gear-down check
PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)
Summer before last when flying in Canada I noticed that at
controlled fields the tower always asked `Confirm gear down'
before/when issuing a clearance to land.
At the time I thought that was an excellent idea. It is also
practiced by the military and evidentally contributes to safety.
In addition, that summer I sat on the taxiway at Boeing field
and watched a Baron land gear-up.
Recently in talking to Cindy M. Hipps, a Senior Flight Operations
Specialist at AOPA I suggested that AOPA might want to address this
issue with the FAA as a safety measure.
Ms Hipps agreed to talk to the AOPA Policy Department to see what the
situation was.
Here, I quote from a card I received from Ms Hipps
"I had our Policy Department investigate into the "gear-down"
ATC check.
Apparently, it is not done due to ........ guess what....LIABILITY!
(the caps are hers) It has, however, been done at various ATC
facilities with mixed results."
So now the lawyers (or bureaucrats) are determining safety issues
on the basis of perceived liability.
Frankly, if I were an attorney and had a client that had landed
gear-up at a controlled field with say lose of life I think I might
try to show that the FAA was guilty of contributory negligence by NOT
implementing the "gear-down" check. I have no idea how successful I
might be but what the heck weirder things have been successful.
What does the net think? Is the gear-down check a good idea?
Dave Rogers
P.S. I do know that Canada has recently eliminated the gear-down
check. For liability reasons?????
Yiannis Papelis
>
> [Regarding the tower issuing a 'check gear-down' call along]
> [with 'clear to land', AOPA's Ms Hipps checked with FAA and: ]
>"I had our Policy Department investigate into the "gear-down"
>ATC check.
>Apparently, it is not done due to ........ guess what....LIABILITY!
>(the caps are hers) It has, however, been done at various ATC
>facilities with mixed results."
>
>
>What does the net think? Is the gear-down check a good idea?
My initial thought was 'of course its a good idea' but then
I start having doubts. On one hand it costs ATC nothing and can
really save the day. On the other hand, there is always the
possibility that i) pilots learn to depend on it and are more
likely to forget when at an uncontrolled field, ii) it might
become just another item that is often ignored. I don't know
about other people but I often catch myself filtering out information
I don't want to hear, like when the tower repeats winds after
the handoff from approach. A repetitive 'check gear-down' may
turn into a null statement.
I think the best idea would be to have the controller visually check
for the gear on planes on short final and issue a warning only if
the gear is not down. Actually, several controllers I have talked
to said they already do that, (of course I wouldn't depend on it but ...)
That way people don't get used to hearing it, and each time
a warning is issued it would be a close call, close enough to shake
up the pilot but without any physical damage.
--
Yiannis E. Papelis, - Electrical & Computer Engineering, U of Iowa
Center of Computer Aided Design- Home of the Iowa Driving Simulator & future
e-mail: yia...@ccad.uiowa.edu - home of the National Advanced Driving Simulator
Nameless CS Student
Canada. Naturally, Transport Canada cannot be held liable for
any error or ommission.
In article <21...@usna.NAVY.MIL> d...@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
>Summer before last when flying in Canada I noticed that at
>controlled fields the tower always asked `Confirm gear down'
>before/when issuing a clearance to land.
>"I had our Policy Department investigate into the "gear-down"
>ATC check.
>Apparently, it is not done due to ........ guess what....LIABILITY!
>(the caps are hers) It has, however, been done at various ATC
>facilities with mixed results."
>Frankly, if I were an attorney and had a client that had landed
>gear-up at a controlled field with say lose of life I think I might
>try to show that the FAA was guilty of contributory negligence by NOT
>implementing the "gear-down" check. I have no idea how successful I
>might be but what the heck weirder things have been successful.
>P.S. I do know that Canada has recently eliminated the gear-down
>check. For liability reasons?????
Controllers in Canada are no longer responsible for a variety of
cautionarys, including gear and wing icing checks. It was
determined that it is the sole responsibility of the pilot to
properly configure and fly his airplane.
Assuming a pilot is qualified to fly his airplane under the
encountered conditions, requiring a controller to remind a pilot
to lower gear or to inform a pilot of probable icing prior to
take-off serves no purpose other than to introduce the issue of
liability if a controller neglects these "duties" and an
accident ensues.
