On a scale of 1 to 10

I rate it at 1.5....

Kinda clever idea,, but you can bet it was staged for attention:yes::D
 
10 - the guy is flying a T-tail.
 
I dub thee, "The Amurrrika maneuver!"

Whenever someone says "Hold my beer and watch this!" I'll be thinking of this.
 
That video is at least 10 years old if not 15. I heard that the guy left dents in the trim around the sun roof from holding on so tight, but I think it is real.
 
tmyers said:
That video is at least 10 years old if not 15. I heard that the guy left dents in the trim around the sun roof from holding on so tight, but I think it is real.
Click to expand...

Even older....1985!

It was real. I remember watching it on the news when I was a kid.
 
I've never flown anything with retracts and don't know much about them, so I'm not sure if my opinion counts---but am I the only one who thinks this is pretty smart? I mean, the airplane is on the ground safely, nobody has to report to the insurance agency, and the guy who was out of the sunroof didn't even get an undesired haircut. Then again, this could have gone horribly wrong, but it didn't!
 
Oh, and is there any reason you can't just hit the ground hard on 2 wheels and pop the third out by the quick jolt?
 
ebykowsky said:
Oh, and is there any reason you can't just hit the ground hard on 2 wheels and pop the third out by the quick jolt?
Click to expand...


F = M*A

Hit the ground hard and the mass of the airplane keeps coming down unless you have enough control authority to stop / reverse it.
 
Pretty dumb. Airplanes have been known to land safely without their landing gear. Moreover, what is the most the owner of that airplane would have had to spend to fix his (or her) airplane after the gear up landing? The insurance deductible, which was probably in the hundreds of dollars. What's the worst thing that could have happened to the guy pulling on the wheel?

So a guy endangered his life and limb for an insurance deductible. Pretty dumb.
 
pretty sweet

although I would have used something like a broom handle with a hook on it so I did not have to get so close to the airplane.

Although pulling 3G's would put more force on the wheel than someone pulling on it.

In this situation i'd think burning all the fuel out and doing a gear up landing on a large grass field would be the best alternative.
 
Last edited:
No, that wasn't necessarily staged. There was an NTSB report floating around on my old plane that suggested it was involved in a partial gear up landing with one main stuck. One of the gear mounting bolts worked loose and wedged itself on the the gear, jamming it in place.
 
How expensive is it to fix a plane after a gear up landing (I realize it varies)?
 
ebykowsky said:
How expensive is it to fix a plane after a gear up landing (I realize it varies)?
Click to expand...

If done flawlessly, a grand or two in underbelly skin repair. If there is a prop strike, it can get quite expensive, for a new prop, engine teardown and replacement of affected engine parts.
 
Sac Arrow said:
If done flawlessly, a grand or two in underbelly skin repair. If there is a prop strike, it can get quite expensive, for a new prop, engine teardown and replacement of affected engine parts.
Click to expand...

Best to try to shut the engine down and bump the starter to get the prop in the right spot so it won't strike the ground when you land belly up!
 
HerrGruyere said:
Best to try to shut the engine down and bump the starter to get the prop in the right spot so it won't strike the ground when you land belly up!
Click to expand...

My prop still spins after engine shutdown in the air.
 
If it was my plane? $1000 regardless of how badly I bent it, no shutting the engine down for me as I'm insured.


However I can say from experience that you CAN shake the gear down in an Arrow, BTDT got the grey hair to prove it.
 
N801BH said:
You got bigger balls then me.... In 30+ years of flying I have NEVER had the guts to shut the motor off in the air...:eek::nonod:
Click to expand...

Mine windmills in a full stall, but I didn't mean to pull the mixture. I meant to pull carb heat while doing a falling leaf, grabbed the wrong knob.

It spun so slowly you could hear the ICs clicking, but it never stopped.
 
N801BH said:
You got bigger balls then me.... In 30+ years of flying I have NEVER had the guts to shut the motor off in the air...:eek::nonod:
Click to expand...

