Gear Down?

[Cat Driver]

.gear goes UP after take off and down for landing! Are there any questions?

Yes, I have two questions.

(1) Why do schools teach pilots to fly twin engine airplanes and teach leaving the gear down after take off?

(2) If TC is responsible for how flight training is conducted how do they justify ignoring this kind of dangerous teaching methods?

[Doc]

answer 1. Because they have no real world experience.
2. TC is too busy not shutting down operations like keystone to really care about such mundane matters. I'm betting TC knows all about this, and is taking their usual "head up their ass" approach to it.

[Cat Driver]

Doc, if you are one of the good old boys with your nose buried right up TC ass you can do anything you want.

Birds of a feather fly together.

Incompetent flight instruction will be condoned by TC as long as you are an ass kisser and are " in " with the incompetent ones at TC...

[Doc]

I don't think most flight schools have instructors who should be teaching multi engine. Most are still learning themselves and have no idea! Multi engine training should be done by folks like you and me! Like, that'd ever happen!

[Alex YCV]

I am thinking that the splat factor is at work here. Until one of those pilots in training falls down and goes splat, nothing much will be done.

[TC Guy]

Sooner or later some poor victims will have an engine failure turning cross wind in a twin with the gear down and at critical airspeed and the airplane will impact the earth vertical.

The relatives would sure like to sue TC for allowing this unorthodox training procedures to be taught in the schools they license.

But the morons at TC who are responsible for condoning these dangerous teaching methods will be quite secure in their protected little secure world at TC.

Makes me want to throw up every time I think of how useless these morons at TC really are.

Holy cow, Cat.

The guidance that TC provides to the Instructors teaching multi-engine can be found here:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/gener ... 5/menu.htm

It is well written, and gives some excellent advice to Instructors.

I would suggest you read it. I have -- several times. I didn't see that part about keeping the gear down. I guess I just didn't read it carefully enough.

I would suggest that if any flight school has a policy for gear extensions/retractions in the circuit, it may be for reasons other than Transport Canada. Maybe to minimize risk, reduce maintenance costs, etc. Is it unsafe? No. Is it a wise training strategy? Debatable.

Incompetent flight instruction will be condoned by TC as long as you are an ass kisser and are " in " with the incompetent ones at TC...

Personally, I have had the privilege of teaching Multi-Engine for more than 15 years. And, have never had a student fail. As a Pilot Examiner, I have done hundreds of multi-engine flight tests, and only one has ever not put the gear down on a single-engine (or any other) landing.

Because they have no real world experience.

Could you please tell me your experience with teaching initial multi-engine candidates?

Seriously... this was a good topic of discussion until it became a TC bashing session.

-Guy.

[Doc]

Hello Guy. I've done six initial multi engine students. That was way back when dinosaurs ruled the land. Before global warming. When Cat was still young and frisky. Not the old crusty Cat we see before us now. I followed the syllabus of the day. Everything went well, but I'm willing to bet, today I could do a far better job of it. These students all had access to light twins. A clapped out Cessna 310. With today's insurance requirements (good of bad) most, if not all light twins are owned by flight schools.
I've heard the "gear down" for circuits is for reduced maintenance costs. I feel it is a very poor method of teaching. I'd like to see raising the gear on departure, and thus having to lower it on approach to landing drummed into students from the get go.
The airplane goes up, the wheels go up. The airplane goes down, the wheels go down.

[Cat Driver]

TC Guy you and I have been at odds over the subject of TC ever since we started discussing flight training here on Avcanada.

There is very little hope we would ever be able to agree on most anything due to our personal mindset regarding TC in general.

My position regarding TC as a regulating body comes from having worked within the system for half a century and having had the opportunity to work in many positions of management within the industry as well as ownership of several of my own companies.

The facts are quite simple, TC has far to many employees who are a disgrace to the position they hold, yet they are allowed to continue in their bullying of their clients because that is how it is within TCCA.

I have no idea who you are nor does it really matter for the simple reason you are TCCA and I am me, therefore we are enemies with no common ground whereby we can really work together.

There is one big difference between us though, I am secure enough in my belief that TCCA is fundamentally corrupt at the top therefore I speak out and am unafraid to do so openly using my own name.

