gear indication

U

Unregistered

Guest
Pilot preflights a twin engine retractable gear aircraft and determines all is well for flight. The plan is to fly to one airport about an hour away, pick up some friends and travel to another airport another hour and a half further away.

Pilot verifies three green before landing and lands uneventfully. Pilot taxis to ramp and notices that the nosewheel steering is no longer functional. He uses differential power and braking and proceeds to the ramp without a problem. Pilot checks all linkages, verifying that all is well, picks up his passengers and proceeds to take off.

After rotation, he notices that the anti-retraction squat system has engaged the gear handle lever to prevent the gear from being retracted. He slides the lock aside to retract the gear and raises the gear normally. All seems well. The "all up" gear indicator is illuminated and the flight progress normally.

At the destination airport, when the gear are extended, all seems normal, except he has no nose gear indicator light. He checks everything, including the light bulb, and everything seems to be in order. It is dark, so he cannot see the nose gear in the reflection. He chooses to do a low pass, to do a go around and cycle the gear again, and ask the tower if they can see his gear. They cannot, but an army helo with Night Vision Goggles verifies that the gear all seem down properly on the next low pass. He goes around again and lands uneventfully.

Unfortunately, during the two patterns and low passes, the tower calls out the crash trucks, and they line the runway on both sides and follow him down the runway to his parking spot. He thanks them all, fills out some information on the police record, and tends to the passengers and his aircraft.

Who is responsible for the costs of dispatching these trucks? Is there likely to be any repercussions from this episode?

More information on this later......
 
I've seen the crash trucks rolled for a couple of emergencies that turned out OK. What I've seen is the pilot sign a form on a clipboard, probably a liability release of some sort, shake hands with the crews, and get on with his life.

The city or municipality is paying those crews to do their jobs - I doubt there is going to be a bill or any other issues from them.
 
Unregistered said:
Who is responsible for the costs of dispatching these trucks? Is there likely to be any repercussions from this episode?
Click to expand...

I will let others disect the rest of this. To answer the question, those firefighters live for that kind of stuff. That is what they are there for.

As for repercussions, on the face of it, there probably will be none. But there is always the possibility that the feds will look into it deeper.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
As for repercussions, on the face of it, there probably will be none. But there is always the possibility that the feds will look into it deeper.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly, but I feel as if they may investigate as to why he decided it would be a good idea to depart again without functioning nosewheel steering.
 
Arbiter419 said:
My thoughts exactly, but I feel as if they may investigate as to why he decided it would be a good idea to depart again without functioning nosewheel steering.
Click to expand...

Yup - that. I'm good with this scenario right up to the point of departing again after the differential braking parking routine, without a mechanic checking it out and a taxi-test at a minimum, preferably once around the pattern with a gear cycle. Absolutely no way would I disengage the lock to raise the gear if the squat lock is active, it's time right there to find out why.
 
I declared an emergency in Daytona Beach in late December due to oil pressure indication.
ATC ROCKED! talked me to final (I was making power) rolled trucks and all...

When I stopped, the guy with the clipboard asked me for identifying data, confirmed I was well and off he went....the guys on the trucks were sincere in their interest to see that "man and machine" were OK...

Have not and do not expect to hear from this ever again...
 
airguy said:
Yup - that. I'm good with this scenario right up to the point of departing again after the differential braking parking routine, without a mechanic checking it out and a taxi-test at a minimum, preferably once around the pattern with a gear cycle. Absolutely no way would I disengage the lock to raise the gear if the squat lock is active, it's time right there to find out why.
Click to expand...
Yeah. AFS 600 is gonna have a problem with that departure.....
 
Bonanza I was flying (not mine, thanks) refused to give gear down indication; after flying a few miles away to orbit and check a few things, I came on in to land, still no green lights. I never declared, but the tower asked souls and fuel, and there were crash trucks at the arrival end of the runway.

Landed, and as I took the turn-off, the gear lights came on (!). Trucks followed me to parking, I signed off on some paperwork showing who I was, all that. I apologized for wasting the firefighters' time, they laughed and said they were bored silly most of the time, this is what they're here for, don't worry about it. Great guys (and gal).

They'd rather roll without need, than not be there when needed. Works for me.
 
