Bent Airplane *Long*

let me look troy, can probably find one somewhere. I agree it is a difficult mechanism to visualize (and to describe!)
 
jesse said:
It's pretty much impossible to teach without letting someone make mistakes. A good CFI will only take over to prevent an airplane from getting bent.

I agree that Tony did nothing wrong but I have to take issue with the statement that a good CFI will only take over to prevent an airplane from getting bent.

You probably didn't mean to make such an absolute statement but just in case...

A good CFI will not allow a student to practice mistakes. Often times quite a bit of good learning can take place simply by observing something done correctly.

I've struggled with this while not wanting to take the controls away so the student can get maximum stick time. This is especially compelling in glider training as each flight is time limited and we are always trying to cram a lot of the syllabus into each flight. In hindsite there are times I've taken this too far and a good demo would have been much more valuable.

I've heard that a lot of instructors hog the controls but I'm not one of them. Either extreme is less than optimal.

MM
Click to expand...
 
wby0nder said:
Agood CFI will not allow a student to practice mistakes.
Click to expand...

It really depends on how you want to define mistake. I've made 'mistakes' before that I will never make again. The reason I'll never make them again is because I made them once. That once taught me.

I don't think an instructor should let a student make the same mistake over and over without correcting them. But I also don't think that an instructor shouldn't let a student make mistakes. The important thing is to point out that it was a mistake.

I don't know your instruction style. But I'm willing to bet you have set your students up to make a mistake. I know I've had instructors, Tony included, set me up to fail. That 'failure' is what teaches me.
 
Last edited:
Total agreement. Some of the best-taught lessons are those where I rocked along, did what I *thought* was right, and learned the consequence of being wrong. If it can be done without bending skin or tin, then it's a great way to make an impression that will last.
 
I don't know your instruction style. But I'm willing to bet you have set your students up to make a mistake. I know I've had instructors, Tony included, set me up to fail. That 'failure' is what teaches me.[/quote]

I seldom if ever need to "set a student up" as they do a great job of setting themselves up. I think they learn more that way and spend less attention resenting me. It can be very useful to teach Judgement related skills in more advanced training especially with a student who may have some anti-authority or macho tendancies. It has no place with beginning students and has little utility in teaching basic control and maneuvers. If you allow a student to continue to exercise a flawed control input, reaction, or maneuver until they realize that it isn't the best thing to do it simply develops and reinforces a bad habit. That's what I mean by practicing mistakes.

It's also very important to point out when I, as instructor, make mistakes.

MM
 
Last edited:
NC Pilot said:
Keep in mind I am refering to the service manual for the 182 RG, not the 172 RG, but the landing gear for the 82 RG's were derived from the 172 RG design.
Click to expand...

Mark, can you scan a copy of the gear diagram if there is one? I'd like to see "how it works"... what I really need to do is find out when our FBO next has the TR182RG up on jacks, and go SEE it work, up close and personal.
 
Troy,

here is a picture of the nosegear downlock mechanism for the 182RG. You can easily see the two downlock pins. The gear retracts by moving the cylinder to the left in the picture. You can see the collar on the center of the picture (with the rounded edges). In my accident, after the pins had wiggled loose, that collar (which had square edges) caught the pin and prevented the hooks from latching onto the downlock pins. I was glad to see that the new collar had rounded edges at that may have made the difference.

DSC02104.jpg
 
Tony,

I just wanted to let you know that thanks to your post, I took the logs for our 172RG in, and found no evidence that the service bulletin had been complied with yet. I alerted our mechanic, who is taking care of it this week. One less RG to hopefully worry about.
 
kay - excellent! it really is a pretty easy and not that expensive SB to comply with, particularly considering the consequences of failure.
 
I got the prop!

It had been floating around the shop for a while and then one of our mechanics took it home while i was away on internship. no one knew what happened to it but i tracked it down. It'll be on display at my party on Saturday, if you come.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 5274S1.JPG
    5274S1.JPG
    557.1 KB · Views: 424
  • 5274S2.JPG
    5274S2.JPG
    549.8 KB · Views: 236
That is awesome, man. I want one.

...I just don't want to have to land the Mooney gear up to get it.
 
That'll buff right out.

tonycondon said:
I got the prop!

It had been floating around the shop for a while and then one of our mechanics took it home while i was away on internship. no one knew what happened to it but i tracked it down. It'll be on display at my party on Saturday, if you come.
Click to expand...
 
lancefisher said:
That'll buff right out.
Click to expand...
I would've liked to have my prop(s) as a souvenir but the took 5 of the six blades, buffed them out and put them back on. :eek:

I guess they were still within tolerance but it sure surprised me!
 