But it is Sunday morning and I have nothing much to do so lets look at the multi engine training thing a little closer.

You said:

I would suggest that if any flight school has a policy for gear extensions/retractions in the circuit, it may be for reasons other than Transport Canada. Maybe to minimize risk, reduce maintenance costs, etc. Is it unsafe? No. Is it a wise training strategy? Debatable.

TC's link said:

The majority of multi-engine aeroplanes will not accelerate to Vyse on one engine after take-off. The ability to climb in this configuration, even at Vyse, is drastically reduced. The 50% loss in power can result in an 80-100% loss in climb performance. For this reason, engine failures must not be simulated immediately following take-off. Engine failures should be demonstrated and practised only at an operationally safe altitude.

My opinion is you are being just a little to liberal in your attempt to justify schools using unorthodox teaching procedures, if you can't connect the dots and figure out the risk exposure that you would have to deal with in a low powered twin engine training airplane with an engine failure at say 500 feet in the turn to crosswind with the gear down then I guess you are in the right job for you.

Rather than slag each other here on Avcanada with me at the disadvantage of not being able to post from anonymity ( By choice. ) why not wait until I get my flight training business up and running without the need for one of TC's FTU OC's and then you come here in one of TC's airplanes and lets have a talk.

But you had better have court order in your hand or you and whoever you bring with you will have your ass kicked off the property I rent.

[TC Guy]

TC Guy you and I have been at odds over the subject of TC ever since we started discussing flight training here on Avcanada.

I suppose my point was that you took this topic and rather than add your wisdom and advice, decided to take it in another direction.

Okay, fine. I get it.

If you are unable to hold a conversation without it becomming a TC bashing session, then I guess there is nothing else I can say.

Good day.

-Guy

[Cat Driver]

If you are unable to hold a conversation without it becomming a TC bashing session, then I guess there is nothing else I can say.

Nothing personal TC Guy as I have no idea who you are nor do I really care.

From my perspective you repersent TCCA therefore you are my enemy to be avoided at all cost.

Your employer was found guilty of acting in an unlawful manner in the way they ruined my business protecting a few thugs in the employ of TCCA.

Your empolyer owes me a quarter of a million dollars and if you feel that is nothing so be it.

One thing for sure I will be doing training again in Canada and your employer can kiss my ass because I will be doing it legally. And I sure don't need their blessing to abide by the law...

If I was not suitable to hold a FTU OC that is A O.K. with me, I don't need one to be able to teach advanced flight training to licensed pilots.

And if you have not figured it out yet I feel it my duty to relate to any young person the truth about how your employer really works....that in my opinion is fair game.

Of course you are welcome to see if you can dig up anything that would discredit me as far as my career as a pilot goes in aviation...

So there it is we are enemies becaues there is no real middle ground and if you don't like my attitude regarding TCCA thats tough.

[sky's the limit]

Doing circuits in a retractable twin with the gear hanging out IS unsafe imho.

Most of these machines are very marginal during OEI conditions, and having that gear hanging out while trying to turn cross wind during a REAL engine failure, is an accident waiting to happen. Not something an instructor with maybe a 100hrs multi in the circuit can safely handle.

If the idea is indeed motivated by mntc costs, there's a giant lawsuit waiting in the wings when the first one goes in. If it's for "safety," someone really needs to give their head a good shake.

Reminds me of new skiers who are deathly afraid of sharp edges on the their skis..... Just doesn't make any sense.


stl

[Cat Driver]

I have no intention of just accepting something that common sense and good airmanship dictates is wrong.

And I am damned if I'll accept evasive half answers such as the following regardless of who the author is.

Holy cow, Cat.

The guidance that TC provides to the Instructors teaching multi-engine can be found here:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/gener ... 5/menu.htm

It is well written, and gives some excellent advice to Instructors.

I would suggest you read it. I have -- several times. I didn't see that part about keeping the gear down. I guess I just didn't read it carefully enough.

Is this guy trying to suggest that because there is no direct instructions to raise the gear on these light twin engine airplanes after take off that it can be taken to mean gear retraction is optional? I have flown a lot of light twin engine airplane and can't recall ever having flown one that will fly with the gear down on one engine.

I would suggest that if any flight school has a policy for gear extensions/retractions in the circuit, it may be for reasons other than Transport Canada.

