WHY do pilots land gear up?

[shitdisturber]

I've been doing multiple GBUMPS checks for years, the B is for brakes; and it hasn't let me down yet. Of course I'm paranoid and check my gear anywhere between three to six times on one landing. I wonder if that's because I've twice found myself in the position of selecting the gear down and not getting the result I was looking for. For those who are curious, the emergency gear handle on a Navajo is easy to use; or at least it has been in my experience.

[Cat Driver]

The only real way to avoid problems with where the gear is you must always check the gear before landing.......

.....same for going home after a long stint out of town, you should always check your gear for fluid leaks before you land at home.....getting caught with your gear in the wrong place can be very expensive.

[Shiny Side Up]

Lot have disagreed with you Hed, but no one as of yet has given the reason "why" this won't work. While I don't fully disagree with your idea, I don't believe its the root of the problem when it comes to this particular issue.

If we look at CAR 405.14:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... htm#405_14

it says:

Flight training ... shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable flight instructor guide

Note that it says "shall". Not should, or oughta, or mostly, but "shall".
That's not optional.

If we then look at FIG:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/gener ... actors.htm

(b) PRIMACY — Present new knowledge or skills correctly the first time. (Teach it right the first time.)

The problem with the arguement is that Primacy, in all its glory, isn't the only learning factor at play. We also have Effect, Readiness, Relationship, Intensity, Excersise and Recency

(c) RELATIONSHIP - Present lessons in the logical sequence of known to unknown, simple to complex, easy to difficult.

In the case of your arguement we go against the principle of relationship when the student is learning this new thing, when we introduce the idea of retractable gear, if we do so right from the start, we're presenting an unknown to the student, we're presenting a more complex version and we're presenting a more difficult version - relatively. We can't assume in basic flight training that the student has a good working knowledge of landing gear systems, the differences that fixed and retractable gear present. We're dealing with an unknown. Even if we have your fake landing gear switch, the student is at this point taking your word that it will be important later - they have nothing this point to relate to what something like calling three green might be. At this point bringing it into the lesson has a high potential to hinder the lesson than help it.

(d) EXCERSISE- Ensure that students are engaged in meaningful activity.

Its a tough sell to the student to what the point of the excersise might be in miming the gear down and playing pretend. The point of the matter is the student won't be seeing gear lowinging, feel them thump into place (I suppose you could rig a seat-kicker to simulate it), the point is that the excersise won't seem meaningful to them unless they will be seeing gear coming down or are planning on flying something with retractable gear. In short the simulation loses its meaning to the student.

(e) INTENSITY - Use dramatic,realistic or unexpected things, as they are long remembered.

Once again its hard to get worked up about a simulation. If there is intensity in this excersise the student will incorrectly associate it with the annoying buzzer or their instructor's incessanct obsession with putting the prentend gear lever in a position. In short the intensity a student might feel towards this excersise will be reinforced in the wrong direction at best.

(f) EFFECT - Ensure students gain a feeling of satisfaction from the excersise.

There is no satisfaction to be gained here from doing it right. In a simple means people like to see things whirr and click and make noise when they move levers and controls. They love to see some effect to what they do. In the lesson presented with the simulated landing gear lever we're only presenting thestudent with what happens when they don't do something (which in this case will be more from their instructor berating them or a punishing annoying noise) than rewarding them when they do do something - I use the term reward loosely. The more direct the cause and effect a student can see, the better they are "rewarded" in the experience and remember better.

(g) RECENCY - Summarize and practice the most important points at the end of each lesson as last things learned will be remembered longest.

This one's a little tougher to relate to our excersise here concerning teaching pilots not to land with the gear up. It does bear however more importantly on the discussion, but not in the realm we've introduced the trining when we seek to have pilots not land aeroplanes with their gear in their wells. The other point I left out...

(a) READINESS - Ensure the students are mentally, physically and emotionally ready to learn.

bears little on the discussion at the point of topic in the ab initio stage of a pilot's learning, but also factors in on when pilots are usually introduced to the gear lever. So at this point we've talked about Primacy as being a key factor to preventing pilots from landing gear up, but I would say that the benefit it presents is outweighed by the four learning factors which weigh against it. I wouldn't say that giving the student a simulated gear level would satisfy the requirements of primacy either, because we're only teaching part of the equation right, the procedure, but not the actual "doing" part right. Once again there's a disconnect where practicing a simulation doesn't quite adequately prepare the student for the actual.

