Creebec in CYTS - SEPT 26

[halfmilevis]

Listening to Air Creebec with a battery issue and one rear landing gear stuck up... happening now...

HMV

[Chuck Finley]

deets????

[halfmilevis]

Havent touched down yet... Supposed to be on approach in 2min... Rear gear stuck up and front half down... KA 100 or 200. 9 PAX

waiting for more.

HMV

140403 CYTS TIMMINS(VICTOR M.POWER)
CYTS ALL RWY CLSD
1409262213 TIL APRX 1409270030

[halfmilevis]

Everyone A-OK.

Aircraft on its belly

HMV - OUT!

[FighterPilot]

http://www.timminstimes.com/2014/09/26/ ... ns-airport
Glad everyone's ok!

[single_swine_herder]

Let the speculation and Monday Morning Quarterbacking begin!

I'll kick things off by saying "well done on the aircraft control at the time of touchdown."

[C-FABH]

http://www.timminstimes.com/2014/09/26/ ... ns-airport
Glad everyone's ok!

Considering how we come to expect piss-poor journalism for aviation news stories, I'm rather surprised. This editor did a great job with this one.

[rigpiggy]

looking at the pictures, it looks like all the gear is in synch, with the old bicycle chain drive, would this be a gearbox problem, or slipped/fractured chain?

[AOW]

looking at the pictures, it looks like all the gear is in synch, with the old bicycle chain drive, would this be a gearbox problem, or slipped/fractured chain?

I think that the slipped/fractured chain would allow the mains to fully extend, so I am leaning towards a gearbox problem. There have been cases of the electric motor seizing, preventing the gearbox from moving, but I am not sure if any of those has a partial extension as shown in the photos.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Hopefully it will be written off and there will be on less POS KA 100 in commercial service.

[lownslow]

Hopefully it will be written off and there will be on less POS KA 100 in commercial service.

What's so bad about the 100? I've never really flown one but they seem like a good enough plane.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Hopefully it will be written off and there will be on less POS KA 100 in commercial service.

What's so bad about the 100? I've never really flown one but they seem like a good enough plane.

They have had way more than their fair share of fatal accidents. Their day is definitely over and they should all be turned into beer cans.

My comments are in no way intended to slight the crew, who appeared to have done a good job with a crippled airplane.

[iflyforpie]

All of them are old and have lived hard lives--making snags more frequent and the potential for problems more likely. The small wing area in comparison to the -200 also makes them hotter ships when things get dicey. Their cheap prices also more often than not attracts a certain kind of operator.

[lownslow]

They have had way more than their fair share of fatal accidents. Their day is definitely over and they should all be turned into beer cans.

All of them are old and have lived hard lives--making snags more frequent and the potential for problems more likely. The small wing area... also makes them hotter ships when things get dicey. Their cheap prices also more often than not attracts a certain kind of operator.

Both of these statements are so weird to hear when you like reading about MU-2s and realize that the posters are talking about some other light twin turbine machine.

That aside, the crew definitely looks to have done a good job keeping a bad situation from getting worse.

[pelmet]

Hopefully it will be written off and there will be on less POS KA 100 in commercial service.

What's so bad about the 100? I've never really flown one but they seem like a good enough plane.

They have had way more than their fair share of fatal accidents. Their day is definitely over and they should all be turned into beer cans.

I flew on e for a while. It may not perform like a 200 but it has its place.

I think you will find that most of the fatal accidents in Canada with the King Air 100 were people doing stupid things. A couple of accidents did have maintenance issues as part of the cause(only one had an actual failure of a system) but in both cases, they were handled very poorly.

Similarly, the MU-2 had lots of accidents as well in the past prior to having its record improve greatly. We had foolish and ignorant politicians asking the FAA to ground the type because they put the blame in the wrong place.

A list of King Air 100 accidents in Canada can be found here:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/typ ... Air/losses

[pelmet]

The Air Creebec, Beech A-100 aircraft, (flight 140, registration C-FEYT) was enroute to Timmins, Ontario. While on approach the flight crew selected the landing gear down, the gear began to extend and then suddenly stopped, and both generators failed. The flight crew performed the alternate gear extension without success. Subsequently, the flight crew performed a deliberate gear up landing on Runway 28. On short final, prior to touchdown, the engines were intentionally shut down and feathered. The aircraft touched down on its belly and slid approximately 40 feet off the end of Runway 28. There were no injuries to the 2 crew members and 7 passengers. The TSB deployed two investigators.

[X-Savior]

Alternate gear extension, so they unbolted the electric motor under the floor boards? Or in the heat of the moment did they forget this? There should have been no issue manually lowering the gear with it unbolted.

[midwingcrisis]

The accident list Pelmet provided indicates there is a KA 100 problem in Canada compared to other countries. Most certainly in the past 10 years.

[pelmet]

The accident list Pelmet provided indicates there is a KA 100 problem in Canada compared to other countries. Most certainly in the past 10 years.

Only 1 accident involved a mechanical failure(which was improperly handled). Is it a King Air problem or a pilot problem?

Another interesting note. I remember the Colonel mentioning many months back about how guys with gear problems would end up going off of the runway end after feathering props on final due to a sudden lack of drag that led to a long landing. I notice in the official brief posted earlier that this flight went off the runway end as well after feathering the props on short final. Then again, it can prevent prop blades from striking the fuselage. And they did have quite a few passengers.

Considerations that have to be weighed.

[Chuck Finley]

I'd like to know why they didn't use the longest rwy.

