No Gear Extension On King Air - Check the CB First

[pelmet]

Saw it happen once. The captain handed over control and pushed in the CB which was hidden below his seat.

I can't remember if our checklists at the time mentioned the CB but I believe it was simply an emergency extension checklist that assumed that all proper actions had been undertaken. I suspect many manufacturers assume that the appropriate CB has been checked. Boeing specifically states that in a preamble which really came to light a few years ago when a 767 made an emergency landing with its gear retracted. Best to think to yourself about checking CB's when a system is not working at all, even if it seems like an unlikely cause. It can be easy to overlook.

From Google translate(which seems to like to refer to the gear as a train)......

"C-FSKQ, a Beechcraft 200 operated by Skyjet Aviation with the call sign VSL443 was on a flight
according to instrument flight rules from Québec / Jean Lesage airport, QC (CYQB) to
destination of Rouyn-Noranda, QC (CYUY) with 2 crew members and 8 passengers on board.
While retracting the landing gear from CYQB, the crew heard a noise,
but this one did not seem to be of concern. On approach for runway 26 at CYUY, when the
the landing gear control lever was operated to extend the gear, there was no
effect. The approach was aborted and the emergency checklist was completed. The crew
attempted to exit the train manually, but no pressure on the emergency lever was
perceived and the train did not exit. A second attempt was made and the nose gear was pulled out
and locked however there was no pressure left in the manual pump to exit
completely the main gear. A low approach was carried out so that ground personnel
can check the position of the train. The 3 wheels appeared to be out and the crew declared a
emergency to land on runway 26. Passengers received emergency instructions and
the device has landed. The touchdown was normal, but when the speed reached about 60
knots, the right main gear collapsed followed by the left. The aircraft was evacuated and it
there were no injuries. A cursory inspection of the aircraft revealed the
Landing gear system circuit breaker was in the pulled out position."


Similar incident here.......

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/70438

[mbav8r]

CBs generally don’t pop out for no reason, so the advice would be to check your CBs before flight. It sounds like the noise they heard could very well have been an electric motor issue that caused the breaker to pop.
My company policy is to NOT reset any CB in flight, if it’s out, it’s out for a reason and personally a gear up landing is more desirable than an onboard fire.
I had smoke in flight on a dark night with the ceiling at 200’ 1/2 mile, the breaker did it’s job and as a consequence I did not have to shut off the electric supply, I would not be handing out advice about resetting a breaker in flight.

[pelmet]

CBs generally don’t pop out for no reason, so the advice would be to check your CBs before flight. It sounds like the noise they heard could very well have been an electric motor issue that caused the breaker to pop.
My company policy is to NOT reset any CB in flight, if it’s out, it’s out for a reason and personally a gear up landing is more desirable than an onboard fire.
I had smoke in flight on a dark night with the ceiling at 200’ 1/2 mile, the breaker did it’s job and as a consequence I did not have to shut off the electric supply, I would not be handing out advice about resetting a breaker in flight.

Cb's pop sometimes. Things have been taken to such an extreme that a gear up landing, which is a crash, seems preferable to extending the gear. One could put the breaker in on a two mile final if very concerned about a fire. And keep in mind that a crash landing can cause a fire, not to mention propeller blades potentially becoming deadly projectiles.

At my company, we can coordinate with maintenance for resetting a CB, which I am sure would have been done for a 767 or a King Air(if the pilots had checked the breakers and asked about a reset).

These two gear up landings resulted in flames, especially the second one which also had a lot of black smoke later on......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC8ySY_GlUk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4FYnsH3CWs

Here is the same type of aircraft that had a similar accident with the amended CB procedures allowing a reset.....

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... 8O0184.pdf

"Actions Taken
Since the occurrence Transport Canada, ASD, has taken the following actions:
1. The Beech A100 King Air SOPs have been amended to allow a single, in-flight reset of the electric
hydraulic pump motor 60-amp circuit breaker."

I suggest a single reset rather than a gear up landing(preferably in coordination with maintenance, if possible).

[digits_]

Not wanting to reset a CB does generally not mean one prefers a gear up landing. Most (all?) modern airplanes can lower the gear without electrical power.

