TBM Gear collapse on take off

[Its What I do]

Curious how you have a gear failure on take off?
Isnt only way by selecting gear up ? but isnt there a squat switch which doesnt allow it to happen?

Departing KBLI yesterday ............

Any comments anyone????

[GyvAir]

Looks like it was actually on landing:

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=193866

Narrative:
The aircraft experienced a gear collapse upon landing at Bellingham International Airport (KBLI) in Bellingham, Washington. The airplane sustained unreported damage and the sole pilot onboard received minor injuries.

[GyvAir]

It appears to be sitting oddly close to that fuel tank to have been either taking off or landing though..

[linecrew]

Based on the above pic, Google Earth puts the aircraft on the apron at a spot about 650-660 feet East of the nearest runway edge.

[GyvAir]

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/lo ... 80419.html

About 18 seconds into the video, you can see a bit evidence of the path it took.
That article claims it happened during a take off attempt in poor visibility.

[photofly]

And, I'm given to understand, it's a $1.7m insurance write-off. Why, I'm not sure.

[GyvAir]

Engine, prop, all three landing gear assemblies, extenstive repairs to at least one wing and lower fuselage... that's gotta add up, fast.

[sunk]

It was on take off and would bet contaminated wings,

[pelmet]

C-GWVS, a privately operated Socata TBM 700 aircraft, departed from Bellingham Intl, WA (KBLI) for Puyallup/Pierce County – Thun Field, WA (KPLU) after a refueling stop. On the initial climb at about 150 feet AGL, the left wing dropped, the nose pitched down and the airplane crashed on the infield. The aircraft sustained substantial damage, however the pilot was able to evacuate the aircraft. Prior to this segment, the aircraft had departed from Vancouver/Boundary Bay, BC (CZBB) and was observed on radar to deviate from cleared altitude several times on the departure, as well as on the approach to KBLI. The pilot reported to the FAA that they experienced auto-pilot issues.

[pelmet]

Good thing this TBM accident happened in the USA. We have a final report from the NTSB in just a few months. A DC-3 crashes in similar circumstances in Canada and we will never see an investigation report because apparently, there is nothing to be learned or maybe the extra 30 billion spent by the government in the last year is going to more important things... One can only assume the same with a little TBM. Are you listening Kathy Fox. Please do your job as lives may be saved. It is obvious that there are pilots that need reminder about certain hazards they think they can get away with and the word needs to be reinforced. What happened to the DC-3 in Pickle Lake and how do you plan to prevent similar from happening again. I know TSB people have been on this forum based on past posts. Saying nothing is not acceptable in my opinion.

Meanwhile from an effective board that will actually give a probable cause instead of refusing in order not to hurt feelings...

Analysis
The pilot reported that, during the preflight, it was snowing, and he wiped the snow that had accumulated on the wings off "as best as [he] could." He added that, while taxiing to the runway, "snow was falling heavily," and he observed "light accumulation of wet snow" on the wings. During the takeoff roll, he observed the snow "sloughing off" the wings as the airspeed increased. Subsequently, during the climb to about 150 ft above the ground, the airplane yawed to the left, and he attempted to recover using right aileron. He reported that he "could see a stall forming," so he lowered the nose and reduced power to idle. The airplane impacted the general aviation ramp in a left-wing-down attitude and slid 500 to 600 ft.

The pilot reported on the National Transportation Safety Board Aircraft Accident/ Incident Report 6120.1 form that the airplane stalled, and he recommended "better deicing" before takeoff.

The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing.

The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.

A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, about 27 minutes before the accident, the wind was 010° at 8 knots, 1/2mile visibility, moderate snow, freezing fog, and sky condition broken at 500 ft above ground level (agl) and overcast at 1,500 ft agl. The airplane departed from runway 16.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aeronautical Information Manual stated, in part: "The presence of aircraft airframe icing during takeoff, typically caused by improper or no deicing of the aircraft being accomplished prior to flight has contributed to many recent accidents in turbine aircraft."

The manual further stated, "Ensure that your aircraft's lift-generating surfaces are COMPLETELY free of contamination before flight through a tactile (hands on) check of the critical surfaces when feasible. Even when otherwise permitted, operators should avoid smooth or polished frost on lift-generating surfaces as an acceptable preflight condition."
FAA Advisory Circular, AC 135-17, stated in part: "Test data indicate that ice, snow, or frost formations having thickness and surface roughness similar to medium or course sandpaper on the leading edge and upper surfaces of a wing can reduce wing lift by as much as 30 percent and increase drag by 40 percent."

