How do you forget to lower the gear?

blueskyMD said:
I have close to 2000 landings in retracts and I dont remember ever coming even close to gear up ( I am very forgetful BTW ) I attribute this to the initial training during my first complex checkout and the instructor drilled into me to lower the gear to slow down on downwind. So first thing I do when I start to slow down is to lower gear. I do this as second nature even if I am busy with other things.
Click to expand...
In my Mooney I have to slow way down to deploy the gear. I cruise 150-160 mph. Gear speed is 120 mph. Mooneys are slick, so this isn't the easiest thing to accomplish. I always know whether I've sucked up the gear on a go around, my right arm is sore. I actually did a go around last weekend and just left the gear down. Aircraft climbs like a dog, but it worked.
 
Never heard of GUMPPS, so it would be of little use - like every other acronym out there.
 
blueskyMD said:
I have close to 2000 landings in retracts and I dont remember ever coming even close to gear up ( I am very forgetful BTW ) I attribute this to the initial training during my first complex checkout and the instructor drilled into me to lower the gear to slow down on downwind. So first thing I do when I start to slow down is to lower gear. I do this as second nature even if I am busy with other things.
Click to expand...
Given that you are forgetful, how can you be certain that you were close to having a gear-up landing (or even did land with the gear up), and just don't remember it? :)

On the original topic of how you forget to lower the gear, it's really easy once you get through the first step, which is assuming that it can't happen to you.

I was thinking about this thread while doing a bunch of landings in my Arrow last week, because there is a feature of the plane that encourages you to tune out the gear horn. In my Arrow and probably others, if you have two notches of flaps and the gear up, the horn blares at you. The short and soft field takeoff procedures both call for two notches of flaps. If you dump flaps before raising the gear, you don't climb very well over the trees. So every short or soft field takeoff involves the gear horn blaring at you between gear retraction and flap retraction. It only takes one landing where you think that sound is normal for you to scrape the belly.

If you think it's far-fetched for people to tune out loud noises like that, spend a night in a house with a different surrounding than you're used to. Someone who lives next to the elevated railway will have trouble sleeping in a country house with owls hooting and crickets chirping, while the owner of the country house would have trouble sleeping next to the tracks. Neither of them is even aware of the noises when he sleeps at his own house, and the other will adjust within a couple of nights.

Now, add some distractions, a feature of most gear-up landings. The distraction can be as small as looking for where the avgas pumps are while you're on downwind or as big as holding a full barf bag between your legs, which was filled by the crying kid in the back seat while you have to go around when a spray plane takes off directly toward you when you're on short final with a failed alternator and a stiff breeze from the door not being fully latched.

If you haven't watched this video, I recommend it regardless of your feelings about Flight Chops:
 
Closest I came to a gear up was doing the "possible" turn after an engine failure after takeoff. I got realigned with the runway about 200' AGL and I'm running through my mental checks. What am I forgetting... oh yeah, gear. Fortunately, it comes down fast in the Navion.
 
The DC-3 vid isn’t the best example of a distraction resulting in loss of control. It simply highlights compartmentalization that pilots experience while flying, especially if in an unfamiliar aircraft. An extreme example could result in LOC but none of the CFIs were even remotely close to that. Any instructor who’s ever taken up a student and asked them questions while flying has seen this first hand. There are those who can’t really talk and fly at the same time. There are those that can reply to the questions but their heading, altitude, airspeed, etc. suffer. Then there are those who can answer questions with little or no degradation of aircraft control. Not everyone manages multitasking in the same way.

A good example of task saturation and failing to recognize indicators outside of the act of flying, is in Dick Rutan’s series Attitude Flying. In it, there is a vid of him testing a new rocket powered Long-EZ. He was so concentrated on his gauges and the act of flying, that he failed to recognize a fire warning light. Ended up being a false indication but shows how extreme task saturation funnels the brain down a path of what’s most important. Personally, I think if he had a audible indication of a fire vs visual, it would have gotten his attention and he would have aborted the take off.

I don’t know if @Timbeck2 or @Radar Contact agree, but I think having an ATC background made me a much better pilot. It forced my brain to think in a way I had never experienced before. It trained me into being not just a multitasker but a priority multitasker and problem solver. It was an experience that has carried over into my flying and has served me well.
 