You never told us why it didn't lock down...?
 
yea its in there Tom.. and its also in the final NTSB report that I linked.

downlock pins cracked and wiggled loose enough to jam the actuator
 
tonycondon said:
and it looks like I'm famous. Somehow the FAA guy who looked at the plane decided that the damage was "substantial" Im not sure how he figured this, as the damage was limited to the cowling, landing gear doors, and engine. Doesnt sound like:



to me but oh well. I guess if they think its an accident then its an accident. Who cares about what the regulations read...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI07LA011&rpt=p
Click to expand...

If your firewall wasn't bent, it doesn't sound like substantial damage according to the very clear definitions in the passages you quoted. I would get it recorded as an incident because it could haunt your insurability in the future, not uninsurable, just maybe more expensive.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
If your firewall wasn't bent, it doesn't sound like substantial damage according to the very clear definitions in the passages you quoted. I would get it recorded as an incident because it could haunt your insurability in the future, not uninsurable, just maybe more expensive.
Click to expand...

ive gone through several insurance cycles since the incident and have never had any issue at all. except for the SSA group policy, which would not bring me on board until a year after the event. they wont insure anybody with ANY claim in the last year, no matter what the circumstances.
 
tonycondon said:
ive gone through several insurance cycles since the incident and have never had any issue at all. except for the SSA group policy, which would not bring me on board until a year after the event. they wont insure anybody with ANY claim in the last year, no matter what the circumstances.
Click to expand...

I was also thinking about possible future applications to companies that don't know you, and have their "rules". I'm often looking at worst case scenarios, glad you're not having any trouble.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
I was also thinking about possible future applications to companies that don't know you, and have their "rules". I'm often looking at worst case scenarios, glad you're not having any trouble.
Click to expand...
Applications for insurance or jobs will ask about accidents or incidents either within a specific time frame, or anytime in the past so you'll need to report it, but I don't think anyone cares about a gear up caused by a mechanical failure. I have one in the past too.
 
Everskyward said:
Applications for insurance or jobs will ask about accidents or incidents either within a specific time frame, or anytime in the past so you'll need to report it, but I don't think anyone cares about a gear up caused by a mechanical failure. I have one in the past too.
Click to expand...

I think if a job applicant with an "accident" on their history of any kind was bucking up against another job applicant with only an "incident" or nothing at all on their history, the non-accident one would win, ALL other factors being equal... Especially in larger organizations.
 
tonycondon said:
Actually, no Bill. I didnt. Like scott said above, the odds of a manual extension pushing it a little further than the regular system is slim to none. In the cessna's the manual pump is pretty much only useful for when you lose the hydraulic pump by either pump, motor, or electrical failure. If you lose the hydraulic fluid you are SOL. I feel that if the electrical/hydraulic pump wont do the job then the manual pump wouldnt either.
Click to expand...
About two years ago I was being checked out for insurance and HP endorsement in a 182RG. My second time up in the airplane we were doing practice landings at a nearby field and the green didn't come on though both mains were down and the mirror showed the nosegear as down as ever. My CFI said we should just land and I started to think that he had pulled the breaker or something and was trying to really test me, so I insisted we go through the whole checklist. We did, and pretty soon it was obvious that this was for real. The gear went up, then wouldn't come down. We did try the manual extension lever, actually I tried it, and gave up after about 40 strokes because it was too tight for me to pull. We decided to head back home and try to soft field it and then the CFI gave it one extra tug on final --- and the green light came on. It was still the best soft field landing I've ever done. The nosegear did not collapse and it was a non-event. Whew!

I learned about a week later that it turned out to be a loss of hydraulic fluid due to a leak. My memory is a little hazy but I remember that the CFI and the owner (neither of whom is an A/P) told me that there wasn't enough fluid for the hydraulic pump to operate but the system is designed so that the manual pump needs less. I don't know enough about the Cessna system to say whether that makes sense or not, but all I know is, trying the manual pump (and my CFI's muscle!) saved me from an incident and spared the FBO an expensive repair.

It probably wouldn't have made a difference in your case but I would have still tried it.
 
Last edited:
there is an emergency reservoir on the cessna gear which is there for exactly the situation you experienced. of course if the leak is in the right place on the system it wont matter because the emergency reservoir will just get pumped overboard too.
 