It wasn't intentional. Fuel starvation - sort of. I had 30 gallons left, it just wasn't 15 gallons on a side. Even though the fuel selector was set to both, it was only pulling from one side. So I had 0 in one tank, and 30 in the other. Took a few seconds to figure out which tank since the Piper fuel gauges suck and were bouncing all over.
 
ebykowsky said:
I've never flown anything with retracts and don't know much about them, so I'm not sure if my opinion counts---but am I the only one who thinks this is pretty smart? I mean, the airplane is on the ground safely, nobody has to report to the insurance agency, and the guy who was out of the sunroof didn't even get an undesired haircut. Then again, this could have gone horribly wrong, but it didn't!
Click to expand...

I remember watching this in the early 90s when it was on Rescue 911 or whatever show it was (so I'm pretty certain it's real) and thinking how cool and what a great idea.

20 years later and now that I'm a 2000-hour commercial pilot with virtually all of my time in retracts, I would never do this. Never.

First off, remember that your stall speed is going to be highway speed (probably breaking the speed limit) for the car. So this means you're asking someone to stand out of a sunroof with no restraint and greater than legal speeds. Bad idea. Since this maneuver has let's say 1 mile to be accomplished (probably less), there's a short amount of time to accelerate, perform maneuver, and brake hard with someone hanging out the sunroof. Worse idea. It's going to be very hard to sync up, meaning likely repeats (as they had to do), causing further danger for that part of the maneuver. See where this is going?

Now you're flying close to stall speed, about 10 ft over the ground trying to hold altitude to +/- 6" with the consequences of killing the person hanging out of the car, damaging the car, and damaging the airplane anyway if you screw up. And you're doing it blind! SAR crews can at least see what they're hovering over, but you'd have right around 0 visibility of who you're trying to not kill.

You're taking all of this risk (mostly for the lives of the people in the car for what? Because you don't want to make an insurance claim? The insurance will pay it, you won't end up with a 709 ride, and life will go on. Virtually nobody dies in a gear-up incident. And if you did, it was your own doing. I would rather put myself in a grave than risk someone else's life like that. Far more people die in stupid pilot tricks than in proper gear-up landings. The first number being high, and the second being 0. Meanwhile, I'd be curious to hear if any inspectors, upon seeing this video, took it upon themselves to have a chat with the pilot in question to question the abundance of stupidity. Meanwhile if the report goes "I had a main gear problem where the right main wouldn't go down, so I elected to land gear up for safety," the likely response would be "Good ADM, glad you're safe."

When you fly a retract plane, a gear up is one of the potential consequences. If you don't like that, fly one of the many fixed gear options out there instead.
 
ebykowsky said:
I've never flown anything with retracts and don't know much about them, so I'm not sure if my opinion counts---but am I the only one who thinks this is pretty smart? I mean, the airplane is on the ground safely, nobody has to report to the insurance agency, and the guy who was out of the sunroof didn't even get an undesired haircut. Then again, this could have gone horribly wrong, but it didn't!
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it could have, and that's the definition of stupid. In this case, stupid but lucky.

It wasn't staged, and it's been done at least twice - The first one got on video, and then when the next guy had the same type of problem, someone had seen video of the first one and they did it again.

It is NOT worth getting someone killed over an insurance deductible. They turned the stupid up to 11 on this one.

dell30rb said:
In this situation i'd think burning all the fuel out and doing a gear up landing on a large grass field would be the best alternative.
Click to expand...

Grass is NOT the best alternative - There's bumps, ruts, and you risk digging the prop or another part in and flipping the airplane over, greatly increasing the chances of serious injury and damage to the airplane.

If you can't get the gear out after trying everything, find an airport with long, wide, paved runways and firefighters on field (likely your nearest airline airport), and set her down gently gear up and with power in until you're over the runway.

HerrGruyere said:
Best to try to shut the engine down and bump the starter to get the prop in the right spot so it won't strike the ground when you land belly up!
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Heard about a 310 that tried to do this and ended up a half mile short of the runway. Again, stupid to 11. Don't create an additional emergency to try to help the first one.
 
