Forced landing: Gear Up or Gear Down?

Challenged

Challenged

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,901
Location
Louisiana
Display Name
Display name:
Challenged
Situation: When flying a retractable gear airplane, and you need to make a forced off-airport landing, in what terrain and conditions (environment and/or airplane) would you land with the gear up, as opposed to down?
 
Anything approaching a reasonable field would be gear down for me, but the navion gear is pretty stout (and big tires) and I land on grass all the time.
 
Challenged said:
Situation: When flying a retractable gear airplane, and you need to make a forced off-airport landing, in what terrain and conditions (environment and/or airplane) would you land with the gear up, as opposed to down?
Click to expand...

Knowing the empty crop land around the delta is all muddy. I go with the gear up. A nice empty highway I'd go gear down, knowing where you are landing is the key.
 
flyingron said:
Anything approaching a reasonable field would be gear down for me, but the navion gear is pretty stout (and big tires) and I land on grass all the time.
Click to expand...
Do you mean groomed turf fields? Other than sod farms, every pasture, open field, or meadow I have seen is not near as smooth as it looks. Usually there are hidden dangers even for trucks or ATVs.

I seem to recall Navions have a history of problems with the nose wheel trunion. I don't recall if that extends across all models and all Rangemasters.

A great thing about Navions is they're built like tanks. And in the landing configuration the stall speed is low.
 
Depends on the surface that touchdown will occur in! B)
Sod Farm=Down
Road=Down
Trees=Up
Corn=up
Water=up
Rough Fields=:dunno: Flip a coin, prolly up
 
Just offhand I would land gear up in water or swamp, down everywhere else.
 
Everskyward said:
Just offhand I would land gear up in water or swamp, down everywhere else.
Click to expand...

That's what I'd do.

I don't care about ripping the gear off, that's just more energy absorbed by something other than me.


I do care about being tumbled, so for ditchings I'd leave it up.
 
Richard said:
I seem to recall Navions have a history of problems with the nose wheel trunion. I don't recall if that extends across all models and all Rangemasters.
Click to expand...
Not to my knowledge. The week parts in the nose gear are primarily in the retract linkage and a few faults (especially on those that have been geared up in the past) in the top of the fork (where the big hole is to attach it to the gear leg).

But I'd still take my chances on mud and chuckholes in a field with the mains and take my chances on the nose gear. I might not do so on other planes.
 
I don't have any canned answers. I start by knowing the recommendations in the POH for that aircraft, then I apply those recommendations to the conditions at hand and make my decision accordingly.
 
TMetzinger said:
I don't care about ripping the gear off, that's just more energy absorbed by something other than me.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but at least in the Cardinal, that big nosegear door in the wind helps to dissipate energy long before the impact. Anytime speed is a liability, it's gear down for me -- with the exception of a ditching, to lessen the chances of getting flipped.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't have any canned answers. I start by knowing the recommendations in the POH for that aircraft, then I apply those recommendations to the conditions at hand and make my decision accordingly.
Click to expand...
Absent of testing for forced landings, isn't the POH recommendation a canned answer? Ok, so it is a recommendation made by someone smarter than me but on what basis is the recommendation made?

WRT forced landings, what does NDT prove?
 
azure said:
Not only that, but at least in the Cardinal, that big nosegear door in the wind helps to dissipate energy long before the impact. Anytime speed is a liability, it's gear down for me -- with the exception of a ditching, to lessen the chances of getting flipped.
Click to expand...
Gear door or not, every wing has a Vso.
 
if the gear catch on something hard/going fast enough to rip off they will dissipate energy. but if they catch on something not hard/fast enough to rip off they will just really screw up your landing. spin sideways, flip over, whats your flavor? There was Navajo that crashed north of Des Moines several years ago that went in a dirt field with the gear down and ended up upside down with two dead guys on board. if I have the choice and have any idea that the surface is soft I will leave the gear up.
 