Velocity173 said:
The DC-3 vid isn’t the best example of a distraction resulting in loss of control. It simply highlights compartmentalization that pilots experience while flying, especially if in an unfamiliar aircraft.
Click to expand...
I like the DC-3 video because it has DC-3's in it, and DC-3's are cool. It also makes its point by cycling several CFIs through the same scenario and showing that nobody is immune to (a) confirmation bias (saying "three green" when looking directly at an orange light because you expect the gear to be down) and (b) distraction (letting the airspeed get slow while staring at the gear light). Those are the same human shortcomings that answer the OP's question here about how you forget to put the gear down.

Velocity173 said:
I don’t know if @Timbeck2 or @Radar Contact agree, but I think having an ATC background made me a much better pilot. It forced my brain to think in a way I had never experienced before. It trained me into being not just a multitasker but a priority multitasker and problem solver. It was an experience that has carried over into my flying and has served me well.
Click to expand...
I have no ATC background but I suspect you're right. There are other ways to train the mind to triage problems while under the gun, but working in ATC is one of the few whose training input involves aviation-specific problems at realtime speed.
 
Kritchlow said:
That said, many small airplane guys do not abide by the “stabilized approach” method of thought, so perhaps 25 knots too fast on final is acceptable..??
Click to expand...
I think we just need to redefine "stabilised approach" for small aircraft. It shouldn't mean turning from base to final in a Cessna 150 at a small, uncontrolled airport almost two miles from the runway so that you can drag it in with a power-on final on a 3 deg glidepath, as if you were an airliner, while all the traffic stuck behind you in the downwind is fuming in frustration.

Maybe if we have a definition that works for small planes (e.g. not so flat a glidepath that you won't make the runway if the engine fails, etc) we'll see more enthusiastic adoption. I agree that stabilised is important, but it's not one-size-fits-all.
 
steingar said:
Too much time inside the cockpit. One should be sufficient if done correctly.
Click to expand...

One is not sufficient, in my opinion. It's a flow, not a checklist... and should be able to be accomplished in just a few seconds.

I have had great success with this method and recommend it strongly.
 
David Megginson said:
I think we just need to redefine "stabilised approach" for small aircraft. It shouldn't mean turning from base to final in a Cessna 150 at a small, uncontrolled airport almost two miles from the runway so that you can drag it in with a power-on final on a 3 deg glidepath, as if you were an airliner, while all the traffic stuck behind you in the downwind is fuming in frustration.

Maybe if we have a definition that works for small planes (e.g. not so flat a glidepath that you won't make the runway if the engine fails, etc) we'll see more enthusiastic adoption. I agree that stabilised is important, but it's not one-size-fits-all.
Click to expand...

I think we just need to respell it. :rolleyes:

When I fly a big plane, I fly a bigger pattern.
When I fly a small plane, I fly a smaller pattern.
When I fly a cub, I turn abeam the numbers.
When I fly a helicopter, I fly where ever I need to to avoid traffic and get as direct as possible to my point.

They are all stabilized.

You don't have to fly in a straight line or a 5 mile final to be stabilized. You do have to fly a constant, stable, rate of descent.
 
Last edited:
I fly my Mooney in a pretty wide pattern. Drives CFIs nuts. They tell me I should be near enough the runway to be able to land if the mill quits. My thinking is having the mill quit in the pattern is pretty rare. What isn’t rare is stall/spin accidents, which happens because of too much yanking and banking at low altitude and low energy. So I like a wider pattern for shallower banking on turns, so I don’t approach dangerous angles of attack.
 
steingar said:
I fly my Mooney in a pretty wide pattern. Drives CFIs nuts. They tell me I should be near enough the runway to be able to land if the mill quits. My thinking is having the mill quit in the pattern is pretty rare. What isn’t rare is stall/spin accidents, which happens because of too much yanking and banking at low altitude and low energy. So I like a wider pattern for shallower banking on turns, so I don’t approach dangerous angles of attack.
Click to expand...

It drives them nuts because they're worried about your safety.

It's not yanking and banking in the pattern that's killing people. It's flying to slow, close to a stall, then skidding the plane around (uncoordinated) trying to get the nose pointed towards the runway, and then the stall followed by a spin all at too low of an altitude.

It takes 2 things to spin an airplane. A stall, and being uncoordinated.

Keep it above stall speed and you can't stall (assuming you're not yanking on the yoke).
Keep it coordinated and you cant spin.

But here's a question for you. When do most engines fail?
 
Last edited:
Don’t know when engines fail. But I’ve looked up accidents, and stall/spin are a major reason for LOC. There is a limit to how far you can keep your speed up in a Mooney, since they don’t like to be landed fast. Give yourself a wider pattern and you’re less likely to overshoot, reducing the probability that you get uncoordinated. Were it simple there’d be no stall/spin accidents.