While the requirement to issue cautionaries has been removed from
MANOPS (ATC Manual of Operations), there is no attempt made to
stop controllers from continuing to issue them as they see fit.
Therefore, whether or not you get a gear-check with your clearance
in Canada will depend largely on how long the controller has been
licenced. Old habits die hard.
--
Chris Rasley
CYFC Tower.
John Clear
>>controlled fields the tower always asked `Confirm gear down'
>>before/when issuing a clearance to land.
>
>>ATC check.
>>Apparently, it is not done due to ........ guess what....LIABILITY!
>>(the caps are hers) It has, however, been done at various ATC
>>facilities with mixed results."
Instead of having ATC ask gear down, a CFI used to know had a different
way of going about it. His insurance company requires he say 'three in the
green' when accepting the landing clearance, so that it is on the tape in case
anything happens. The pilot is the one responsible for the plane, not ATC.
John
--
John A Clear -- j...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu, cle...@sage.cc.purdue.edu
PP-ASEL C/LTC, CAP-NYW
"When you think how well basic appliances work, it is hard to believe
anyone ever gets on an airplane" -- Calvin and Hobbes
Steve Bridges
>[stuff about gear down check/liability deleted....]
I think it's a great idea. When I was doing my multi-training, we used
Springfield Ohio as a training site for engine out landings and rejected
takeoff because of the longer runway.
The Ohio ANG has an A-7 unit based there. There is a part-time control
tower, and every time we here cleard to land, there was a "N2066P, cleared
to land, check gear down." It was a great aid. I've not landed an airplan
yet gear up, and I hope I never will due to pilot error.
My own personal opinion -- It should be used at controlled fields.
I fail to see why the FAA would not institute this simple check for
liability reasons. It makes no sense at all (note from the sig -- I work
for a corporate law department, I'm not an attorney, and I don't pretend to
understand some of the decisions lawyers make about liability).
Steve
--
Steve Bridges, Programmer/Analyst| NCR - Law Department, WHQ-5
st...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM ___| Phone:(513)-445-4486 622-4486 (VOICEplus)
Reserve sci.military moderator| "The airplane does not recognize attitude,
providing a maneuver is conducted at one G" -- A.M. "Tex" Johnston
Ron Natalie
> way of going about it. His insurance company requires he say 'three in the
> green' when accepting the landing clearance, so that it is on the tape in case
> anything happens.
This is the stupidest thing I've heard of in a long time. What the hell is
ATC supposed to do with someone who replies to instructions with "three in
the green." What good does it do to have somehting like that "on the tape?"
How long before "three in the green" becomes a cursory thing to say like
"roger" without anything else happening? What happens when you get cleared
to land 4 miles from the ASCII International and also asked to keep your
speed up? Do you delay acknowledging the controller while you drop the
gear? Do you dirty it up 4 miles out anyway?
-Ron
Robert A Moragues
st...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) writes:
>I fail to see why the FAA would not institute this simple check for
>liability reasons. It makes no sense at all (note from the sig -- I work
>for a corporate law department, I'm not an attorney, and I don't pretend to
>understand some of the decisions lawyers make about liability).
>
I could understand where the FAA would want to limit its liability. After all,
what would happen if they forgot to ask just one time?
I did see this practice end up saving someone this weekend. While on a tour
at the RHV (Reid-Hillview San Jose) Tower, one of the controllers noticed
that the gear on a bonanza seemed to be jammed somewhere between up and
down. We were kicked out of the tower. They had the guy recycle the gear
and make a second low pass by the tower. The rest was uneventful, except for
the pilot completing the landing on the remaining ~1500 feet of runway after
being at tower elevation mid field. But, I wasn't in the pilot's seat, so
I won't even comment on this one. :->
Blue Skies
Bob
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Bob Moragues | PP-ASEL +
+ ry...@cd.amdahl.com | USPA C-18338 +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Andrew Boyd
>What does the net think? Is the gear-down check a good idea?
>
>check. For liability reasons?????
A while ago I read a proposal to get rid of the gear-down check.
The theory was that it was unnecessary clutter on sometimes busy
frequencies. I agree that it's not a bad idea if you have the
bandwidth, but I can see the controller's point of view - we are
supposed to know how to fly these things. He doesn't tell us to
select both mags, full rich mixture & full fine pitch, either.