Richard said:
Absent of testing for forced landings, isn't the POH recommendation a canned answer? Ok, so it is a recommendation made by someone smarter than me but on what basis is the recommendation made?
Click to expand...
The AFM says for the CE-680 says, in a CYA move:

If neither engine starts
12. Landing Gear - As Required, Use Blowdown :idea:

For ditching it says:

"The airplane is not certified for ditching under 12 CFR 25.801. Ditching tests were not conducted during certification testing of the airplane. Should ditching be required, the following procedures are recommended."

6. Landing Gear - UP
 
flyingmoose said:
Depends on the surface that touchdown will occur in! B)
Sod Farm=Down
Road=Down
Trees=Up
Corn=up
Water=up
Rough Fields=:dunno: Flip a coin, prolly up
Click to expand...

Same thoughts for me. The nose gear on my Mooney will fold pretty easily with a good whack compared to the main gear...so it'll stay up. Hate to have the nose collapse and end up with the dirty side up... :(

Brian
 
I went through every AFM I've got, and all of the retracts have the same cop-out:

Landing Gear - AS REQUIRED.

Which puts it back in my court.

So I stick by my answer - gear down except for watery surfaces, and land at the slowest speed possible.

If there's a study showing that gear-up works better, I'd be swayed by it.
 
What's the point of certifying a plane for ditching? If you have to do it, it's probably going to happen anyway whether you want to or not.
 
Challenged said:
Situation: When flying a retractable gear airplane, and you need to make a forced off-airport landing, in what terrain and conditions (environment and/or airplane) would you land with the gear up, as opposed to down?
Click to expand...

Landing on a tilled field or something like a corn field I would land with the rows and gear up. Basically, soft ground where the gear may dig in and flip the plane over. If it is hard ground then the gear can be helpful. Either way, the best bet is when in doubt land gear up. Your more concerned about your life then property at that point. If you don't know what kind of shape a field is in, the safest bet it to go gear up. If you make the wrong choice and go gear down you could find yourself upside down and on fire :yikes:
 
Fly a fixed gear RV and then you don't have to worry about it! :rofl:


Okay, you guys knew it was coming..... didn't you? :yesnod:
 
Geico266 said:
Fly a fixed gear RV and then you don't have to worry about it! :rofl:


Okay, you guys knew it was coming..... didn't you? :yesnod:
Click to expand...
Fly an RV you better worry about it. Don't RVs make forced landings as often as overhead breaks?

You knew that was coming...didn't you?
 
If it aint ment to be landed or driven on gear up.

I have insurance for a reason and have made the decision that it's the insurance company's plane as soon as something goes wrong.

I dont care one bit how badly I hurt it so longs as I'm ok.
 
Skylane81E said:
If it aint ment to be landed or driven on gear up.

I have insurance for a reason and have made the decision that it's the insurance company's plane as soon as something goes wrong.

I dont care one bit how badly I hurt it so longs as I'm ok.
Click to expand...


It just sucks, though, that despite our best efforts we can't always control things. I've lost a couple friends (not close) to aviation accidents over the years. The most avoidable was the suicide, the least avoidable was the engine failure (new engine had only 40 hrs on it, defect in the cam). The engine failure resulted in the guy trying to put it down in a soy bean field, but the 172 flipped and caught on fire. He was trapt inside. Great pilot too, he just happened to hit some spot in the field and it grabbed his nose wheel.

Bob
 
Richard said:
My point was a gear door can help you get to Vso at a faster rate but you're no longer flying below Vso. I'd much rather fly into a forced landing than drop in.
Click to expand...
So would I and I'm not advocating stalling the plane before the last few seconds. But when the time comes, the quicker I can get down to minimum controllable airspeed the better, and having less speed to dissipate in the final seconds seems like a plus to me. Maybe I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.
 
I like flying low. Even still, maneuvering for a forced landing doesn't need to be all *******s and elbows. For me, I'll remain at best glide right to the landing...with exception.

The exception is do I want to loiter or do I want to get down right NOW?
 