If you really want to know when engines fail ask Ron Wattanja. You’ll get a more detailed answer than you’ll probably like.
 
steingar said:
Don’t know when engines fail. But I’ve looked up accidents, and stall/spin are a major reason for LOC. There is a limit to how far you can keep your speed up in a Mooney, since they don’t like to be landed fast. Give yourself a wider pattern and you’re less likely to overshoot, reducing the probability that you get uncoordinated. Were it simple there’d be no stall/spin accidents.

If you really want to know when engines fail ask Ron Wattanja. You’ll get a more detailed answer than you’ll probably like.
Click to expand...

Most engines failures occur after a power change (excluding fuel starvation). You're doing plenty of those when landing.

Stall/spin is a result of LOC, not a reason for LOC. See post #213 above.

I know exactly how a Mooney flies. Just like every other airplane and helicopter out there. Pitch for airspeed, power for altitude.

Your Mooney has an approach speed. While in the pattern, you should always be close enough that in the event of an engine failure, you can pitch for best glide and make the runway. If you can't, you're doing it wrong. Also, if you can't, I'd recommend flying with someone who can, so you can learn.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
I fly my Mooney in a pretty wide pattern. Drives CFIs nuts. They tell me I should be near enough the runway to be able to land if the mill quits. My thinking is having the mill quit in the pattern is pretty rare. What isn’t rare is stall/spin accidents, which happens because of too much yanking and banking at low altitude and low energy. So I like a wider pattern for shallower banking on turns, so I don’t approach dangerous angles of attack.
Click to expand...
That's fine -- to each one's own -- but just how shallow do you need your banks? Flying downwind about 1/2 mile from the runway, and starting my turn to base about 1/2 mile past the threshold, I'm already using < 20 deg banks as it is with a circuit/pattern speed of 90 KIAS.
 
SToL said:
Most engines failures occur after a power change
Click to expand...
Prove that assertion. It's not even the correct misstatement of the "first power reduction failure" myth.
 
flyingron said:
Prove that assertion. It's not even the correct misstatement of the "first power reduction failure" myth.
Click to expand...

I've never seen any statistics on this so I can't prove it. I have heard this and pretty sure I've read it somewhere at least once although it may have been 30 years ago or longer. So, it's entirely possible that you are correct and it is a myth. Do you have any proof of that?

I can say that in the one engine failure I had, it did occur after a change in power. I would like to see statistics including pilot statements about what they did proceeding the failure.
 
This thread is suffering from an uncorrected xwind.

Anyhooo, I was browsing the Internet for pattern width information, and came across this seven year old PoA thread. Towards the end the argument got into where in-flight power loss occurs, and apparently it’s at cruise, statistically. You can read it if you are so inclined. I’m not saying I agree with it, because the data isn’t provided, so take it for what it’s worth.

However, I feel it should be mentioned, if you fly the downwind to a standard base turn such that the numbers are 45 degrees in relation to the plane you will need power to get back to the runway. Yes, it provides that stabilized approach but with partial power. If you argue that you wish to be within gliding distance at all times then power off 180s slightly past abeam the numbers are your friend.

To return to the thread topic, check that the undercarriage are down before it’s too late!
 
woodchucker said:
However, I feel it should be mentioned, if you fly the downwind to a standard base turn such that the numbers are 45 degrees in relation to the plane you will need power to get back to the runway.
Click to expand...

That depends a lot on...

1) The plane,and,

2) How much altitude you maintain through that part of the pattern.

Keep it high and turn towards the numbers immediately if the engine quits and a lot of planes can make it.
 
SToL said:
I've never seen any statistics on this so I can't prove it. I have heard this and pretty sure I've read it somewhere at least once although it may have been 30 years ago or longer. So, it's entirely possible that you are correct and it is a myth. Do you have any proof of that?

I can say that in the one engine failure I had, it did occur after a change in power. I would like to see statistics including pilot statements about what they did proceeding the failure.
Click to expand...
I've had two engine failures, none involved a power change, so there. One was in full power climb immediately after takeoff, one was 45 minutes in a steady cruise. I've had a few partial power failures, again without regard to power setting. One was a mag failure and the other was carb ice (at least I'm pretty sure that was what it was).

There's no conceivable physical reason nor documented statistics that supports your claim (or the more common claim that it's the "first power reduction" that is likely to cause problems).
 