----
#include <std.disclaimer> "... three down & welded, sir!"
Steve Bridges
>In article <Bv8ov...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
>st...@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) writes:
>>I fail to see why the FAA would not institute this simple check for
>>liability reasons. It makes no sense at all (note from the sig -- I work
>>for a corporate law department, I'm not an attorney, and I don't pretend to
>>understand some of the decisions lawyers make about liability).
>>
>I could understand where the FAA would want to limit its liability. After all,
>what would happen if they forgot to ask just one time?
It's still the pilot's responsibility to make sure the gear is down, after
all the pilot is still in command. It's just that I feel that it might
eliminate those gear up accidents that we all hear about.
Here is one --
About 4 years ago, an active duty USAF general officer was flying a Navajo
from the WPAFB aero club. Was doing landings at Greene County. Landed it
gear up. The reason -- he was carrying too much power, and the gear
warning horn never went off. Slid it in right on the belly. The story
even made the AP news wire.
Moral --
The pilot screwed up. Should have verified that the gear was down.
If this had been a controlled field, and the controllers would have
been using the "check gear down" phraseology, perhaps he would have
remembered to lower the gear, the airplane wouldn't have been
damaged, and the General wouldn't have been embarrassed.
But, big but --- Was the FAA ever sued for failure to provide proper traffic
separation in the crash involving the PSA B-727 and the Archer over
Cerritos, or the recent runway incursion at LAX, or the mid-air between the
Aerostar carrying Sen. Towers and a helo over Philly, or the Florida Air
crash into the Potomac? I can't ever remember hearing that the FAA or DOT
was named as a party in those suits, because the pilot has the final
authority, even under ATC control (I was talking to an ARSA one day when I
had to do some abrupt manuvering to avoid a glider that descended through a
cloud deck -- I busted both my assigned heading and altitude -- by about
100 degrees and 1700 feet).
Stick,CommoSigop
check is wrong. The ultimate responsibility belongs to the pilot. Always
has, always will. If said pilot would follow checklist procedures ALL THE
TIME, an inadverdent gear-up landing would never occur.
Barney Lum
Interestingly, (some) controllers at El Monte, CA do issue a gear-check
advisory... at night.
Going off on a slight tangent: I've found that I don't like "GUMPS" (!).
The phonetic "G" in it leads me to think "GEAR", not gas. "Gas" is only
mentioned in terms like AVGAS and MOGAS, nowhere else (that I know of) in
the aviation world. We FUEL the plane at the FUEL pits, turn on/off the
FUEL pumps, placard the FUEL gauge as INOPO, and sometimes experience FUEL
contamination. Only the non-aviating folk say "gas!"
I say use "F" to represent FUEL.
"U" for undercarriage. Who thinks "undercarriage" when putting the wheels
down?! It has too many syllables! Get rid of the "U" and use the G for Gear.
Gear, Mixture, Prop, Fuel (pump/selector valve, etc), and Switches...
Even saying all of the words seems to "flow" better than the old
arrangement.
GMPFS - pronounced gmpfs. ;) (gimphs?)
If order is important, then FGMPS might sound somewhat obscene :}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|
>| bar...@usc.edu Barney@USCVM
--> --> --> | ======= --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
>| Permanent Student Pilot, On the Numbers
>|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence H. Miller
>
>Was the FAA ever sued for failure to provide proper traffic
>separation in the crash involving the PSA B-727 and the Archer over
Oh yes. The FAA was and is a party to the settlements
in this case, and has accepted partial responsibility.
(In truth, the FAA is going to pay out most of the
damages because the Archer pilot had rather modest
insurance coverage.)
The FAA was held responsible on at least two counts:
failure to provide adequate separation to the AeroMexico
727, and also failure to maintain the radar. (I'm writing
from memory here--my copy of the NTSB accident report on
this is stored away.)
--
Larry Miller The Aerospace Corporation
lmi...@aero.org PO Box 92957
310-336-5597 LA, CA 90009-2957
Andy Stadler
(Stick,CommoSigop) writes:
How far do you want to take this? If all aircraft systems worked perfectly,
checklists would be much shorter. If we always tuned radios correctly, we
wouldn't need to ident VOR's. Etc, Etc, Etc. NOBODY is perfect. Not pilots,
not mechanics, not ATC, not systems. We all have to watch each other's back.