Wow tony that is a cool souvenir. I just don't know what is uglier....the prop or the rug it's sitting on :D
 
I think this airplane might be jinxed. I have had it scheduled for nearly a month for this coming week's trip to Alabama for turkey day. I got a phone call from the FBO this morning, and when I saw their number on caller ID, I had a sinking feeling in my gut. It turns out that, as the line guy was putting it away this weekend, he backed it into the APU and crushed the elevator trim tab. The chief pilot says "I would fly it, but it's probably not good to rent it out." The head mechanic says "Take it off the line, I'll put it on the list of 'to-do' items."

I went to the airport later this morning to rattle their cage and he head office lady said she would talk to the head mechanic (her dad) and get him to put the RG in the front of the 'to-do' list, but if they have to order a skin for it, there is no way it will be ready by Wednesday.

Fingers crossed for a miracle, but if the mechanics are already planning on a short work week, I'm guessing their "get it done" motivation will be below zero.

Suckorama.
 
Wow Chris, that really sucks. Hopefully they get it fixed in time, but it sounds unlikely. :(

That airplane seems to have been through a lot of hard knocks over its life. Good thing it's built like a 2500HD overall.
 
tonycondon said:
ah crap chris, hopefully they can get it worked out :(
Click to expand...

Just got a call back from them. They said they ordered the trim tab from Cessna, and are hoping it will get here tomorrow. If so, we'll be golden. If you could pick that up while you're down there, that would be grrrrreeeeaaaattt.... ha!
 
CJones said:
Just got a call back from them. They said they ordered the trim tab from Cessna, and are hoping it will get here tomorrow. If so, we'll be golden. If you could pick that up while you're down there, that would be grrrrreeeeaaaattt.... ha![/quoted]

did you ask jeff if he looked at the flap rigging? this could be a good opportunity to check that out.
Click to expand...
 
tonycondon said:
did you ask jeff if he looked at the flap rigging? this could be a good opportunity to check that out.
Click to expand...

No I didn't. I'm afraid to. I'm worried that if they start getting into something else, they'll not be able to get it back together in time. The fewer items that are taken apart, the fewer that have to be replaced in such a short time-frame. ;)
 
Just got a call from the FBO. They had the shop drop everything else to put on the new elevator trim tab so I could have the plane for tomorrow. As of 4:21 this afternoon, it is back in action! WOOHOO! Thanks to Hap's for great service once again!
 
Woohoo! That's great news, Chris!

That poor 182RG has seen a lot, but it sure is a solid plane. See you Saturday! :yes:
 
woodstock said:
...snip...I guess I'm not going to buy a retractable gear airplane.
Click to expand...
Why not? Things break. It happens. The best you can hope for is you're as calm as Tony appeared to be and as prepared as Tony seems to be.
Good job, Tony. Glad you made it through okay.
 
tonycondon said:
Actually, no Bill. I didnt. Like scott said above, the odds of a manual extension pushing it a little further than the regular system is slim to none. In the cessna's the manual pump is pretty much only useful for when you lose the hydraulic pump by either pump, motor, or electrical failure. If you lose the hydraulic fluid you are SOL. I feel that if the electrical/hydraulic pump wont do the job then the manual pump wouldnt either. Unfortunately Cessna didnt make their system dirt simple like Piper, so that you just relieve the pressure and let gravity do the rest. I suspect this had somethign to do with the way the gear has to articulate to retract and extend. It sure is ugly to watch from outside.
Click to expand...

A couple thoughts...
- When the gear motor is operating, watch your ammeter. As the hydraulic pressure increases when the gear is down and locked, the current draw will rise. If you do not get the high current draw prior to the gear motor shut off, you may not be getting full pressure to get the gear in the lock position.
- Pull the circuit breaker, pump the handle. That's why its there.
- Go high, perform a full stall, let the speed build a little, pull to recover.
- Take a Bonanza course. The most frequent cause of gear up landings in a Bonanza is failure to lower the gear after a go-around. Put it down once, leave it down.
- If you don't get a light, always accept that it is not locked. Pull the mixture, mags off, master off when the mains are on. It's 50/50 the gear will collapse. Leave it on the runway.
 
john smith said:
The most frequent cause of gear up landings in a Bonanza is failure to lower the gear after a go-around. Put it down once, leave it down.
Click to expand...
The way I was taught in 172RGs and 182RGs was to leave the gear down. The reason was not because of forgetting to put it back down though. The reason is that for those two models when the gear is in the 'in between' up or down state the drag is tremendous. So raising the gear on a go around can loose you valuable altitude and speed.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top