Gear collapse Springbank

[iflyforpie]

Nose gear doors are open and the nose wheel is exposed.

Was this the first or second landing?

[YBW-Kid]

This picture tells a bit more of the story.

[iflyforpie]

No, that second picture begs even more questions.

Did the first landing damage the hydraulic system? That's the only thing that connects all three gear. No way they could have done damage to the nose gear while it was retracted and still been able to take off again.

[GyvAir]

I'm a little confused about this too. Were there preexisting issues with the landing gear or hydraulic systems prior to the first scrape and go?

[trey kule]

Me, as well. The pictures do not help me at all.
The sense I originally got, was this was a simple case of forgetting the gear, doing a go around and spending some time in the area developing a new resume, and then a final landing.

If that is not the case, then myself, and some others have done the pilot wrong.

Anyone actually have the facts...not innuendo

[Pop n Fresh]

I can't believe they're so brazen about buzzing fire trucks and posting the pictures.

[iflyforpie]

If that is not the case, then myself, and some others have done the pilot wrong.

Anyone actually have the facts...not innuendo

This is what I was saying from the first or second post on this thread. The facts don't seem to line up with forgetting the gear, going around, somehow having the gear jammed because they were damaged when they were up.

[iflyforpie]

I'm a little confused about this too. Were there preexisting issues with the landing gear or hydraulic systems prior to the first scrape and go?

This is what I was thinking. Gear collapsed or didn't deploy on first landing, collapsed on second landing.

[GyvAir]

It doesn't like even the mains doors could have touched with that amount of prop q-tipping, regardless of the gear position at the time.

Photo stream:
http://cochraneeagle.tumblr.com/post/84 ... from-rocky

[YBW-Kid]

This strongly appears to be a nose wheel collapsed on the first landing either without warning or perhaps with the crew knowing of a possible unsafe nose wheel condition. The mains held and they elected to go around after feeling the nose wheel give out and simultaneously having the props strike the ground lightly. They must have acted rather quickly when they felt it start to go to be able to recover otherwise heavy prop strikes would have killed both engines making a go around impossible. Being committed to flight they now circled around with modified props and a jammed nose wheel. Upon landing the mains collapsed at touch down because of an interrupted gear system with a cycle not completed.

To me this does not look like a forgetful or undisciplined crew neglecting to put the landing gear down. This looks like a mechanical condition which the crew did a fine job getting themselves safely on the ground with the situation presented.

I would wager most people on this forum faced with that sinking feeling of your nose dropping out from under you would have also added power in an attempt to recover and get out of there. Thats what Pilots do-always keep your aircraft under control. The sad thing is how Pilots on here seem to be so quick to judge others and mock and kick those involved when they don't even mildly understand the situation. Human nature - put others down to make themselves feel better about themselves I guess. One has to ask why do these folks feel so inadequate about themselves?

Cheers

[GyvAir]

The CADORS did state that:

C-GOSO touched the runway at 1551Z with the gear up and pulled up and went around.

That wording certainly lead me to believe that it was initially a simple gear up landing at first. At this point, I think it's safe to say that nobody talking in this thread knows for sure what happened.
I can fully understand how they would end up going flying again after the props touching, even though from the armchair, it clearly wasn't the safest thing to do. The urge to prevent the aircraft from smacking the ground is pretty strong, and so would the instant adrenaline rush, all the hairs on the back of your neck going up, realizing the plane has sunk a few inches lower than you've ever felt it. It would be a pretty cool character that would be able to resist jerking back on that yoke or make the required snap decision to let it down again before the runway is all out behind them.

[PilotDAR]

I have no knowledge of this event beyond the posts, however, that great photo has me thinking a few things...

I don't recall the Aztec having a gear warning on the flaps, nor knowledge of the use of flaps for the first landing, so expecting a gear warning from flaps is risky. The Aztec does have gear warning at idle throttle position, but if you carry power into the flare, you defeat that warning. Aztecs land easily if power is carried into the flare, and cut as you touch - so no gear warning until the touch. So I can imagine a gear warning just as the plane touched, and a fast hand on the throttles.

The fairing behind the nosewheel doors is damaged, which means that the doors themselves would be damaged too. If they were damaged so as not to open fully, the nose gear would not extend.

Aztecs have a great wing for slow flight, so a gear up error go around has a better chance than it would in other types, but that model Aztec (F, I think) also has a stabilator whose sensitivity makes the plane more prone to a PIO, so getting it airborne again from a ground strike is something of an accomplishment.

With the look of the propeller tips, it's a wonder hat they got around for another try, it looks like a whole bunch of negative thrust at the tips, to counteract the thrust from the rest of the blades.

[GyvAir]

I was looking at the marks on the fairings aft of the nose gear doors and forward of the main gear doors as well. All three do look a little like they could have momentarily kissed the pavement at speed. I couldn't quite convince myself that it could touch all three or even just the one behind the NLG and not completely stop the props though.