So once the FTU OC is issued flight schools can just put in place training policies that put the students and instructors at risk?

What about all the human factors training, what about all the PDM training or is all that just pablum to make it look good?

Maybe to minimize risk,

By increasing the risk factor?

reduce maintenance costs, etc.

That is not a justifiable reason to increase the risk factor and I am finding it difficult to believe that someone who claims to be a TC flight training inspector would put forward such a lame excuse for an unorthodox training policy in a FTU.

Is it unsafe? No.

As long as both engines are running normally and the airplane is flown properly it can be argued that it is safe......but what if an engine quits?

Is it a wise training strategy? Debatable.

Well for my part of this debate my opinion is the strategy of not retracting the gear on these light twins is not acceptable safety wise.

[TC Guy]

And I am damned if I'll accept evasive half answers such as the following regardless of who the author is.

Okay, fair enough.

Is this guy trying to suggest that because there is no direct instructions to raise the gear on these light twin engine airplanes after take off that it can be taken to mean gear retraction is optional?

I certainly believe that any multi-engine aeroplane will have vastly improved single-engine performance with the gear retracted. I don't see anywhere that I could have given you the impression that raising it was optional? Maybe I missed something.

I have flown a lot of light twin engine airplane and can't recall ever having flown one that will fly with the gear down on one engine.

I have flown many a multi-engine aeroplane that is capable of maintaining altitude with the gear extended (given a low density altitude and less than gross weight). I would agree that a vast majority of them have terrible single-engine performance near gross weight and at any higher density altitude -- leaving the gear down certainly makes the situation much worse.

I would suggest that if any flight school has a policy for gear extensions/retractions in the circuit, it may be for reasons other than Transport Canada.

So once the FTU OC is issued flight schools can just put in place training policies that put the students and instructors at risk?

I do have to say that in this specifc case, all I know about it is what was said here.

If I had anything to do with it (I do not) and I had concerns, I would sit down with the CFI of the flight school and discuss them. There may be factors or considerations that I have no knowledge of. It is also possible that there are factors that they have not considered.

What about all the human factors training, what about all the PDM training or is all that just pablum to make it look good?

I sure hope not. I believe that PDM programs are effective in reducing accidents.

Maybe to minimize risk,

By increasing the risk factor?

Well, there are several risk factors at work here, and all have to be considered.

Possible Risk factors cause by leaving gear extended in the circuit:

1) One risk is that the student (and Instructor) may forget to put down the gear in a busy environment (the circuit). By leaving the gear down in the circuit, this risk is mitigated.

2) There is the risk of additional cycles on the gear could shorten the life of the gear motor, as many of the light multi-engine aircraft that some schools are using for training were not designed for high cycles. This could result in a gaer failure, and emergency extension, and additional risk. By leaving the gear down in the circuit, this risk is mitigated.

3) Another sorce of risk has to do with an engine failure on climb-out at low altitude with the gear extended. This could lead to performance and controllability issues if the drill is not followed properly and proper airspeed control is not maintained. By retracting the gear once sufficient runway to land is no longer available, risk is mitigated.

I am sure you could come up with several other factors. Some for leaving the gear extended in the circuit, some against it.

People will have differing opinions on these factors -- some will dismiss them as poor arguments altogether. Fair enough. The point is that someone (usually the CFI) will make that determination, weighing all available factors, including the type of aircraft that they are operating, the experience of the Instructors, etc.

Just because you see the world in black and white doesn't mean that it is. If I see something that doesn't make sense to me, I go and talk to the CFI. Most of the time, it gets sorted out easily.

reduce maintenance costs, etc.

That is not a justifiable reason to increase the risk factor and I am finding it difficult to believe that someone who claims to be a TC flight training inspector would put forward such a lame excuse for an unorthodox training policy in a FTU.

I was simply listing this as one of the possible reasons. I was not supporting it.

You certainly are on the attack today, Cat. Glad I could assist.

Is it unsafe? No.

As long as both engines are running normally and the airplane is flown properly it can be argued that it is safe......but what if an engine quits?

An engine failure is an unusual situation. Happens quite rarely -- but happening close to the ground with the gear extended is certainly not a great place for it to happen. We do actually test this drill on the flight test (engine failure duirng the overshoot).