I have had the trucks rolled on quite a few occasions. The right engine on the Learjet has to be swung out on its mount for certain servicing. The bleed air lines never seem to go back on tight enough. In flight it sets off the engine fire light. No fire but just a lot of hot air near the engine fire loops. In any event I always declare an emergency on my way back to the airport. They always roll the trucks. The FD always takes a report. I am yet to have ever heard back from those times or any of the other ones. The public service guys have to account for their operations.
 
Unregistered said:
Pilot verifies three green before landing and lands uneventfully. Pilot taxis to ramp and notices that the nosewheel steering is no longer functional. He uses differential power and braking and proceeds to the ramp without a problem. Pilot checks all linkages, verifying that all is well, picks up his passengers and proceeds to take off.
Click to expand...
Poor decision.
Unregistered said:
Unfortunately, during the two patterns and low passes, the tower calls out the crash trucks, and they line the runway on both sides and follow him down the runway to his parking spot. He thanks them all, fills out some information on the police record, and tends to the passengers and his aircraft.
Click to expand...
Why is that unfortunate? That is their job. You could have needed them. You should be appreciative, not annoyed.
 
Assume it was an Aerostar or plane with similar system with steering power from other than rudder pedal linkage? Otherwise it should have worked if all was normal? Is it your plane? Has problem been diagnosed?
 
I did some training with the BWI CFR guys back when I was in a neighboring volunteer fire department. They have 30 SECONDS to be ON THE SCENE of an airplane crash to have any effectiveness in the case of fire. I don't begrudge them any thing they can do to get a jump on the response time.

I had some electrical problems right after takeoff at MRB a few years ago and told the tower I was returning to land but killing the master. On approach I could see the ANG fire brigade heading out to the end of the runway. I was just afraid they were going to drown me in foam before I could tell them that there wasn't a problem.

It had zero impact on anything, I gave them my name and phone number for their report but never heard anything about it.
 
I've been in a biplane that declared an emergency. The trucks were called but we landed safely. One of them came up to us and just asked the pilot for his information. He wrote some notes down, shook hands, and that was end of story.

They are there to help you and are already getting paid. I'm sure they even liked the practice as long as no one gets hurt. It's not like an ambulance where someone has to pay to ride.
 
No idea on who pays for rolling the trucks. Probably not the pilot, seeing as I think they're required to do at least so many practice rolls a day.

But, I would've asked for them if they were available in that situation. There could've been good use for them.

About a month and a half ago, I was flying home from New Jersey and heard an airliner with a flaps inop failure, and was going to have to come in hot - about 190 KIAS. Not a lot of wind, so they weren't going to get much help there. Very calmly and professionally, the pilot declared an emergency, gave the souls and fuel info, asked for the trucks to be ready and rolling after him. At the end, he asked the trucks to inspect the landing gear to make sure no fires were starting. The whole thing was conducted as a non-event.

I think too often, pilots are afraid of being cheap or potential repercussions from not asking for assistance. That's the whole reason it's there. Even if they charged me for it, I'd happily take the charge for not using the service than need it and have it free.
 
Arbiter419 said:
My thoughts exactly, but I feel as if they may investigate as to why he decided it would be a good idea to depart again without functioning nosewheel steering.
Click to expand...
I can see the potential for a 91.7 violation (and probably a 91.13 charge, to boot) if the FSDO gets involved and the full story is learned. Probably not a wise choice on that pilot's part to take off with a known unairworthy aircraft and then invite ATC attention to the fact.

That said, I've never heard of anyone charged for the equipment being rolled, but the CFR crew collecting data from the pilot seems to be standard procedure -- BTDT, no repercussions (but no deliberate violation of the regs, either).
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
No idea on who pays for rolling the trucks. Probably not the pilot, seeing as I think they're required to do at least so many practice rolls a day.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'd imagine those guys would rather be out doing something possibly productive rather than just drilling all the time.
 
Arbiter419 said:
My thoughts exactly, but I feel as if they may investigate as to why he decided it would be a good idea to depart again without functioning nosewheel steering.
Click to expand...

With pax on board, no less. That made my WTF buzzer go off.

