Gear up landing in Maryland yesterday

As far as I can remember about 100% of the times my single engine prop would stop vertically. Can't believe 2 props stopped horizontally. In any case, great skills and very well done.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
As far as I can remember about 100% of the times my single engine prop would stop vertically. Can't believe 2 props stopped horizontally. In any case, great skills and very well done.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

I think he was fortunate that both props stopped where they did. That part wasn't due to skill, but everything else looked great.
 
I think he was fortunate that both props stopped where they did. That part wasn't due to skill, but everything else looked great.
Yah I realize stopping the prop is more luck than skill, but kudos to him for staying that calm and landing on the centerline. I am still trying to hold the centerline..... with the props spinning... or may be that's the problem

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Yah I realize stopping the prop is more luck than skill, but kudos to him for staying that calm and landing on the centerline. I am still trying to hold the centerline..... with the props spinning... or may be that's the problem

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

It's funny how emergencies sometimes enable you to nail it. I think it's the concentration to get back on the ground safely in addition to using the appropriate checklists, use all and everyone's help, and then execute it.
 
He was smooth as silk in all parts involved.

Had that been me there would have been two sets of skid marks.
 
He was smooth as silk in all parts involved.

Had that been me there would have been two sets of skid marks.

Well they didn't follow him to the bathroom, so we'll never know. ;):D
 
Both engines stopping props horizontal. What are the odds? Whatever they are he beat them. Good job. His insurance company should lower his premiums for life. They raise them when you make claims and cost them money so why not the other way around. Anyway, someones gotta do it so I will. Why didn't he shut down one of them up there and 'horizontal' the blade and do the same to the other one on final when he had the field made. Yeah yeah, I know, bad idea. I did see it happen once. Two folk in the cockpit, both pilots. It was cool to watch. It was just the nose wheel that didn't extend and the only damage was to the paint. They fixed the gear issue and it was flying again in a few days.

That's probably a good way to increase your insurance premium. They don't care that you might save the props and engines.

My insurance company was very clear about that when they insured the twin. Any issues bring it in with the least number of changes to a normal approach, and that includes leaving the engines running if a gear up is necessary. They would rather pay the full value of the hull insurance than deal with injuries or fatalities just cause someone decided to "save the plane". No different than why they want you to pull the chute on a brand new Cirrus, if you have to.

I don't think it's conclusive this pilot pulled the mixtures to save the engines and props.
 
That's probably a good way to increase your insurance premium. They don't care that you might save the props and engines.

My insurance company was very clear about that when they insured the twin. Any issues bring it in with the least number of changes to a normal approach, and that includes leaving the engines running if a gear up is necessary. They would rather pay the full value of the hull insurance than deal with injuries or fatalities just cause someone decided to "save the plane". No different than why they want you to pull the chute on a brand new Cirrus, if you have to.
Your insurance policy contains limitations on what you can do in an emergency?
 
Your insurance policy contains limitations on what you can do in an emergency?

Thats a pretty typical ill informed response from you.
 
Thats a pretty typical ill informed response from you.
Huh??

It's pretty much what you said.
Not sure what I say here that is so I'll informed, but whatever.
 
Had he broken the engines, the plane would go for beercans. With only the sheet metal work it's going to fly again. I hope they didn't damage it during retrieval, they used a crane and a dolly.
 
That's probably a good way to increase your insurance premium. They don't care that you might save the props and engines.

My insurance company was very clear about that when they insured the twin. Any issues bring it in with the least number of changes to a normal approach, and that includes leaving the engines running if a gear up is necessary. They would rather pay the full value of the hull insurance than deal with injuries or fatalities just cause someone decided to "save the plane". No different than why they want you to pull the chute on a brand new Cirrus, if you have to.

I don't think it's conclusive this pilot pulled the mixtures to save the engines and props.
Yeah. Makes sense. You may get a big "thank you for saving the engines, now go get someone else to insure you, we ain't rollin the dice on that."
 
Yeah. Makes sense. You may get a big "thank you for saving the engines, now go get someone else to insure you, we ain't rollin the dice on that."
You know, if the guy pulled the mixtures st 50 feet I could possibly see your point. But he didn't. He pulled them at the last second. Really too late for a go around.
 
From watching the video it’s not obvious the engine shutdown was intended to save them. That late in the landing he may have been pulling mixture to start the “get the hell out of here” checklist.
Very possible
 
I'm more curious what went wrong with the gear. The Comanche is all mechanical, no hydraulics, and the emergency extension is pretty simple. Something had to have jammed the gear up pretty good.

The planes are old af, the gear conduits are not expensive but are PITA to procure and replace, bunch of things to get old and weathered and jam up. We also don't know the degree to which it has been maintained. Well maintained? Sure no problem. Most aren't. Everybody is innocent in Shawshank though, so good luck with getting consensus on this front.
 