There seems to be a shift towards rarely resetting a CB in flight vs the "ah try it once anyway" attitude up to 5-10 years ago. There must be a reason for that shift.

[pelmet]

Not wanting to reset a CB does generally not mean one prefers a gear up landing. Most (all?) modern airplanes can lower the gear without electrical power.

There seems to be a shift towards rarely resetting a CB in flight vs the "ah try it once anyway" attitude up to 5-10 years ago. There must be a reason for that shift.

Thanks,

The reason for the shift was likely unnecessary resets causing problems.

As mentioned in my last post, there is approval for resetting this breaker. And even if there isn't, if the choice were to come down to a crash landing because the gear won't extend via alternate means or simply putting the breaker in, I would personally choose the latter.

According to the FAA......"You should not reset a tripped circuit breaker in flight unless
doing so is consistent with explicit procedures specified in the approved operating manual used
by the flightcrew or unless, in the judgment of the captain, resetting the circuit breaker is
absolutely necessary for the safe completion of the flight."

Preventing a gear up landing would be in that category. For the 767, I definitely would have chosen to reset a breaker(if I had known about it) rather than land like that, which is nowhere close to a safe completion of flight. For the King Air mentioned in the first post on this thread, the emergency extension system did not work. What next. I suggest doing what was approved to be done in the first place......reset the breaker.

[digits_]

For the King Air mentioned in the first post on this thread, the emergency extension system did not work. What next. I suggest doing what was approved to be done in the first place......reset the breaker.

Just as a friendly FYI, it is possible that once you start the emergency extension procedure, you lose all chance of using the normal gear extension system. There are quite a few systems out there that pull one way pins or valves, or blow bottles etc, which prevent you from raising and (re)lowering the gear without a maintenance reset.

[pelmet]

For the King Air mentioned in the first post on this thread, the emergency extension system did not work. What next. I suggest doing what was approved to be done in the first place......reset the breaker.

Just as a friendly FYI, it is possible that once you start the emergency extension procedure, you lose all chance of using the normal gear extension system. There are quite a few systems out there that pull one way pins or valves, or blow bottles etc, which prevent you from raising and (re)lowering the gear without a maintenance reset.

I had thought about that but wasn't sure. Can't remember for sure if it disabled the normal gear extension procedure. The King Air I flew was a long time ago and I believe that it had a nitrogen charge which used the same lines as the hydraulic fluid and I vaguely remember some discussion by more experienced guys on how reliable it would be. With two examples shown on this thread confirming that they were correct to be doubtful, it looks like it was a good choice we made to push in the breaker and......the gear worked just fine. And now it is an approved procedure which makes it that much more logical to do first.

And why was the change made? I doubt every King Air landing gear CB was modified, just the procedure. So, the change would just be the realization that it was not likely to be hazardous to reset it and the consequences of not resetting it were worse(ie a crash landing). I'm sure some sort of analysis was done.

[pelmet]

Beech 1900 may be the same.....

C-GZVJ, a Beech 1900D operated by Wasaya Airways, was conducting flight WSG758 from Sioux
Lookout (CYXL), ON to Red Lake (CYRL), ON. During the approach to CYRL, the landing gear
was selected to the down position but there was no corresponding movement of the landing gear.
The crew elected to return to CYXL and declared an emergency. The crew consulted the QRH and
identified a tripped landing gear circuit breaker. They reset the tripped circuit breaker, the gear
lowered normally, and an uneventful landing was conducted at CYXL.

The operator's maintenance replaced the landing gear relay. Gear swings were carried out and the
aircraft was returned to service.

[co-joe]

A great example of looking for popped CBs even if the checklist doesn't specifically remind you to, is LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16, a B-767 that did a gear up landing writing off the airframe. They had a hydraulic problem, but failed to notice a tripped CB causing a hull loss. No injuries though.