As to the original question, it will depend on the locality. Some places now charge for EMS ambulance runs (and limit the charge to whatever insurance will cover), but generally for fire response there's no charge unless fraud or criminal conduct is involved.
 
I've had the 'equipment rolled' a few times, sometimes they asked if I wanted it, sometimes not. I've never seen a bill for it. The crews always seemed to be happy to get to roll so it's not a service I decline easily. Once coming into LGB OEI everything was fine, I was 15 kts above Blue Line holding altitude with throttle and prop in reserve; yet when tower asked if I wanted them to roll the equipment I responded, "hell yeah, I may screw this up yet."
 
Last edited:
The other day, someone came in reporting smoke in the cockpit. Didn't declare an emergency, when asked if they wanted the trucks rolled, pilots said "No." This wasn't a good idea.

But, the truck guys heard the conversation on the radio, and rolled themselves anyway. Good on 'em.
 
Not sure if it matters but what part of FARs were they operating under? Is there a MEL CLD reference? Sometimes there are specific instructions for Maint, OPS etc defined for valid deactivation. I don't know where responsibilities change for taxi vs flight when carrying passengers for revenue. What type aircraft has that system?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The other day, someone came in reporting smoke in the cockpit. Didn't declare an emergency, when asked if they wanted the trucks rolled, pilots said "No." This wasn't a good idea.

But, the truck guys heard the conversation on the radio, and rolled themselves anyway. Good on 'em.
Click to expand...

The guys I know roll at any excuse for something to do besides cook, eat, clean, and polish.
 
kontiki said:
Not sure if it matters but what part of FARs were they operating under? Is there a MEL CLD reference? Sometimes there are specific instructions for Maint, OPS etc defined for valid deactivation. I don't know where responsibilities change for taxi vs flight when carrying passengers for revenue. What type aircraft has that system?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter a lot what Part they're flying -- even 91.213 includes the rules about which you're speaking, and I doubt there's any aircraft with nose wheel steering for which it's an acceptable item in an MEL or for which it's not listed as an R-item in the Equipment List.
 
bbchien said:
Yeah. AFS 600 is gonna have a problem with that departure.....
Click to expand...

bbchien said:
Local FSDO inspector.....Oh. it's 800.
Click to expand...

Rotor&Wing said:
Another "Huh?".

How does 800 play into this? I understand the local FSDO part.
Click to expand...


bbchien said:
http://directory.faa.gov/appspub/National/EmployeeDirectory/FAADIR.nsf/(CreateOrgChart)?OpenAgent&3/AOA-001/AVS-001/AFS-001&ZV=C12

I forget what his numerical designation is. But for this they all report to Rick Domingo....and his boss John Allen.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out the point you're trying to make here. :dunno:

Who are you implying "reports" to Rick Domingo? And what does AFS-800 have to do with this?

Rick Domingo is the Region Manager for Northwest Mountain Region.

In the OP was it stated this took place in the Northwest Mountain Region? :dunno:
 
There is no point other than that Flight Standards is not going to like departure with a known gear problem.

I do a fair amount of "panel" work. Last I spoke to Rick he was flight Standards - that was about four months ago (looks around to try to find the guy's card). The FSDOs report to this group (to Mr. Allen), if I've got it right.

I don't know the fellow well enough to call and say, "hey, where are you at these days...".

You do NOT depart, however, with a known deficiency (well, MELs excluded).
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
There is no point other than that Flight Standards is not going to like departure with a known gear problem.
Click to expand...

I understand all of that. It would fall under the local FSDO to investigate if it became known. If an enforcement was to happen that goes to the Region office over the FSDO.

bbchien said:
I do a fair amount of "panel" work. Last I spoke to Rick he was flight Standards - that was about four months ago (looks around to try to find the guy's card). The FSDOs report to this group (to Mr. Allen), if I've got it right.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have part of this right. Flight Standards is a large division of the FAA. Mr Domingo is not Flight Standards, but a Regional Manager for Flight Standards, that being the Northwest Mountain Region.

I was confused when you through "AFS-800" into the mix. They are in the policy branch and do not perform investigations.