I don't think having tower say "check gear down" is a shift of responsibility.
It's just a backup! Of course the pilot is still responsible. But why get
rid of a perfectly good backup?
Here's a parallel example: My C-182 checklist includes "open cowl flaps"
about 3 times between start and takeoff. Putting an operation in one place
doesn't mean I should remove it from all other places. The idea is simple:
important things should be checked and rechecked.
I believe that the people objecting to ATC's "check gear down" (and ATC them-
selves, given the stated liability concerns) are confusing "shift of repons-
ibility" with "backup and double-check."
--Andy sta...@apple.com
PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)
Ahh.... Please note that I never said or implied that ATC would be
responsible for insuring that the gear was down. I only suggested
that a `check gear down' call be made.
Based on Cindy Hipps note to me it appears that someone either at
the FAA or within AOPA thinks that this might lead to a liability
problem.
Dave rogers
Dave Allen
> I believe that the people objecting to ATC's "check gear down" (and ATC them-
> selves, given the stated liability concerns) are confusing "shift of repons-
> ibility" with "backup and double-check."
It's not that we on the net are confusing the two. It's that we know that
lawyers can't tell the difference. They casually translate "backup" or
"double-check" into total responsibility (when there's no one else to go
after). :-(
I appreciate the occasional double-checks I receive from ATC. Coming into
Albuquerque one night, tower asked if my gear was down because he didn't
see a landing light. On the newer Bonanzas, there's a landing light on the
nose strut, and it's usually on. I appreciated his checking, but if we put
something like that in writing, the lawyers would have another field day.
Someday can we add up all the good things that DON'T happen because of all
the liability MIS-use. (Yes, someone's suing a shoe-lace manufacturer because
they didn't tie their shoe laces, tripped, and fell, and the manufacturer
had not put an instruction like "laces must be properly tied before walking"
on their product.)
And if I expected a double-check from ATC, I would (being human) tend to
stop doing my own double-check/triple-check/whatever. :-(
Ya know, I really wish we had air-time to ask "How ya doin' tonight?" Then
we'd know if someone were over-stressed, over-clearance-amended, or otherwise
ripe for forgetting something.
dave allen - Fly because you love it.
Nameless CS Student
>I don't think having tower say "check gear down" is a shift of responsibility.
>It's just a backup! Of course the pilot is still responsible. But why get
>rid of a perfectly good backup?
How do we decide what backups are neccessary? Should controllers be
asking pilots to confirm their fuel-on-board? Both mags? DG set?
(Actually, I do mention the DG when giving a DF homing...) What
about amphibs landing on water- should we warn them to check gear UP?
At what point should ATC get out of the cocpit and let the pilot fly?
If ATC is *required* to issue this warning, then how is ATC to avoid
legal liability if a pilot says that he missed his gear check because
ATC forgot to remind him? Simply put- if it is a requirement, then
a possible lawsuit for ATC negligence exists in every gear-up landing.
Mike Pflueger
> In some article (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
> >
> > [Regarding the tower issuing a 'check gear-down' call along]
> > [with 'clear to land', AOPA's Ms Hipps checked with FAA and: ]
> >
> >
> >What does the net think? Is the gear-down check a good idea?
>
then deciding it may result in pilots depending on it too much
and/or hearing it too much and ignoring it]
> I think the best idea would be to have the controller visually check
> for the gear on planes on short final and issue a warning only if
> the gear is not down. Actually, several controllers I have talked
> to said they already do that, (of course I wouldn't depend on it but ...)
> That way people don't get used to hearing it, and each time
> a warning is issued it would be a close call, close enough to shake
> up the pilot but without any physical damage.
On a visit to the Deer Valley tower one day, I saw the controller do
exactly this. He said he always tries to check, and time permitting,
provide "check gear" warnings. In that particular instance, he was
using binoculars and the plane was on about a 2 mile final. He made
it sound like they generally all try to check, but no guarantees.
I agree with Yannis, many pilots could begin to depend on such
warnings or else send them to /dev/null either of which would be worse
than where we are today. I wonder what happened in Canada? Did the
incidence of gear-ups change?