Welp. That was a better landing than I can do with a spinning prop and three wheels ready to absorb whatever punishment is in store for them.
 
It's funny how emergencies sometimes enable you to nail it. I think it's the concentration...

Just like I typically make better landings in strong gusty winds than I do when it's dead calm.

You know, if the guy pulled the mixtures st 50 feet I could possibly see your point. But he didn't. He pulled them at the last second. Really too late for a go around.

I've never really understood the concern with pulling the mixture once the runway is assured. The guy had over 4000' of runway in front of him. Except for an idiot in an emergency vehicle pulling onto the runway in front of him (fat chance), what possible reason could he have to go around? Wildlife? Hit the freakin' deer...who cares? In an emergency situation like this I wouldn't go around for a deer if I had both engines running anyway.

BTW, he almost had it stopped in the first 1000', this guy seemed to know his plane quite well.
 
Just like I typically make better landings in strong gusty winds than I do when it's dead calm.

I just about can't land on those rare days that it's dead calm, it seems I'm often too high . . . Full flaps, Idle very early, a little sideslip, and an occasional go around because I just can't get down.
 
I just about can't land on those rare days that it's dead calm, it seems I'm often too high . . . Full flaps, Idle very early, a little sideslip, and an occasional go around because I just can't get down.
Calm days always seem to be the hardest.... plus, if you screw up you have nothing to blame it on!
 
I just about can't land on those rare days that it's dead calm, it seems I'm often too high . . . Full flaps, Idle very early, a little sideslip, and an occasional go around because I just can't get down.

Sorta like more cowbell, more slip!

 
Great job! After putting his hands in his pocket he looked back at the plane, And it looked like he was thinking, “glad it’s not mine”!

I thought it looked more like, “I left my iPad in there... oh well, I’ll get it later. It isn’t on fire.” LOL.
 
My insurance company was very clear about that when they insured the twin. Any issues bring it in with the least number of changes to a normal approach, and that includes leaving the engines running if a gear up is necessary. They would rather pay the full value of the hull insurance than deal with injuries or fatalities just cause someone decided to "save the plane". No different than why they want you to pull the chute on a brand new Cirrus, if you have to.
Bingo. Insurance is an actuarial business, playing the odds just like the house does in Vegas. Most people who own airplanes are relatively high-value people, in the financial sense (high earners, important corporate executives, or just high net worth people). People who can afford to own and operate twin-engine planes push up the odds of being in that category.

So whether it's one person or six who die in a ball of flames on the runway, that insurance claim is going to be a very big one. Let's say that a perfect gear-up approach has a 90% chance of totaling out the plane and a distracted one has a 10% chance of torching the people in the plane. Play the long game like the insurance company does and you'll always choose the bet that costs you 90% of a twin-engine plane (which is already a small enough number) over the one that costs you 10% of between one and six high-dollar-value lives. Same goes with Cirrus and the parachute. Pull the chute and the insurance company pays 100% of a half million or so, but try to recover from a spin with ice on the wings and it's more like 90% of a millionaire.

I don't think there's any suggestion here that GRG55's insurance policy restricts his PIC authority in an emergency. But it's just like my insurance agent telling me to hit the deer rather than swerving to avoid it: The advice is, in the general case, good for the goose and for the gander. The insured puts an increase in personal survival chances, even a small increase, over any increase in property survival chances and the insurer gets the benefit of paying relatively cheap property damage claims instead of relatively expensive personal injury and wrongful death claims. Insurance companies really do care whether you live or die, even if it's for the morally wrong reason.
 
Bingo. Insurance is an actuarial business, playing the odds just like the house does in Vegas. Most people who own airplanes are relatively high-value people, in the financial sense (high earners, important corporate executives, or just high net worth people). People who can afford to own and operate twin-engine planes push up the odds of being in that category.

So whether it's one person or six who die in a ball of flames on the runway, that insurance claim is going to be a very big one. Let's say that a perfect gear-up approach has a 90% chance of totaling out the plane and a distracted one has a 10% chance of torching the people in the plane. Play the long game like the insurance company does and you'll always choose the bet that costs you 90% of a twin-engine plane (which is already a small enough number) over the one that costs you 10% of between one and six high-dollar-value lives. Same goes with Cirrus and the parachute. Pull the chute and the insurance company pays 100% of a half million or so, but try to recover from a spin with ice on the wings and it's more like 90% of a millionaire.