Take it for what it's worth, but my new boss told me that if I ever had to land out, and did so with the gear down (on anything but a road, private strip or dry lake bed) I'd be fired immediately, no matter how flat it looked from 800'. If i did so, with the gear up, he'd be glad to find us another airplane. (The airplanes are all taildraggers however)
 
azure said:
Not only that, but at least in the Cardinal, that big nosegear door in the wind helps to dissipate energy long before the impact. Anytime speed is a liability, it's gear down for me -- with the exception of a ditching, to lessen the chances of getting flipped.
Click to expand...
One thing to consider is that we rarely practice gear up landings so things will seem rather different in terms of drag, touchdown sight picture, and control once down if you put it down with the gear up. I also favor the notion that the gear will absorb a lot more vertical energy if the ground isn't nice and flat. If you've ever "crashed" while skiing fast through moguls I think you can appreciate the difference between taking the bumps by flexing your legs vs the soft tissue behind your pelvis (or worse yet on your chest).
 
lance your vertical energy should be no greater in a forced landing than during a normal landing. I'd be much more worried about the extended gears effect on your horizontal motion (i.e. translating horizontal motion into rotation) than it being a vertical "crumple zone"
 
tonycondon said:
lance your vertical energy should be no greater in a forced landing than during a normal landing. I'd be much more worried about the extended gears effect on your horizontal motion (i.e. translating horizontal motion into rotation) than it being a vertical "crumple zone"
Click to expand...
Not true if the landing surface isn't flat and flatness is difficult to judge from the air with some ground covers. Hitting a 2 ft high berm with the fuselage while traveling forward at 50 Kt is going to give you something like a 20-25g hit on your backside. With the gear down it should be more like 3-5g and it will kill a significant amount of forward energy whether or not the gear legs get ripped off.
 
gismo said:
Not true if the landing surface isn't flat and flatness is difficult to judge from the air with some ground covers. Hitting a 2 ft high berm with the fuselage while traveling forward at 50 Kt is going to give you something like a 20-25g hit on your backside. With the gear down it should be more like 3-5g and it will kill a significant amount of forward energy whether or not the gear legs get ripped off.
Click to expand...

With conventional gear, however, there is also a higher chance of being flipped over. When on fire that is not a good position to be in.

What it really boils down to is a combination of two things: Good decision making, and pure luck.

One guy may hit the berm and have a good outcome, the next guy may hit it just a little differently and find the plane is flipped or spun violently. I think there is always more luck than skill involved in many accidents/avoiding tragedy!
 
I generally favor gear down, on the same physics analysis Lance just posted. Situation may vary, of course.
 
Richard said:
Fly an RV you better worry about it. Don't RVs make forced landings as often as overhead breaks?

You knew that was coming...didn't you?
Click to expand...

RV pilots are so good they land inverted during emergencies that call for gear up landings.
 
In a forced landing better to run off the end of a field at 20mph than hit short at 70 mph, with the gear up you wont slide very far.
 
TMetzinger said:
I don't care about ripping the gear off, that's just more energy absorbed by something other than me. I do care about being tumbled, so for ditchings I'd leave it up.
Click to expand...
I'll second that. I'm all for having something other than me absorb a bunch of excess energy.
 
flyingmoose said:
Depends on the surface that touchdown will occur in! B)
Sod Farm=Down
Road=Down
Trees=Up
Corn=up
Water=up
Rough Fields=:dunno: Flip a coin, prolly up
Click to expand...
+1 for all except rough fields. I'd want the gear to take away some energy before all those rocks etc start ripping through the cabin.

To this list I'd add gear up into a bean field. But if you can tell it's a bean field when you're far enough for it to matter you have better eyesight than me!
 
Ken Ibold said:
+1 for all except rough fields. I'd want the gear to take away some energy before all those rocks etc start ripping through the cabin.

To this list I'd add gear up into a bean field. But if you can tell it's a bean field when you're far enough for it to matter you have better eyesight than me!
Click to expand...

Another reason I would default to gear up. A gear up landing, if controlled, isn't particularly hazardous to the meat bags inside.

And as a bonus I'll glide further if needed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top