--
Mike Pflueger, AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, AZ PP-ASEL
UUCP: ...!{ncar!noao!enuucp | att}!gtephx!pfluegerm
INTERNET: gtephx!pflu...@enuucp.eas.asu.edu
Packet: WD8KPZ @ KB7TV.AZ.USA.NA Work: 602-582-7049 FAX: 602-582-7624
David Hightower
several acronyms to help us remember what to tell the pilots. Among
them were:
To a pilot on initial contact, inbound for landing: DR. WAR
D - traffic Direction
R - Runway
W - Wind
A - Altimeter
R - Reporting point (i.e. downwind)
To a pilot that had entered the pattern, asking
for landing clearance: AWWC
A - Advisories (ground obstructions, etc)
W - check Wheels down
W - Wind
C - Cleared to land
Liability my foot. A controller is no more liable than a policeman
telling you to "have a safe trip" when you later have an accident. It's
a courtesy, nothing more, nothing less. I always did it, since it
sounds professional; most of those I worked with did too.
_________________________________________________________________________
Dave Hightower | opinion? I'm allowed to have an opinion?
d...@cis.ufl.edu | well, if I DID have one, it'd be mine, all mine!
high...@cadre.af.mil | "Omnia Vincit Amour"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)
!In article <1992Sep29.2...@gtephx.UUCP! pflu...@gtephx.UUCP (Mike Pflueger) writes:
!!I wonder what happened in Canada? Did the
!!incidence of gear-ups change?
!!Mike Pflueger, AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, AZ PP-ASEL
!
!For a change, I have my copy of Canadian ATC Manops (Manual of
!operations) home with me, including the change to the gear warning.
!Following is the COMPLETE TEXT:
!-----------------------------------------------------------
!TRANSPORT CANADA - AVIATION
!Ottawa, Ontario
!
!Provisional Directive
!Number: P-ATCD-9210
!Effective: 21-May-92
!Index: PROCEDURES
!Supplimenting: 344.4
!
!Check Gear Down
!
!1. In an attempt to improve the quality of air traffic services
! provided to users, specific areas have been targeted for enhance-
! ment. With that in mind, the intent of this directive is to
! streamline phrasology in order to reduce unnecessary workload and
! frequency congestion, while maintaining or improving the level of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
! safety. One such improvement is the elimination of the phrase
^^^^^^
! "CHECK GEAR DOWN" from the landing sequence.
Now I really wonder what the rational for this statement/position etc.
is!
Dave Rogers
Scott Turner
> The idea of making it ATC's responsibility for issuing a "gear down"
>check is wrong. The ultimate responsibility belongs to the pilot. Always
>has, always will. If said pilot would follow checklist procedures ALL THE
>TIME, an inadverdent gear-up landing would never occur.
I've seen several responses similar to this one, but this is probably
the most extreme, and I've just gotta (ya right) respond.
First, as others have stated, no one is suggesting a shift in
responsibility. The responsibility for lowering the gear in my plane is
mine and mine alone. It's interesting to note, however, that while
flying VFR, see and avoid is my responsibility and mine alone as well.
Yet I don't hear anyone suggesting that VFR flight following (which, used
properly, can effectively put another pair of eyes in the plane) is a bad
idea.
The idea here is not to provide a crutch, but to add a failsafe
to the system. We can argue for hours (and have in the past) that many
will use a failsafe as a crutch, but I'll come down strongly on the side
of adding this one. Knowing that a tower is going to remind me about
my gear will in no way affect my vigilance or modify my checklists. It
may, however, save me that one time that the workload piles up and due to
unforseen circumstances I forget to push the handle down.
One more thing, and here I'm going to be a bit more blunt than I usually
would be in a posting. If you or anyone else here really believes that
scrupulous adherence to checklists will *guarantee* you'll never have a
gear-up landing then IMHO you're a gear-up landing waiting to happen.
Checklists help and should of course be rigorously adhered to, but there
are simply too many variables in the flying environment to make a
checklist a panacea.
Beware of absolutes. Flying only fixed gear aircraft is as close as you'll
ever come to *guaranteeing* you'll *never* forget to flip the switch.