HerrGruyere said:
Best to try to shut the engine down and bump the starter to get the prop in the right spot so it won't strike the ground when you land belly up!
Click to expand...

Add this to the list of stupid pilot tricks that have resulted in a number of NTSB reports.

As soon as I start the engines, the plane belongs to the insurance company. I will never do anything that compromises my safety because I think it will make them write a smaller check. Ironically, this actually helps them, because it's a lot cheaper to pay for the plane on a double prop strike belly landing than for my death.
 
What Kent said. I'm going to CVG or DAY. Declaring an emergency, hogging the airport, wanting firefighters on hand.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
......, I would never do this. Never.

First off, remember that your stall speed is going to be highway speed (probably breaking the speed limit) for the car. So this means you're asking someone to stand out of a sunroof with no restraint and greater than legal speeds. Bad idea. Since this maneuver has let's say 1 mile to be accomplished (probably less), there's a short amount of time to accelerate, perform maneuver, and brake hard with someone hanging out the sunroof. Worse idea. It's going to be very hard to sync up, meaning likely repeats (as they had to do), causing further danger for that part of the maneuver. See where this is going?

Now you're flying close to stall speed, about 10 ft over the ground trying to hold altitude to +/- 6" with the consequences of killing the person hanging out of the car, damaging the car, and damaging the airplane anyway if you screw up. And you're doing it blind! SAR crews can at least see what they're hovering over, but you'd have right around 0 visibility of who you're trying to not kill.

.
Click to expand...

My first thought of potential deadly failure of this trick is if the car driver sped up too fast and ran the guy hanging out the sunroof into the prop.:eek::hairraise:... Next point of failure would be the plane hitting a downdraft or just outright settling onto the car and squishing the "hero" hanging out of the sunroof....
 
N801BH said:
My first thought of potential deadly failure of this trick is if the car driver sped up too fast and ran the guy hanging out the sunroof into the prop.:eek::hairraise:... Next point of failure would be the plane hitting a downdraft or just outright settling onto the car and squishing the "hero" hanging out of the sunroof....
Click to expand...

Exactly. I couldn't live with myself for any of those risks. Nope, not doing it. I'll take the gear up.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Exactly. I couldn't live with myself for any of those risks. Nope, not doing it. I'll take the gear up.
Click to expand...

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/cb/cb_396.pdf

　​
The First Half of the Story ​

Situation #1 [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial](C172RG Pilot’s Report)
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings]n [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]On departure, the gear retracted normally. However, immediately after retraction I heard a loud "POP" followed by a call from Tower indicating that my left main gear had retracted then fallen down again. Another aircraft behind [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]me confirmed seeing the same thing.
The aircraft has a gear mirror installed on the right wing [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]which allowed me to view all three gear. The left main [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]was in a trailing position. The nose and right main were [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]retracted. I cycled the gear. The left main didn’t move from [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]its in-trail position.
I advised Tower that I would troubleshoot the gear and tried yawing the aircraft and maneuvering so as to swing the gear with inertia into the locked position…. Unable to retract or extend the gear, I made a call…to an A&P to confirm my suspicion that it was most likely the gear actuator that had broken loose from the pivot point…. I could land with the right main and nose gear down and locked or fully retracted. I could also land under power or secure the engine and try to save the engine and prop.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Franklin Gothic Demi,Franklin Gothic Demi][FONT=Franklin Gothic Demi,Franklin Gothic Demi][FONT=Franklin Gothic Demi,Franklin Gothic Demi]What Would You Have Done?
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]



