Arrows specifically (and PA-32R’s): it seems no one has mentioned the gotcha with the three greens? They are dimmed when the nav light is turned on, following a logic that says nav lights are only used in the dark. Make sure you know how the nav light is operated – surprisingly many Piper pilots do not, or have to think about it first.
So – in daylight – if you do not see any green lamps coming on when the gear is down, try turning off the nav lights before moving on to the panic procedures. This will restore the gear lamps to the daylight, full power setting.
By the way, IF one of the green lamps are dark (with gear down), you can actually interchange the bulbs while flying, with your fingers.
Retractables generally: if faced with a gear-up scenario, I would always prefer landing on the hard runway over the softer grass beside it. I have seen an Arrow after a gear up landing on a runway, and there was very little damage. Very gentle landing, prop bent, antennas broken off, and that was about it. Whereas in the grass, there is often a risk of something digging into the soil and a violent stop or tipping over.
The last line in my last post was meant to read “gear up for landings in soft fields preferred”. Sorry. Here is the relative POH snippet:
What are other peoples’ opinions here, for other aircraft like TB20, Mooney, Bonanza, Cessnas…?
I don’t if this has been mentioned but if the emergency gear down fails to produce all 3 green lights it’s worth yawning and rolling the aircraft as this usually enough to get the over-centre lock to engage. Also, the rose joint attached to the landing gear itself can become seized and is enough to stop the emergency down system working – it’s worth making sure grease getting through to this part as well as the main bearings. Check that this rose joint is fitted with grease nipple as some I’ve seen have not been fitted.
OK, just to wrap up on this thread. In fact, in the mentioned Piper Arrow II, the auto gear extender happened to have been deactivated/uninstalled, so it was actually a bog standard landing gear system. It is my impression that most flight school/aeroclub Arrows in the field have had this modification done. Presumably a certain number of privately owned aircraft still have it.
Regarding gear position in case of emergency landing in a (soft) field, the examiner I flew with said he would normally choose to land gear down (because gear up would increase the chances of one wing digging into the ground and violently spinning the aircraft around). A fair point I would say. Still, the POH says otherwise (gear down for landings in soft fields preferred).
The very first job that I did after my PA28R maintenance License was issued was the investigation of the failure of a PA28R gear to lock down following a free fall following a failure of the gear hydraulic pump.
The subsequent landing resulted in the left main gear failing to lock and retracting shortly after landing.
Following jacking the aircraft up the free fall drill was performed several times and the gear failed to lock down on each occasion.
Due to the lack of grease visible around the trunion bearings it was decided to grease these and see what happened, during greasing no dirty grease was expelled before the new clean grease was seen being expelled indicating a lack of lubrication.
The free fall drill was then performed several times and each time the gear locked down, the conclusion that I draw from this that greasing the trunion bearings is is a flight safety critical task, unfortunately the critical grease nipples are very hard to get at and get missed.
It is my contention that the gear not getting greased properly, and the landing gear switch falling apart in the pilots hand are far more likely to happen that an engine failure just after take off that is NOT due to pilot error.
I still maintain that flight safety is a function of attention to the small mundane tasks such as checking the water drains in the fuel tanks, doing the checks methodically be that your pre flights or the guys who grease you landing gear, while the highly theoretical “do we land gear up or down when the engine fails shortly after take off” May be interesting but is unlikely to have a significant flight safety return due to the small number of engine failures that happen.
I think A & C is suggesting that a lack of greasing might contribute to gear failing to extend properly and be a cause of a forced gear up landings rather than an engine failure.
Apart from the ditching scenario mentioned above, asymmetric deployment of the mean gear might be another occasion where you might choose to land gear up.
dp
Bosco agree with your point of view, not easy to show in a series of controlled experiments. In the absence of data we may not know.
If however this was common practice, wouldn’t examiners pose the question when a candidate had to demonstrate a PFL in the CPL test? (Using a retractable for a PPL test may be rare, but the logic would still apply).
a and c, I am not sure what sub conscious longings come from missing greased nipples, but I am not sure they are a major factor for engine failures?
A lot of highly theoretical posts about things that are unlikely to happen !
Landing gear switches falling apart in the pilots hand as the gear is retracted has been recorded………… The result of one inccident was an unnecessary gear up landing in a PA34.
I am sure that the failure to properly maintain landing gear systems is a highly likely situation…………. Greasing is considered the sort of job that is given to the semi-skilled workers in the hangar and these are the people who are most likely to miss the less obvious grease nipples, unfortunately on Piper aircraft these are the most critical.
The highly theoretical seems to be an aviation thing in the UK with people discussing at considerable length the pros & cons of highly unlikely situations, I think it is a subconscious desire to demonstrate that they are a member of some elite club……………… This of course can’t be demonstrated by sitting on the Tarmac, head in the landing gear bay with flashlight and mirror checking that the landing gear trunions have received any grease in the recent past.
It is the attention to mundane detail that keeps aviation safe not theoretical speculation into unlikely inccidents.
I think nobody here argued for “saving” the the aircraft in case of an forced landing in a field.
The open point is merely whether, if constrained to land in a typical (read: uneven) field, it is better for the occupants’ safety to select gear up or gear down. Which is probably impossible to answer empirically.
Landing gear up in a soft, bumpy field, is a consideration in the higher kinetic energy of a light twin.
If you have an EFATO and you are not safely at blue line, gear up and climbing, and there is insufficient runway to re land and stop – then a forced landing in a twin with both throttles closed may be the preferred scenario. If you have a hard surface runway, landing in the remaining distance gear up may be preferable to running off the end at speed with gear down.
In the case of an Arrow I would prefer to always plan to land gear down, unless you were ditching in the sea and then gear up would be advisable. A controlled forced landing on the main landing gear, even in a soft field, should provide better impact protection. In fact the nice engineers at Piper probably would want the gear to shear off, if it has to, to protect the valuable cargo ie you and passengers.
The insurance company will pay out unless you are flying in a blatantly illegal condition.
Is it because there is a higher proportion of higher hull value owners on this site that we get this debate on how to save the aircraft in a forced landing? Who cares! Ensure you carry out a forced or precautionary landing to get maximum protection for you and passengers.