I don't think there's any suggestion here that GRG55's insurance policy restricts his PIC authority in an emergency. But it's just like my insurance agent telling me to hit the deer rather than swerving to avoid it: The advice is, in the general case, good for the goose and for the gander. The insured puts an increase in personal survival chances, even a small increase, over any increase in property survival chances and the insurer gets the benefit of paying relatively cheap property damage claims instead of relatively expensive personal injury and wrongful death claims. Insurance companies really do care whether you live or die, even if it's for the morally wrong reason.
I don't see where pulling the mixtures in the flare is a risk.
As has been suggested by another poster, just pull the mixtures instead of the throttles. Zero work load increase.

IMO a go around is not an option that late in the game. Not sure the added power would break the descent, and the plane could end up going around with damaged engines and props.
If the gear was down he would just do a bounce & go.
 
Too bad about the plane. Thing looked good. Would he have been better off landing on the grass if there was a grass runway there? Landing in the median there probably wouldn't be a good idea, who knows how mucky it is in there or if there's a ditch.
 
Too bad about the plane. Thing looked good. Would he have been better off landing on the grass if there was a grass runway there? Landing in the median there probably wouldn't be a good idea, who knows how mucky it is in there or if there's a ditch.
I have always read to opt for the longest, hardest surface available.
 
I don't see where pulling the mixtures in the flare is a risk.
As has been suggested by another poster, just pull the mixtures instead of the throttles. Zero work load increase.

IMO a go around is not an option that late in the game. Not sure the added power would break the descent, and the plane could end up going around with damaged engines and props.
If the gear was down he would just do a bounce & go.
I agree about the mixtures. He probably just chose a different lever to cut power and land than in a normal landing because it was no added risk and was the first step in the SECURE AIRPLANE AFTER GEAR-UP LANDING checklist anyhow. He certainly had plenty of time to think it through while circling and trying to get the gear down. But I was talking about the classic debate about whether to try to get the props to stop horizontally to save them. That's the kind of stunt where you increase risk to life and limb for a negligible decrease in risk to a couple pieces of metal, and insurance companies hate when you do crap like that. They don't even have to splurge on a plane ticket to go check out the damage if you bend a prop.
 
Too bad about the plane. Thing looked good. Would he have been better off landing on the grass if there was a grass runway there? Landing in the median there probably wouldn't be a good idea, who knows how mucky it is in there or if there's a ditch.

I'm not an expert. But, I've been told by experts that landing gear up on a paved runway will minimize damage and reduce the chance of cartwheeling/flipping.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...g-magazine/gear-up-landings--asphalt-or-grass
 
Too bad about the plane. Thing looked good. Would he have been better off landing on the grass if there was a grass runway there? Landing in the median there probably wouldn't be a good idea, who knows how mucky it is in there or if there's a ditch.

No.

I have always read to opt for the longest, hardest surface available.

Ahem... cough. So to speak. ;)
 
I agree about the mixtures. He probably just chose a different lever to cut power and land than in a normal landing because it was no added risk and was the first step in the SECURE AIRPLANE AFTER GEAR-UP LANDING checklist anyhow. He certainly had plenty of time to think it through while circling and trying to get the gear down. But I was talking about the classic debate about whether to try to get the props to stop horizontally to save them. That's the kind of stunt where you increase risk to life and limb for a negligible decrease in risk to a couple pieces of metal, and insurance companies hate when you do crap like that. They don't even have to splurge on a plane ticket to go check out the damage if you bend a prop.
Oh shucks..... I agree anyone that would dicker around trying to get the props horizontal is indeed foolish.
It happened here by pure luck.
 
That's probably a good way to increase your insurance premium. They don't care that you might save the props and engines.

My insurance company was very clear about that when they insured the twin.
Your insurance company actually TOLD you that?

I’ve owned 2 high performance twins and have never been told anything like that.

Not that I disagree with the logic, but never been told how to fly my airplane by with my brother or underwriter.
 
That would explain the hands in the pockets. Mystery solved. He is not actually the coolest guy in the world, he just wanted to check if he had his keys and cell phone.

“I should take a picture of this... oh, crap... cell phone is in there in the sidewall pocket...” ;)
 
Too bad about the plane. Thing looked good. Would he have been better off landing on the grass if there was a grass runway there? Landing in the median there probably wouldn't be a good idea, who knows how mucky it is in there or if there's a ditch.

Bad idea. There is a better chance of hitting uneven ground or a soft spot left by recent rain and flipping the plane. Smooth pavement works better than unknown dirt every time.

Also do not worry about closing the airport. It might inconvenience some folks but they will get over it.
 
Last edited:
I've repaired more than a few that have landed on the runway but none that landed on grass. I've seen a few of the latter, and they were much more of a mess than the others.
 
The guy had over 4000' of runway in front of him. Except for an idiot in an emergency vehicle pulling onto the runway in front of him (fat chance), what possible reason could he have to go around?

You obviously don't know the Hollywood volunteer fire department ;-)
 
Back
Top