Honnest question, not trying to blame the crew.

[AOW]

Alternate gear extension, so they unbolted the electric motor under the floor boards? Or in the heat of the moment did they forget this? There should have been no issue manually lowering the gear with it unbolted.

You only need to unbolt the electric motor if it has seized. With a "normal" loss of electrons, all you have to do is engage the manual drive and crank the ratchet handle. The mention of both generators tripping offline during the extension process, on the other hand, may give some weight to the seized motor theory. The motor may have welded itself, and overloaded the generators when they tried to extend the gear. There should be a few layers of protection to avoid that kind of thing, though.

My prediction (based on the little information we have here): The root causes will come down to a deficiency in maintenance of the gear system, and a possible lack of training to the flight crew.

[timel]

Alternate gear extension, so they unbolted the electric motor under the floor boards? Or in the heat of the moment did they forget this? There should have been no issue manually lowering the gear with it unbolted.

You only need to unbolt the electric motor if it has seized. With a "normal" loss of electrons, all you have to do is engage the manual drive and crank the ratchet handle. The mention of both generators tripping offline during the extension process, on the other hand, may give some weight to the seized motor theory. The motor may have welded itself, and overloaded the generators when they tried to extend the gear. There should be a few layers of protection to avoid that kind of thing, though.

My prediction (based on the little information we have here): The root causes will come down to a deficiency in maintenance of the gear system, and a possible lack of training to the flight crew.

There is a 60 amp fuse on the landing gear motor. Used to be 200 amp but they removed it due to risks of fires.
Is it both Gen that went off & current limiters? Or just Generators?

[airway]

I remember the Colonel mentioning many months back about how guys with gear problems would end up going off of the runway end after feathering props on final due to a sudden lack of drag that led to a long landing. I notice in the official brief posted earlier that this flight went off the runway end as well after feathering the props on short final. Then again, it can prevent prop blades from striking the fuselage. And they did have quite a few passengers.
Considerations that have to be weighed.

I witnessed a incident very similar to this at Springbank in the 90's.

Light twin, planned gear up landing on runway 34 (I can't remember the problem). Feathered both engines at about 200', and got the props level with the starter.

Flared at the threshold, and proceeded to float almost halfway down the runway before he just nosed her on, before he ran out of runway. Stopped pretty quickly though, once he was on the ground. No injuries. Scraped belly on the A/C. If he had held it off to touchdown with a slight nose up attitude, he would have touched down past the end of the runway.

Another one I have to chuckle about:

Student is doing circuits in the single retractable Cutlass. He calls me on the handheld to tell me that he has no green light on the nose gear, and that the light works when he tests it. After some troubleshooting, we determine that it is probably an indication problem.

Just in case it's not, I tell him to leave a bit of power on at touchdown and gently lower the nosewheel. Well, he did leave some power on at touchdown, but wasn't quite sure when to take it off (note to instructors: never assume something is obvious to a student). He continued down the runway with power on and the nosewheel in the air until there was only about 500' of runway left. He then realized that he had to pull off the power sometime, so he did, and hits the brakes at the same time for good measure.

So of course the nose wheel slams onto the runway, but holds, and he taxis off at the end.

[airway]

I witnessed a incident very similar to this at Springbank in the 90's.

Light twin, planned gear up landing on runway 34 (I can't remember the problem). Feathered both engines at about 200', and got the props level with the starter.

Flared at the threshold, and proceeded to float almost halfway down the runway before he just nosed her on, before he ran out of runway. Stopped pretty quickly though, once he was on the ground. No injuries. Scraped belly on the A/C. If he had held it off to touchdown with a slight nose up attitude, he would have touched down past the end of the runway.

After this incident there was a lot of talk about what he did right and could have done differently:

1. Land on the runway (he did). Less chance of sparks on grass but more chance of catching a wingtip or nose and flipping.

2. It was a tossup whether he should have feathered the props or not:

Some arguments for feathering: (feel free to add)

Little or no costly engine or prop damage
Little chance of broken prop entering cabin. If it is a metal prop this is probably not an issue.
Engine shut down, no fuel flowing and no spark from ignition to start fire.

Some arguments for not feathering:

Close to normal approach speed, touchdown point and attitude. None of us know how far our aircraft will float with the props feathered and the gear up. What if you couldn't lower the flaps as well?
Shutdown engines on ground contact if you can.
Option for a go around.

[pelmet]

Alternate gear extension, so they unbolted the electric motor under the floor boards? Or in the heat of the moment did they forget this? There should have been no issue manually lowering the gear with it unbolted.

You only need to unbolt the electric motor if it has seized. With a "normal" loss of electrons, all you have to do is engage the manual drive and crank the ratchet handle. The mention of both generators tripping offline during the extension process, on the other hand, may give some weight to the seized motor theory. The motor may have welded itself, and overloaded the generators when they tried to extend the gear. There should be a few layers of protection to avoid that kind of thing, though.

My prediction (based on the little information we have here): The root causes will come down to a deficiency in maintenance of the gear system, and a possible lack of training to the flight crew.

All this sounds unfamiliar to me. But I seem to remember that we had something called an Aviadesign(I think) hydraulic landing gear. Some sort of a mod to replace the original design due to its unreliability. Still had an electric motor but to create hydraulic pressure. There was a CB under the seat which we had to reset once when the gear would not go down(make sure to transfer control first as it is way down below). I think the back up was a nitrogen charge to blow the gear down using the same lines. Can anyone confirm?