The preliminary report by the SCAAI found that a hydraulic leak occurred shortly after takeoff, after the landing gear and flaps were retracted.[15] The leak was caused by excessive bending of a flexible hose in the center hydraulic system, resulting in the loss of all fluid in that system. The drop in pressure was indicated by the EICAS and recorded by the flight data recorder.[11][16] Later investigation indicated a popped circuit breaker just to the right of the F/O at floor level would have enabled the electric motor for releasing the undercarriage. The breaker was reset after landing and the undercarriage extended normally.[9]

The final report of the accident was released in 2017. The causes of the accident were the center hydraulic hose leak, the C829 circuit breaker popping, and the flight crew's failure to detect the C829 breaker during the approach, which could have allowed them to lower the landing gear. Contributing factors were the lack of safeguards to prevent accidental opening of circuit breakers, the C829 circuit breaker being in a low position where the flight crew would have difficulty noticing its condition, LOT's operations center inadequate procedures, and LOT's failure to incorporate a Boeing service bulletin on the prevention of excessive bending in the hydraulic system hose.

[Eric Janson]

A great example of looking for popped CBs even if the checklist doesn't specifically remind you to, is LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16, a B-767 that did a gear up landing writing off the airframe. They had a hydraulic problem, but failed to notice a tripped CB causing a hull loss. No injuries though.

I don't recall any information being given about this on my 767 training.

I'd have to check but I don't recall anything in the QRH procedure for the alternate gear extension that refers to checking that the CB is in. It seems even the company Engineering department (who they were talking to) didn't realise this was a possibility.

I probably would have done the same as the LOT crew.

Some of the more detailed system information is no longer in the manuals - you are given just enough information to be able to fly the aircraft safety.

Lack of technical knowledge is an increasing threat imho.

[pelmet]

A great example of looking for popped CBs even if the checklist doesn't specifically remind you to, is LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16, a B-767 that did a gear up landing writing off the airframe. They had a hydraulic problem, but failed to notice a tripped CB causing a hull loss. No injuries though.

I don't recall any information being given about this on my 767 training.

I'd have to check but I don't recall anything in the QRH procedure for the alternate gear extension that refers to checking that the CB is in. It seems even the company Engineering department (who they were talking to) didn't realise this was a possibility.

I probably would have done the same as the LOT crew.

Some of the more detailed system information is no longer in the manuals - you are given just enough information to be able to fly the aircraft safety.

Lack of technical knowledge is an increasing threat imho.

If you have a system loss that is not recoverable, and it uses electricity, it can be a good idea to do a circuit breaker check. It is highly unlikely that there will be a downside to taking the time to make this inspection, yet on rare occasion, you might discover the root cause of your problem. At this point, you can decide if it makes sense to reset the CB.

Remember what your Boeing manual says. Something along the lines of…..the QRH does not cover certain basic procedures such as checking CB’s. One does not need detailed technical knowledge of the systems for a proper fault analysis of most faults, just effective procedures.

[rigpiggy]

Most checklists I have seen allow for one reset.of flight critical or safetysystems. I would posit that year was a safety system. Maybe take look vector to the distance straight in of around the extra distance require be of a manual extension . Reset the cb, try regular then go into manual extension.

[pelmet]

C-FDEB, a Beech 200 operated by Vanguard Air Care as flight VN08, was conducting a flight from
Winnipeg/James Armstrong Richardson Intl (CYWG), MB. to Island Lake (CYIV), MB, with 2 crew
and one paramedic. After takeoff, when the flight crew selected gear up, the gear unsafe light
illuminated and the gear failed to retract. A visual inspection from the aircraft indicated the landing
gear had stopped half-way up. The flight crew advised ATC and performed a manual gear down
extension; however, the manual gear down extension did not produce a safe gear down indication.
C-FDEB requested a hold southwest of CYWG and contacted the operator's maintenance. The
operator's maintenance instructed the crew to disengage/reset the emergency engage handle,
verify that the gear handle was fully in the down position, pull the landing gear relay circuit breaker,
reset a circuit breaker that had tripped, reset the landing gear relay circuit breaker and select gear
down. The landing gear started to extend but stopped. The flight crew repeated the procedure a
second time. The landing extended and indicated 3 green with the red light in the handle out. The
flight crew conducted a fly-past inspection to confirm gear position and completed a safe landing
with ARFF standing by. The aircraft was subsequently towed to the hangar.

The aircraft was placed on jacks, the landing gear system was inspected and the left gear actuator
was found to be binding. The actuator was replaced, gear swings were carried out, and the aircraft
returned to service.

[J31]

Sounds like poor maintenance.

Took a few tries but they did get the gear down enough so it did not collapse on landing.