's sale fell through that day he ultimately "sold" the plane.....

 

1974 Mooney M20F, N7767M, S/N 22-0023 - McLarens

Microsoft Word - Salvage Tender - N7767M (amazonaws.com)

 

[LANCECASPER]

7 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

That M20F must have been underinsured and a gear collapse is a much more expensive repair than a clean gear up.  The insurance company scrapped it and it was auctioned off last month.

Although the owner's sale fell through that day he ultimately "sold" the plane.....

 

1974 Mooney M20F, N7767M, S/N 22-0023 - McLarens

Microsoft Word - Salvage Tender - N7767M (amazonaws.com)

 

My guess: The owner may not have increased the hull value when the Avidyne (AMX240/IFD440) and the Dynons were installed, which left the airplane well under-insured. The panel made this one valuable enough that the insurance company declared it a total loss. 

[Pinecone]

4 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

My guess: The owner may not have increased the hull value when the Avidyne (AMX240/IFD440) and the Dynons were installed, which left the airplane well under-insured. The panel made this one valuable enough that the insurance company declared it a total loss PROFIT

FTFY