Even if you adhere to your checklists.
Scott Turner sc...@hpisla.LVLD.HP.COM
HP VXI Systems Division
Turbo Arrow N2134N "Baby"
Scott Turner
>For a change, I have my copy of Canadian ATC Manops (Manual of
>operations) home with me, including the change to the gear warning.
>Following is the COMPLETE TEXT:
Much of which I've deleted for brevity:
>2. Presently, ATS direction specifies that a landing gear check be
> issued by the airport controller, to all aircraft equipped with
> retractable landing gear, while on approach for landing. Howev-
> er, neither ICAO nor FAA air traffic control procedures contain
> the "CHECK GEAR DOWN" requirement. Removing this phrasology will
> also fulfil a Canadian Airspace Review (CAR) recommendation for
> achieving commonality with our ICAO and FAA counterparts.
Now here's a wonderful example of Bureaucrat think! Let's see if I
understand this reasoning. Mikey doesn't do it. Just like in the
commercial, we want to be like Mikey. Soooo... We're not going to do
it any more.
> 3. It is ultimately the pilot's responsibility to ensure that the
> landing gear is extended in sufficient time to execute a normal
> landing. ATS does not have the responsibility of issuing a rem-
> inder to safe-guard against this type of pilot error.
ARG! OF COURSE IT'S THE PILOT'S RESPONSIBILITY!!! As with other
arguments I've seen, this really doesn't address the central issue.
Gear up landings are a common pilot error. If a gear check issued by a
controller helps in alleviating this error, why not do it instead of
arguing about who's responsibility it is? If it doesn't help then
eliminate it, but for heavens sake if there's data available, let's look
at it. Sounds to me like we could replace "ATS does not have the
responsibility" in the above paragraph with "ATS does not *want the
liability*".
> Chris Rasley, PP-SEL (+night), Glider (student), ATC (CYFC)
Please note that I'm responding to and critisizing the material Chris
has presented, not Chris or Chris' comments.
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
Until yesterday I had never heard that "check gear down" on
any approach, but yesterday I had an interesting, and convincing,
experience: I was on an IFR training flight, and the instructor asked
if I had ever done a GCA (ground controlled approach, with vertical
and horizontal guidance). As I had never done it before, we went
out to some military field north of Hamburg (Hohn, EDNQ); the
military controllers happily train GCA's as they need them to
get their license prolonged just as we need landings.
Anyway, a situation in which you would normally request a GCA
is a high-workload situation (probably some instruments have failed
else you could do an ILS or NDB approach and obviously you are
in the soup under some pressure). So on these two training
GCA's it was the first time I heard "check gear down" and,
approaching decision altitude, even got "*recheck* gear down".
I think it is very helpful in such an abnormal situation to get
this, *particularly* if it is not a standard phrase like "roger"
or something. Maybe they should say "check gear down" only in
abnormal, stressfull situations ?
--
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
w...@cs.tu-berlin.de
wolf...@first.gmd.de
Carlton J. Bailey
This is not abnormal, all military field controlers ask for a gear check in
the imc environment either acctual or simulated. All military aircraft have
to confirm thier landing configuration with ATC prior to touchdown. They
think this prevents gear up landing, and it does.
Skyking
Always Check Your Six!!!!!
Axel Wagner
>any approach, but yesterday I had an interesting, and convincing,
>experience: I was on an IFR training flight, and the instructor asked
>if I had ever done a GCA (ground controlled approach, with vertical
>and horizontal guidance). As I had never done it before, we went
>out to some military field north of Hamburg (Hohn, EDNQ); the
>military controllers happily train GCA's as they need them to
>get their license prolonged just as we need landings.
As flying on a US-Army field here in Mainz we have the possibility to
perform GCA-apporaches during the week. I used this possibility a couple
of times with our motorglider. The controller had some difficulties in
picking me up, because the non-metal surface gave only a week signal.
So he advised me to fly certain headings for identification. While
turning final he always requested to perform the landing check, and
short prior approaching the decision height he advised
'check-gear-down' and asked for field in-sight.
Obviously there is a check-list for this procedure, because it was always
the same procedure independent from the controller.
Needless to say, that our motorglider has a fixed gear.