Doug Reid said:
You probably have not flown complex airplanes for 50 years either :).
Click to expand...

That's a valid point, however, I flew 4 different planes in my primary training. A C150, C172 and C175 and a Citabria.

Obviously none of the complex and I was taught GUMPS from day one. Maybe that's why it's so ingrained in me today. I guess my instructor knew there was a good chance I'd be flying something more complex one day.
 
Doug Reid said:
You probably have not flown complex airplanes for 50 years either :).
Click to expand...
He said he never heard of GUMPPS. There are a lot of basic GUMP bastardizations I haven't heard of either, although I've heard my share. I recall coming across CGUMPFSS a few years ago.

Edit: Ah! I found it in my notes (computers mean never have to say ,"I threw it away")

BCCGUMPPFSS

It's an important one. So important you'll forget the gear just trying to remember it :D
 
Last edited:
Doug Reid said:
You probably have not flown complex airplanes for 50 years either :).
Click to expand...
I'm not even 50 yet, so no. But the majority of my flight time is in high performance and complex aircraft.
 
Some Canadian friends (who by the way have the best husband-wife cockpit management discipline I've ever seen) call it BUMPS.
 
And that's the problem with acronyms. There is no standard. One person says s stands for this another says P stands for this. Just remember what you have to do and not remember some acronym that you then have to try to remember if p stood for prop or pumps or position or whatever else.
 
EdFred said:
And that's the problem with acronyms. There is no standard. One person says s stands for this another says P stands for this. Just remember what you have to do and not remember some acronym that you then have to try to remember if p stood for prop or pumps or position or whatever else.
Click to expand...

The standard is GUMPS. The extra letters are just that, extras.

I guess I'm just so dim witted I don't find it all that difficult. It's easy for a simple guy like me to remember.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
And that's the problem with acronyms. There is no standard. One person says s stands for this another says P stands for this. Just remember what you have to do and not remember some acronym that you then have to try to remember if p stood for prop or pumps or position or whatever else.
Click to expand...
Maybe the second P stands for Parachute? So to land you just pull the parachute?
 
SToL said:
The standard is GUMPS. The extra letters are just that, extras.

I guess I'm just so dim witted I don't find it all that difficult. It's easy for a simple guy like me to remember.
Click to expand...

Yeah and is the p for pump or prop?

Is the s for switches or seatbelts?

I've heard both for each. Like I said, there is no standard.
 
EdFred said:
Yeah and is the p for pump or prop?

Is the s for switches or seatbelts?

I've heard both for each. Like I said, there is no standard.
Click to expand...

The-Struggle-is-real.jpg
 
Surely it matters not one iota what your version of BUMPS, GUMPS, FLUMPWS, FLATTIGIBOOBAP or whatever means - as long as it it relevant to the aircraft you’re flying today and is memorable (and includes the gear if required)

In terms of wide patterns vs narrow patterns I agree with the above that you’re more likely to die in the pattern from a stall/spin than an engine failure on downwind. HOWEVER... it will be mighty embarrassing to die from an engine failure on downwind if you can’t reach the runway.

Also I wish that we could move away from the “shallow turns are safe” philosophy. Shallow turns are NOT safe and encourage excessive rudder use. Rather do a proper, stable 30degree turn to final - just like all the other 30degree turns you do. Just my opinion which is worth nothing.
 
Mike Blackburn said:
In terms of wide patterns vs narrow patterns I agree with the above that you’re more likely to die in the pattern from a stall/spin than an engine failure on downwind. HOWEVER... it will be mighty embarrassing to die from an engine failure on downwind if you can’t reach the runway.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be the least embarrassed if a sudden, catastrophic, without warning, complete engine failure occurred on downwind and I didn't make the runway,

I'm not a fan of 737 patterns by a 152 and personal like my patterns tight but long ago rejected the idea the reason was the small and historically decreasing likelihood that the power plant was going to choose to quit in the last 90 seconds of a 2 hour flight.

...and if I died I'd be even less embarrassed :oops::p:rolleyes:
 
So just a couple of quick questions.

Besides when doing GUMP, who here refers to the landing gear as undercarriage rather than gear? We say main gear, nose gear, gear up, gear down, gear handle, gear horn, etc.

Also, when talking about the liquid that goes in the tanks, who routinely says gas rather than fuel? We typically say fuel tanks, fuel pump, fuel flow, fuel injected, fuel selector, etc.

That is something that has always bothered me about the acronym. It is so contrived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top