Gear issue-This guy was very wise to get towed in

[PilotDAR]

I would take action safely, within my understanding. If I can safely mitigate damage, then I'm going to do that. As so wisely expressed in another thread, mechanical sympathy.

[digits_]

I would take action safely, within my understanding. If I can safely mitigate damage, then I'm going to do that. As so wisely expressed in another thread, mechanical sympathy.

Of course, but why do you think "rocking" the plane by moving weight around with an unstable nose gear is safer than just trying to keep the airplane as stationary as possible ?

[PilotDAR]

I don't imagine myself "rocking" the aircraft, however, there would be a careful redistribution of weight. This could possibly begin, with my getting out, to arrange the required assistance. If the resources are right there to safe the affected gear down, and tow in, then I would wait seated, otherwise, I'm going to do something to make the situation better, which would include reducing the weight on the nosegear, so if it did collapse before collapse could be prevented, damage would be less.

But, that's just me. Pilots should conduct themselves safely within their training, and SOPs. if applicable.

[digits_]

I'm going to do something to make the situation better, which would include reducing the weight on the nosegear, so if it did collapse before collapse could be prevented, damage would be less.

I don't doubt your good intentions and this isn't a personal attack, but why are you so sure that reducing the weight on the nose gear would help ?
Let's say you made it out of the airplane and the plane is stationary on a taxiway. Why not leave it like that ? You already know that in its current configuration/weight distribution it is holding. It also held during a touchdown which is higher than its current load. From this I would conclude that you are pretty safe to leave the weight as it is.

If it does collapse, then I fully agree that weight in the back would be better than in the front, but probably quite marginally. I think it would be better and more successfull to try to prevent it from collapsing. Every time you move a box or walk around in the airplane, there is a little vibration / shockwave going through the airframe and the oleos of the plane. That is what I meant wih the "rocking" in my previous post.

[PilotDAR]

There is no "best" answer for this, each person must work safely within their skills. My only reason for writing all of this is to encourage pilots to simply think. Maybe thinking means you do something, maybe thinking means you run like hell and do nothing. For myself, the people who trust me with their planes would expect me to think of something.

Ballast can have a great effect. I was once sent to fly home a 172. Upon arrival (by car) we (the owner, his daughter and I) were alarmed to see that the field between the hanger and runway had literally been plowed up. I ballasted the plane nosewheel very light, with the owner in the back seat, and his daughter crouched in the baggage compartment. With that, 15 flap and full nose up control, the nosewheel came off with zero speed over the ground. I was able to "walk" the plane through the plowed field with the nosewheel never touching. 'Ever changed a Cessna nosewheel fairing? Two 20kg sacks of something very carefully placed on the H stab will allow the nosewheel to remain completely off the ground. In that case, were it to be an RG with a failure, it would be entirely safe to work around to lock down, and no risk of striking a prop, or crunching a cowl with a collapse in the mean time. Yes, moving stuff around a stopped plane can jostle it - so can a breeze. It's a judgement call.

Same logic as you would gently run a floatplane aground, rather than leave it floating, if you thought you damaged a float. It might be afloat okay at the moment, but it might not be when you came back later, ready to do something!

I read the causal statement around here form time to time: "now it's the insurance company's plane". Well, perhaps, but a claim which could have been prevented does none of us any good - we will all pay. If we can mitigate damage with no significant risk, we keep our costs down, at least a little....

In past times, I have been the inexperienced pilot who thought to myself Duh!, when a wise pilot suggested something I could have done better. Leaving anything so that it could collapse, lower itself to the ground unattended, or roll away is just the less good thing to do, if you can safely take action, who's effect will be to prevent such an outcome.

[crazyaviator]

In a similar vein, Its a fly-in on the weekend, A/C battery is dead, wants AME ( me ) to help. I hand start it . I prefer to do it BEHIND the prop IF its an unknown person at the controls ,,,,Whats your opinion ???

[PilotDAR]

My opinion is that if under the control of a person I don't know, or an airplane I do not know, it will be effectively chocked or tied before I'll hand prop it.

[pelmet]

My opinion is that if under the control of a person I don't know, or an airplane I do not know, it will be effectively chocked or tied before I'll hand prop it.

I used to hand prop without tie down or chocks. There was no tiedown available but chocks were. Based on my situation I found the chock idea more dangerous. I got the pilot to set the park brake. Then I pushed on the aircraft in order to ensure that the brakes were holding firmly then hand propped.

I hated the idea of removing the chocks as I had to get close to that invisible prop crouched down to remove the chocks. The danger is forgetting about the prop and then getting hit by it. It may sound so obvious to just remember not to move into the prop arc but on rare occasion, something sudden happens such as a persons hat blowing away, going after it and being killed(it has happened) or some other sudden or distracting event at a critical moment. Just personal opinion but on a good surface with a good park brake, I think that the chock idea increases risk.

No brake or poor braking capability is different of course.

[groncher]

Maybe chock the mains?

[pelmet]

Maybe chock the mains?

The mains on a taildragger are what I am referring to. Very close to the prop. Would make sense for a tricycle gear aircraft though.

However, it is pretty rare to find a tricycle gear aircraft needing a handprop. Did have to do it once with a Twin Cessna though with a bad contactor many years back. I was lucky and it caught on the second attempt. Was actually on a date and apparently she was impressed.

[New Flyer]

The situation for these guys was actually much scarier than the description entails.
When the aircraft actually first settled down on the mains, the nose gear swung fully aft, then swung back forward.
The aircraft then rose again slightly, and the nose gear swung fully aft again.
Twice the gear swung fully back, before coming forward again just in time as the plane settled down.
I am not sure even the pilots realized the pendulum effect of the gear as they were landing.