Maybe though.. the prop tips look pretty similar:

[co-joe]

I don't believe that "being stupid" is the only contributory factor that leads to a gear up landing. Perhaps there are other broken links, or not, I know nothing...

[GyvAir]

Well.. the official line now is that the gear failed, rather than having not been put down.

2014-05-08
Narrative: A Calgary Flying Club Piper PA-23-250 (C-GOSO) on a local flight from Calgary/ Springbank, AB (CYBW) was given a landing clearance for runway 35. C-GOSO touched the runway at 1551Z with the gear up and pulled up and went around. C-GOSO and 2 other aircraft went into holds. Runway inspection revealed that the props had struck the ground and paint from the aircraft was found on the runway surface. Emergency vehicles on standby. C-GOSO landed at 1633Z and gear collapsed. Trucks took chase when C-GOSO landed. Runway 17/35 was closed. Three inbounds had to orbit for approximately 20 minutes.

2014-05-21
Narrative: UPDATE: TSB Report#A14W0060: The Calgary Flying Club Piper PA-23-250 Aztec, C-GOSO, was operating on a local flight out of Springbank AB (CYBW). This was a non-revenue acceptance flight prior to the aircraft being added to the operational fleet. C-GOSO conducted an approach to land on Runway 35. During the initial touch down, the crew experienced a partial landing gear failure, that was evidenced by paint and propeller strikes on the runway. C-GOSO overshot Runway 35 remaining in the circuit. On the downwind leg for runway 35, the pilot selected gear down and did not observe the landing gear down and locked indication. A flyby of the tower was conducted and the tower confirmed that the nose landing gear appeared to be only half extended. The crew left the circuit and followed the unsafe gear checklist and attempted an alternate gear extension which was unsuccessful. Additionally the crew consulted with company maintenance personnel and all subsequent attempts to extend the landing gear were unsuccessful. The crew elected to return to CYBW for landing on Runway 35; ARFF was on standby. On touchdown the nose landing gear collapsed, followed shortly thereafter by collapse of the main landing gear. The aircraft came to rest on the runway. There were no injuries to the two pilots on board. The ELT was not activated. Company maintenance will report to the TSB their findings.

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/c ... d2014C1530

[pelmet]

Well.. the official line now is that the gear failed, rather than having not been put down.

During the initial touch down, the crew experienced a partial landing gear failure, that was evidenced by paint and propeller strikes on the runway.

The report may not have all details but as written, I would have to say that paint and propeller strikes on the runway are not necessarily evidence of a landing gear failure. It is evidence of the landing gear being retracted on landing for whatever reason. Unless perhaps there is some particular detail(s) on the proven initial touchdown scrape marks to show perhaps some sort of partial gear situation.

[GyvAir]

It will be interesting to see what the maintenance report reveals, if posted as an update to the CADORS. I agree, the marks on their own are unlikely to verify anything.
There aren't many airports around anymore without security or weather cameras running. I imagine if there was some doubt about the gear position on the initial approach, there would be a viewing of any available footage.

[oldtimer]

I wonder if the lawyers have gagged anyone? At least until the spin doctors sanitize the stories.

[Lurch]

I wonder if the lawyers have gagged anyone? At least until the spin doctors sanitize the stories.

Yes they have, and threatened a few more to try and silence them.

[pelmet]

Bad news again at Springbank...

A privately operated Cessna 177RG (C-GYVH) had flown from Invermere, BC (CAA8) to Springbank, AB (CYBW). The gear was not in the landing gear configuration for the landing at CYBW and the propeller came into contact with the runway surface. No landing gear warning horn was heard during the approach. Power was applied and a go around was initiated and the tower alerted ARFF. A flyby past the tower was conducted to assess damage and wait for ARFF before landing. An uneventful landing was completed on runway 35. The aircraft sustained minor damage limited to the propeller blades. Maintenance is repairing and inspecting the aircraft.

[pelmet]

And here...

A14O0091: The private Cessna P210N C-GMOT was on an IFR flight from CYKZ Buttonville to CYSN St.Catherines/Niagara District Airport. On approach the gear was selected down and the pilot verified visually that the gear was down and locked. The status of the green light indicating the gear position went unnoticed. During touchdown the throttle was moved towards idle, the gear unsafe audible warning sounded, and the aircraft nose gear contacted the runway surface and collapsed. The aircraft settled onto the nose damaging the propeller and engine cowl. The pilot and sole occupant were uninjured.

[PilotDAR]

and the pilot verified visually that the gear was down and locked.

Any idea how the sole pilot would do this in a C210, if the green light was not used as a reference? A 210 might have a mirror on the wing to allow the pilot to see the nose gear, but I doubt that "locked" can be confirmed with the mirror.

If the warning horn sounded as the power was reduced to idle, the gear was not locked down, and the green light would not have been illuminated.

A powerpack failure (electric being the most common) could result in a mostly extended nose gear, which was not locked down. if the pilot were aware of a powerpack failure, the hand pump could be used to assure the landing gear as down, other than for a major loss of hydraulic fluid.