I might observe that hardly anyone in Canada learns to fly on a
retractable gear aircraft. Not many student pilots fly retractable
gear aircraft.

Would indeed be the only way to truly solve the problem. But do most students need the problem solved? Most private students are never going to fly a retractable geared aircraft in their entire flying lives. Indeed its been well documented that a retractable geared single makes far less gains for the effort than an equivilent fixed geared aircraft. Point of fact, the weight of the retraction mechanism and the extra maintenance costs well outweigh any advantage to be gained withretractable gear. With the exception of the Mooney die-hards, retractable gear in the private pilot world is hardly a concern. Let's be honest, what really concerns us as pilots as a group is Commercial standard pilots who land gear up when they're working as pilots, and that's where we should be looking at this.

And that's a pity. Because for the first TWO HUNDRED HOURS of
a pilot's career, they are taught to land without selecting gear down

And not bothering to lower the gear is a lesson - reinforced for
the FIRST TWO HUNDRED HOURS of their flying - which sticks
with them. And then everyone is shocked and appalled when
they revert to their ab initio training, and don't lower the gear.

You're on the right track here and its in that space I feel after the PPL where if you want to be a working pilot it's time to demonstrate you're up to the task. I do like the idea in the US that a CPL candidate must have some time on a "complex aircraft" to get their licence. Personally I'd be interested if there are less accidental gear up accidents among US licenced pilots per landing than Canadian ones - it might be worthwhile to see if it has any bearing.

In my opinion Commercial pilots should be put up to a bigger challenge to get their licence than just "building time" as most do. One could place fuel exaustion right along side gear up with a high proportion of accidents, most of that can be attributed to unfamiliarity with differences in aircraft. If we go by The arguement presented most pilots train on a very simple fuel system, so how many times has that bit of primacy affected the outcome? What about the effects of different flaps? Positions of circuit breakers?

With the theme of the thread in mind, one has to wonder if the PPL really is a good prep for the CPL. Personally I think there need to be a lot of changes to CPL training how it works. In some ways the idea presented above isn't appropriate, but in others it doesn't seem like it goes far enough depending on what your end goal is with your pilot student.

Around page three of the "next gear up landing" thread, I asked my
kid - whom I taught to fly - what his downwind check was, on ANY
type of aircraft.

Without referring to a checklist, he recited:

Gas
Brakes
Undercarriage down
Mixture
Pitch
Flaps
Harness

Quaint, I know. Very british. But still, you can see that I'm
trying to apply the learning factor of Primacy as best I can.

You've also had the advantage of being able to apply the primacy effect more appropriately. Your son after all has had experience with a Cessna 421 am I correct? In addition to primacy you also put to play Relationship, Recency, Effect and Excersise into the field to hit the point home. No offense Hed, but your son doesn't make a good example as he gets a very priviledged position to learn about flying from. Most pilot students would be envious of the opportunity he has had.

Anyways. It troubles me that I am apparently the ONLY person
in the entire world - with internet access, anyways - that this has
EVER occurred to, which I find troubling. Am I paddling with only
one oar? Am I running on seven cylinders? Am I playing with
only 47 cards? Do I have PK screws on the floor?

Oh you're not the only one, in my mind its one of only the smaller troubles to deal with in the aviation training world. There are bigger fish to fry. Crazily enough, gear up landings usually are just expensive and embarrassing (albeit avery expensive and embarrassing) compared to a lot of the other stupid pilot tricks out there which usually get people killed.

[High Flyin]

There's no real solution to the problem as the problem doesn't stem from poor or inadequate training. The problem is PDM. There are already checklists in place for all types of aircraft. It's up to the pilot wheather he/she decides to run through it or not. In retractable gear aircraft one of the pre-landing checks is "gear down and established".

CHECKLIST ARE DESIGNED FOR A REASON! Use them, and you should have no problem!