Included in the public docket for this report is a copy of a service bulletin from the airplane manufacturer, which describes deicing and anti-icing ground procedures. It stated, in part:

During conditions conducive to aeroplane icing during ground operations, take-off shall not be attempted when ice, snow, slush or frost is present or adhering to the wings, propellers, control surfaces, engine inlets or other critical surfaces.
This is known as the "Clean Aircraft Concept". Any deposit of ice, snow or frost on the external surfaces may drastically affect its performance due to reduced aerodynamic lift and increased drag resulting from the disturbed airflow.

Probable Cause and Findings
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot's failure to properly deice the airplane before takeoff, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall during the initial climb.

[pdw]

-

[pdw]

The TBM PIC admitted "better deicing" should have happened, yet it seems to me the narrative is going easy on his/her 'error description'. This narrative, despite there being two power related findings in occurrance that are symbiotic in their affect on a "stall" in the given weather, has focused exclusively "clean concept". It's definitely not misrepresenting that ground icing very-badly/negatively affects departure-lift and was also well placarded against for this aircraft; yet the honkin tailwind component on takeoff isn't mentioned there at all, even though also under 'report findings' (three words) near the end.

[CL-Skadoo!]

You sure do like talking about tailwinds.

[170 to xray]

Oh, what the hell...I'll bite. "Honkin tail wind component on take off".

I have not admittedly read anything other than what is posted in this thread, but I am willing to say that if he deiced/anticed properly the tail wind component would be not be a factor.

Are you suggesting the tail wind was more of a factor than the contaminated wings?

[trey kule]

What I found strange was when he was stalling, he pitched down ...and reduced power.
Maybe he was so close to the ground ut was inevitable, but still a bit strange.

The FAA has a different attitude towards pilots. Gets the story out quicker

[pdw]

You sure do like talking about tailwinds.

It's the tailwind that's speaking here.

Are you suggesting the tailwind was more of a factor than contaminated wings ?

No, but am saying that without it possibly no accident. It firstly uses a lot more thrust to get airborne from start of this roll (and after rotation) than customary ones; but then also "tailwind" component is increasing with height ... (let's discuss what that potentially does for this type of accident description).

deiced/anti-iced properly the tailwind component would not be a factor

"would not" have been an accident .. no

[Canoehead]

No, but am saying that without it possibly no accident. It firstly uses a lot more thrust to get airborne from start of this roll (and after rotation) than customary ones; but then also "tailwind" component is increasing with height

It uses the same "thrust" to get airborne regardless of any tailwind component. Only change would be a higher groundspeed and therefore a longer takeoff roll. The wings don't know the difference, nor does the powerplant.

[photofly]

A tailwind component increasing with height will cause a decrease in climb performance.

Airplanes don't notice steady tailwinds, but winds that change in time or location (vertical or horizontal) they sure do.

[Cliff Jumper]

What do you mean by 'performance'... rate or angle??

Angle will most definitely be altered.

Rate?.... unless the component increase is very dramatic, as in some sort of shear, the change in rate in a typical powered aircraft would be unnoticeable, in my opinion.

By unnoticeable, I mean, climb rate into a typical increasing headwind vs a increase tailwind might result in a 50 fpm difference, during the increase.

Not exactly something that's going to knock a TBM out of the sky.

What does an empty TBM climb out at ? 3000 fpm? 4000 fpm?

[photofly]

What do you mean by 'performance'... rate or angle??

Angle will most definitely be altered.

Rate?.... unless the component increase is very dramatic, as in some sort of shear, the change in rate in a typical powered aircraft would be unnoticeable, in my opinion.

By unnoticeable, I mean, climb rate into a typical increasing headwind vs a increase tailwind might result in a 50 fpm difference, during the increase.

Not exactly something that's going to knock a TBM out of the sky.

What does an empty TBM climb out at ? 3000 fpm? 4000 fpm?

Rate.

Your opinions are not correct. The faster an aircraft climbs, the bigger the rate of change in wind, so the bigger the performance hit.

I posted this link three years ago: time to post it again.
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/rep ... m/2953.pdf

From that paper:

"Since the percentage change of rate of climb due to a given wind gradient is approximateIy propgrtional to the flight speed, the effect does not become less important as aircraft speeds increase. Moreover, wind gradients having a significant effect on the rate of climb are not confined to low altitudes. For a modern high-speed aircraft it is shown that the wind gradient may change the rate of climb by 20 per cent or more."

Using the data in the paper, an aircraft climbing at 100 knots can easily lose half its rate of climb in the first hundred feet.

A wind gradient can't knock a plane out of the sky: if the aircraft stops climbing then there's no longer a wind gradient to affect it. But it is a significant factor in climb performance.