Is it a wise training strategy? Debatable.

Well for my part of this debate my opinion is the strategy of not retracting the gear on these light twins is not acceptable safety wise.

I am glad to see that you can provide some excellent opinions that are not all laced with some anti-TC sentiments. Makes for a much more interesting conversation.

-Guy

[Cat Driver]

Thank you for replying to my post.

Now that each of us have outlined our positions on this subject we can let those who read this decide if leaving the gear down is the preferred method of training or retracting it is best.

Just because you see the world in black and white doesn't mean that it is.

You are assuming to much TC Guy, my comments and opinions on flying airplanes are not driven by a black and white mindset.

My comments and opinions have been formed from experience gained over the past 55 years of flying aircraft of all descriptions and types all over the planet.

And may I add I have experienced engine failures just prior to lift off, just at liftoff and in the climb.....never wrecked one yet so I must be doing something right.

[TC Guy]

Thank you for replying to my post.

Now that each of us have outlined our positions on this subject we can let those who read this decide if leaving the gear down is the preferred method of training or retracting it is best.

Interestingly enough, I don't believe I gave an opinion.

I just put some factors out there for people to use to make up their own minds.

If you want my opinion, based upon my experience, here it is:

1) Gear should be retracted when there is no chance of re-landing following an engine failure after take-off. This is standard Industry practice (for light aircraft).

2) Students learn by doing - I believe part of the circuit process is to raise and lower the gear.

3) Gear maintenance is a cost of doing business - if this is an issue, consider changing aircraft type to one that is more "training friendly".

You are assuming to much TC Guy, my comments and opinions on flying airplanes are not driven by a black and white mindset.

My comments and opinions have been formed from experience gained over the past 55 years of flying aircraft of all descriptions and types all over the planet.

Okay, my mistake. Fair enough.

And may I add I have experienced engine failures just prior to lift off, just at liftoff and in the climb.....never wrecked one yet so I must be doing something right.

As have I (in the overshoot at 50'). My accident history is clean.

-Guy

[Cat Driver]

1) Gear should be retracted when there is no chance of re-landing following an engine failure after take-off. This is standard Industry practice (for light aircraft).

Yes, I am aware that this seems to be the industry standard that came into vogue about twenty years ago.

However what is wrong with the way we did it for decades, raise the gear once the required airspeed and positive rate of climb is attained.... that is how we do it in all the airplanes I have ever flown.

If an engine fails during the initial climb it is not better to have the gear either up or on the way up?

If the airplane will not fly after an engine failure is it not better to land with the gear up under control rather than chance losing control and wreck the thing?

Anyhow TC Guy it is evident that you and I have different thoughts about how to teach flying and what are the best airplane handling methods.

And I am not to concerned what you think about how I do it because you will never have the opportunity to fly with me for the simple reason I would not fly with you due to who you work for.

So you do it your way and I'll do it my way.

[TC Guy]

And I am not to concerned what you think about how I do it because you will never have the opportunity to fly with me for the simple reason I would not fly with you due to who you work for.

So you do it your way and I'll do it my way.

LOL... okay, Cat.

I was doing my absolute best to answer you completely, without evasion. I thought you were asking.

I don't suppose we will ever fly together, and I am just fine with that.

Anyways, you have a good evening.

-Guy

[PCAS]

Ground Instruction

Documents and Airworthiness

Review:
• documents that must be carried on beard the aeroplane?

[Tango01]

Ground Instruction

Documents and Airworthiness

Review:
• documents that must be carried on beard the aeroplane?

Whatever substance you're on, I want some of it.

[PCAS]

Lol, yeah might seem like I'm on crack without an explanation.

It was taken word-for-word from the instructor guide for teaching multi conversion produced by TC.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/gener ... 5/menu.htm

[xsbank]

I'm disappointed that TCguy and Cat can't get along... don't know why...

[C-GPFG]

When I taught at Toronto Airways I had the student cycle the gear for training circuits for habit and simply to see if they remembered to lower it each time. That was for almost two years until earlier this year. Not quite sure what this person overheard an instructor say.

[Cat Driver]

I'm disappointed that TCguy and Cat can't get along... don't know why...

Could it be we live in two different worlds?