[Big Pistons Forever]

The best "philosophy" I've encountered yet is Boeings (at least on the one I fly). That is - all normal checklists are flows first, then verification with the checklist. I think this would work quite well single pilot - because if the workload gets silly, at least the flow is done...

I am surprised you not use challenge and reply ( ie a do list for two crew ops) for any of the normal checks.

I did not mention in my post that all the normal checks (do/flow/check) follow the same flow pattern, a anticlockwise circle starting between the seats at the fuel selector and moving up and around the instrument panel endign back at the throttle quadrant. I also rearranged the actions in the Cessna POH emergency section to follow the same flow where sensible. That way single pilot when the pressures is on the student can do the immediate action drills as aflow and then when able review with the checklists. The extra items in more complex aircraft like the gear are easily added to the flow thus the good habits developed in the beginning will be usefull throughout a pilots career.

I think the standard grossly over complicated and poorly organized checklist FTU's seem to invariably use contributes to the gear up landing scenario. The PPL student quickly figures out that he doesn't need the checklist to tell him to adjust his seat (seriously that was an item on a prestart checklist I saw in a FTU airplane, name withheld to protect the stupid)..and he/she so gets in the habit of whipping through the checks because the hobbs is running and how hard is it, and anyway, and it seems to me I am doing just fine not forgetting anything without them........

[ruddersup?]

Here's my take on the gear dilemma. THINK, simple, huh?
Don't treat it as gear but as undercarriage. Check the undercarriage on EVERY landing on every aircraft.
Do it early downwind and final. If there is a rush going on with the checklist in your cockpit better think about going around.
Fixed gear - check the brakes
Retractable gear land aircraft - check the gear down.
Seaplane - check the water rudders up.
Amphibious - check proper gear position and water rudders up.
Retractable skis - check proper ski/wheel position.
Train yourself to do this EVERY time and you will not f.u.
Problem with checklists, no thought process involved.

[jjj]

Pilots land gear up because they're not as good as Doc.

[Cat Driver]

In retractable gear aircraft one of the pre-landing checks is "gear down and established".

"Established " is a new one for me.

What exactly is established?

Pilots land gear up because they're not as good as Doc.

Hey, what about me?

[High Flyin]

In retractable gear aircraft one of the pre-landing checks is "gear down and established".

"Established " is a new one for me.

What exactly is established?

Pilots land gear up because they're not as good as Doc.

Hey, what about me?

Selecting the gear down switch is 'gear down', checking that the gear has extended via three green or a mirror is the act of 'establishing gear down'

[Cat Driver]

O.K. fair enough now I know that " and established " means the same as " and checked ".

In the DC3 it takes two people to " establish " if both gear are down.

We used another term to establish that the gear was down..." I have a wheel "

What ever works is great.

[nimbostratus]

On initial simulator training on my current jet, we were pre-briefing the procedures for a flapless landing. The instructor said to me, "first thing, check speed and lower the gear". I was a little confused as to why dropping the gear was the first thing to do. He proceeded to tell me that it is his most common error he sees in flapless landing training. Pilots get so wound up following the procedure, calculating descents and running long checklists (in this particular QRH you are bouncing back and forth between four different normal and abnormal checklists.) Guys get busy, fall behind the plane, silence the GPWS and forget the gear.
He said you would not believe the numbers of well trained crews that forget. All of this on a visual approach no less...

Any sim instructors out there seen the same thing?

Anyone know what flap setting the guys in Powell River had? Just curious if they were trying to land with partial flap. I know it wasn't a monster crosswind but it was gusty. If I remember correctly the other thread said it was about a 40 degree crosswind gusting up to 24 knots.

Thoughts?

Nimbo

[jjj]

Excellent example nimbo.

The same routines that some proponents on here feel are their ace in the hole are the same routines that get interrupted on more complex equipment in non-normal situations.

Pilots are generally creatures of habit - and when knocked out of routine they make simple/critical errors.

No one is impervious - the professional pilot appreciates that he/she is at all times the greatest and the weakest cog in the whole operation.

A terrible mistake a pilot can make is to think that they have this game aced - nobody does.

3 2 1......


JJJ

[Blue Side Down]

IRT the original question posed-

For the same reason pilots run out of gas 20 miles short of the destination. At some point before the moment of 'oops' occurred, their head was not in the game and committed.