The Rest of the Story​
Situation #1 [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial](C172RG Pilot’s Report)
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Franklin Gothic Demi,Franklin Gothic Demi][FONT=Franklin Gothic Demi,Franklin Gothic Demi][FONT=Franklin Gothic Demi,Franklin Gothic Demi]The Reporter’s Action
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings]n [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]At the cost of an engine and prop, but with significant risk [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]reduction, I elected to land under power with right main and [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]nose retracted. I contacted Tower, advised of our situation…and our intention to land gear up…. We landed uneventfully on the centerline with a soft, controlled, low energy touchdown; no fuel leaks, no hydraulic leaks, no oil leaks, no fire, and no injuries. The damage to the airframe was pretty minimal, however the propeller was obviously destroyed and [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]therefore the engine will require teardown.
I felt it appropriate to make a report to document the [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]decision-making on landing under power which I would [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]highly recommend rather than making the error of "trying to [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]save the engine and prop" and reducing options on landing. Because the sink was greater than I anticipated, I did need to add additional power just prior to touchdown. Should I have tried to "save" the engine, it would have made for a solid impact with the runway increasing damage to the airframe and possibly resulting in injury. Leaving the engine running, I was able to make a gentle, low energy touchdown. The resulting sensation in the cockpit was like a normal landing (louder, but normal forces), zero injuries, and a [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]happy outcome. Again, I would highly recommend a low [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]total energy touchdown under power for anyone finding they need to make a forced gear-up landing. The aircraft, engine, propeller can all be replaced and it’s not worth "trying to save" a machine at the cost of possible injury.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
 
flyingcheesehead said:
No, it's not. Heard about a 310 that tried to do this and ended up a half mile short of the runway. Again, stupid to 11. Don't create an additional emergency to try to help the first one.
Click to expand...

There was a King Air that did that (the engine shut down), but he was already over the runway when he shut the engines. Was caught live on the news.
 
EdFred said:
There was a King Air that did that (the engine shut down), but he was already over the runway when he shut the engines. Was caught live on the news.
Click to expand...

That's the way to do it, if you're going to. But with 4-bladed props they still needed to be replaced, and the power turbine and gearbox would still need to be checked, although I doubt if there was any damage.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's the way to do it, if you're going to. But with 4-bladed props they still needed to be replaced, and the power turbine and gearbox would still need to be checked, although I doubt if there was any damage.
Click to expand...

With mine it wouldn't matter. 3 blade prop, it's gonna be a tear down.
 
EdFred said:
It wasn't intentional. Fuel starvation - sort of. I had 30 gallons left, it just wasn't 15 gallons on a side. Even though the fuel selector was set to both, it was only pulling from one side. So I had 0 in one tank, and 30 in the other. Took a few seconds to figure out which tank since the Piper fuel gauges suck and were bouncing all over.
Click to expand...

I think I was with you, yes?:hairraise:
 
Considering that a 3G yank on the yoke would have likely cleared the jam, and even if it wouldn't have, sucking it up and bellying it in would have done minimal damage that would have been insured and been very low risk of injury, it's relatively stupid. Where it ranks on the stupidity scale depends on how well the mechanic standing through the sunroof knew the capabilities of the pilot as well as the wind conditions. Personally I would have sucked the gear up and bellied it in and took the free overhaul or new engine.
 
HerrGruyere said:
Best to try to shut the engine down and bump the starter to get the prop in the right spot so it won't strike the ground when you land belly up!
Click to expand...


That's a lot more difficult than it sounds and it doesn't always work. The only time I intentionally shut down in the air was during a C150 checkout about 35 years ago, and we had to pull the nose up and get the airspeed on the edge of the stall and hold it there before it would stop windmilling. Not the best thing to have to do on final.

We had a 182RG on a trip to the US (we're Canucks) that ran into an owl shortly after takeoff at night. That bird caved the nose gear doors in and when they returned to the airport, the nosegear wouldn't come out. The doors had jammed it. They set up a higher approach, shut down, held the nose up to get the prop stopped, and bumped it level with the starter. As soon as the nose settled to the runway, the vibration and the residual compression in one cylinder turned the prop and ground a bunch off one blade. The insurance company paid for a whole teardown; they were worried about crank bending and cracking. Our guys might as well have landed with power in case they had to go around or got low on approach.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top