General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800

1.General Aviation and Commercial Division. The General Aviation and Commercial Division is:

a.Responsible for regulations and policy recommendationsgoverning the certification, inspection, and surveillance of general aviation airmen, DPEs, general aviation air agencies (pilot schools), commercial operations (rotorcraft external-load, agricultural, part 125 operators, part 91, corporate, business, personal and recreational, part 91subpart K (part 91K) fractional ownership) and public aircraft operations. The division is the focal point for the aviation community at the national level on matters pertaining to general aviation affairs and sport aviation (excluding light sport pilot). Provides oversight of the headquarters (HQ) regional 4040 flight proficiency program. The division is also the FAA focal point for general aviation safety outreach and education through the FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam) and the FAA Safety Briefing magazine.

b.With respect to the foregoing, the division:

(1) Develops and recommends national policies, standards, systems, procedures, and program plans to include international operation activities.
(2) Determines the need for, justifies, and formulates new or amended regulations and supplementary regulatory material; participates in regulatory review programs; recommends grants or denials of exemptions; and develops OpSpecs.
(3) Advises the Director, Associate Administrator, and other principal officials, and serves as a central point of contact for the public and the aviation community on matters appropriate to the national level.
(4) Participates in the analysis and evaluation of field execution of programs.
(5) Determines the need for, and recommends research and development projects.
(6) Guides and assists the other divisions, the regions, and other elements of the agency in the implementation and conduct of related programs, and provides guidance on applying agency policies, standards, and procedures pertaining to safety issues.
(7) Develops, coordinates, and issues national directives to provide technical guidance on policies and procedures.
(8) Recommends, initiates, and coordinates regulatory and policy actions to resolve safety problems resulting from accidents, incidents, or other sources.
(9) Leads FAA efforts in general aviation safety outreach and education through direction of the FAASTeam. Further, AFS-800 coordinates with the Director, Flight Standards Service (AFS-1) to ensure the AFS vision is exemplified and conveyed through the FAASTeam. The division is also responsible for ongoing coordination, (i.e., quarterly meetings with AFS-300 and annual meetings with the Regional Division Managers), to ensure information sharing and alignment of the FAASTeam’s business plan and ongoing outreach efforts.

c.Provides liaison between FAA and other offices for general aviation issues regarding airspace rules, air carrier interface, pilot certification, human factors, and other vital topics.

d.Facilitates and coordinates concerns of the aviation community to assure general aviation views are considered in air traffic rules and aviation safety regulatory actions.

e.Develops, coordinates, and recommends career development programs to ensure organizational competence for employees of this division.

bbchien said:
I don't know the fellow well enough to call and say, "hey, where are you at these days...".
Click to expand...

He's located in the FAA Directory, Online.

bbchien said:
You do NOT depart, however, with a known deficiency (well, MELs excluded).
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Again, this becomes an issue with the local FSDO where the event took place, if discovered.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
And when people are speaking in cryptic babble it's difficult to ascertain what they are really trying to say.
Click to expand...
I was feeling anxious to get to the 'meat' of the story and without delay. Just the facts, as it were. Where it comes to AFS, I admit to a lack of knowledge. I rely on 'others' to inform me of the ins and outs of which I am not privy. I did not intend offense.
 
Richard said:
I was feeling anxious to get to the 'meat' of the story and without delay. Just the facts, as it were. Where it comes to AFS, I admit to a lack of knowledge. I rely on 'others' to inform me of the ins and outs of which I am not privy. I did not intend offense.
Click to expand...


no problem. ;)
 
Ron Levy said:
Probably not a wise choice on that pilot's part to take off with a known unairworthy aircraft and then invite ATC attention to the fact.
Click to expand...

No... Only the first half was unwise. The second half was very wise.

In other words, it's much better to be in trouble than to be injured or dead.

Often, pilots put far too much stock into the "trouble" part of the equation, and they end up injured or dead instead.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
No... Only the first half was unwise. The second half was very wise.

In other words, it's much better to be in trouble than to be injured or dead.

Often, pilots put far too much stock into the "trouble" part of the equation, and they end up injured or dead instead.
Click to expand...

Agreed, taking a known broken airplane into the air is bad enough, but with passengers!...

But when in doubt ALWAYS ask for help! "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by six" applies here.
 
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