Landing gear legs are very useful structures, even as an ancillary flight control.

I wonder how many pilots had the thought "gee, this thing carries speed better than I remember" go through their mind before making that last 'full stop' arrival?

[Strega]

I find it amusing the people here that seem to know all about how to put the gear down and human factors with respect to training pilots to put the gear down,, dont fly retractable gear aircraft.....

[marktheone]

Why? Because they can. Just like why a dog licks his balls.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I find it amusing the people here that seem to know all about how to put the gear down and human factors with respect to training pilots to put the gear down,, dont fly retractable gear aircraft.....

Huh ?

[iflyforpie]

I find it amusing the people here that seem to know all about how to put the gear down and human factors with respect to training pilots to put the gear down,, dont fly retractable gear aircraft.....

[Hawker]

I find myself working hard sometimes to slow the plane down to get the gearspeed I need. ATC will tell me to keep my speed up and keep it in tight and I'll have to almost bring the powers to idle to get the gear down, then bring the powers back up to maintain my approach. so I guess gears always on my mind cause I'm always workin to get them out.

[GoinNowhereFast]

I wonder how many gear up landings have been prevented by the paranoia created here on Avcanada.

[Cat Driver]

I wonder how many gear up landings have been prevented by the paranoia created here on Avcanada.

Hopefully a lot.

[Cat Driver]

I wonder how many gear up landings have been prevented by the paranoia created here on Avcanada.

Hopefully a lot.

However paranoia is the wrong word.....replace it with " a healthy fear "

[Dust Devil]

I wonder how many gear up landings have been prevented by the paranoia created here on Avcanada.

I think if our bitchin and complaining prevents one occurrence it will be worth all the hurt feelings out there.

I can't tell you the number of hate pm's I've got since this discussion got in full swing. Far more than pm's of support strangely enough which should be a concern of itself.

I don't have near the experience of Cat, Doc or Snoopy but those three I've learned over the years are normally pretty much bang on the mark when it comes to issues of safety and general piloting techniques. I think the industry could really learn a lot from listening to these three. I'm coming from the point of view of an operator so I can understand those spearheading safety disregarding my opinion thinking I am only interested in the almighty dollar. These three however to my knowledge are not motivated by any of these things.

Anyway I'll continue taking their message to heart and hopefully a few others will as well.

[Cat Driver]

I can't tell you the number of hate pm's I've got since this discussion got in full swing. Far more than pm's of support strangely enough which should be a concern of itself.

As an owner of a flying business it must be distressing to know there are so many of these cretins out there who may actually be pilots and you could unknowing employ one of them someday.

You have my sympathy.

[Dust Devil]

I can't tell you the number of hate pm's I've got since this discussion got in full swing. Far more than pm's of support strangely enough which should be a concern of itself.

As an owner of a flying business it must be distressing to know there are so many of these cretins out there who may actually be pilots and you could unknowing employ one of them someday.

You have my sympathy.

Being a small operator actually makes it a little easier as I can tell in short time if my pilots are like minded individuals. I've definitely had some characters over the years but they don't typically last. The group I currently have are actually some of the best I've ever had and I actually consider them all friends. I'm more worried for the outfits with so many pilots that they essentially become numbers.

It's one of the reasons I hire more based on personality rather than hours in the log book. I actually hired one guy who only had his minimum number of twin time for his rating. I sent him out in the field with another pilot for a few months so he could get the time required for insurance so I could send him on his own (we normally operate single pilot). He got the thumbs up from everyone who flew with him very quickly. It also helps that my CP was also his instructor years ago so she knew what he was about.

We actually had a good discussion based on this thread. He also shared my attitude on the subject long before he knew who I was on this board.

[Dust Devil]

I can't tell you the number of hate pm's I've got since this discussion got in full swing. Far more than pm's of support strangely enough which should be a concern of itself.

As an owner of a flying business it must be distressing to know there are so many of these cretins out there who may actually be pilots and you could unknowing employ one of them someday.

You have my sympathy.

I also hope enough of them will despise me enough not to bother applying

Who want's to work for a dick like me right?