Axel
< no matter how far from home, a climbing >
< sailplane carries a happy pilot ! >
*********************************************************************
* Axel Wagner Institut fuer Kernphysik *
* J. J. Becher - Weg 45 D-6500 Mainz *
* germany/europe/earth/sunsystem/galaxis/cosmos *
* Tel.:+49-(0)6131 39 5841 Fax.:+49-(0)6131 39 2964 *
* electronic mail: wag...@a1.kph.uni-mainz.de *
*********************************************************************
Dick Zeitlin
> .>what would happen if they forgot to ask just one time?
SB> .It's still the pilot's responsibility to make sure the gear is down, after
> .all the pilot is still in command. It's just that I feel that it might
> .eliminate those gear up accidents that we all hear about.
But it's true that if you always expect something, you tend to rely on
it. All the Tower types I know agree that they'd sure say something if
they noticed it. But requiring them to check each arriving aircraft
could be something of a burden.
Just having them say "Check gear down" doesn't make much sense. Don't
people use checklists? (;-})
D/
* OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!! Dick.Zeitlin%acc...@ssr.com
PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)
!SB! .!I could understand where the FAA would want to limit its liability. Afte
! ! .!what would happen if they forgot to ask just one time?
!
!SB! .It's still the pilot's responsibility to make sure the gear is down, after
! ! .all the pilot is still in command. It's just that I feel that it might
! ! .eliminate those gear up accidents that we all hear about.
!
!But it's true that if you always expect something, you tend to rely on
!it. All the Tower types I know agree that they'd sure say something if
!they noticed it. But requiring them to check each arriving aircraft
!could be something of a burden.
!
!Just having them say "Check gear down" doesn't make much sense. Don't
!people use checklists? (;-})
After starting this question I've stayed out of the discussion to see
what develops.
Yes, people use checklists. Ever missed an item? I have. It's easy
to do if you are distracted by say an ATC call or your passenger
calling traffic, etc.
The Tower types claim it's a burden. Is safety a burden?
Adding "Check gear down" to their standard spiel would not
be an intolerable burden in the interests of safety.
The military uses this technique. To all those who say pilots would
rely on it and thus accidents would increase I ask do the military
have a higher incidence of inadvertent gear up landings. The answer
is NO.
Not using this technique to reduce inadvertent gear up landings at
tower controlled airports is a case were the `lawyer types' have
let perceived liability concerns compromise safety. We should
really protest this trend. However, our voice, i.e., the AOPA
is evidentally not interested in following up on it.
Dave Rogers
Lawrence H. Miller
>After starting this question I've stayed out of the discussion to see
>what develops.
>
>rely on it and thus accidents would increase I ask do the military
>have a higher incidence of inadvertent gear up landings. The answer
>is NO.
I would conjecture, based on decades of human factors studies
[see last paragrah], that gear ups would not decrease
significantly, particularly at busy airports. My feeling is
that at busy airports, "Cleared to land, check gear down"
becomes a mantra, part of the background noise, repeated so
often, as not to be attended to. Do you really remember the
specific "Cleared to land" at your last tower airport? I fly
out of Santa Monica and Van Nuys, two of the busiest airports
in the world.
I've landed at military airports. They're not very busy.
The "Check gear down" was emphatic, isolated from other
radio traffic, not part of a continuous stream of chatter.
You can be sure we checked gear down.
Having said this, though, I can't see how it can hurt. I
ran the Pilot's Associate program at ISI for a couple of
years. Our major contribution was in an intelligent speech
system for communicating anomalous conditions to the pilot.
I ran through several years of NTSB accident reports demonstrating
the efficacy of appropriate speech generation methods in
curtailing many air carrier accidents. Our techniques focused
on what to say, how to say it, when to repeat, how to prioritize,
and how to understand the pilot's response.
PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)
!In article <22...@usna.NAVY.MIL! d...@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
!!After starting this question I've stayed out of the discussion to see
!!what develops.
!!
!!The military uses this technique. To all those who say pilots would
!!rely on it and thus accidents would increase I ask do the military
!!have a higher incidence of inadvertent gear up landings. The answer
!!is NO.
! I would conjecture, based on decades of human factors studies
! [see last paragrah], that gear ups would not decrease
! significantly, particularly at busy airports. My feeling is
! that at busy airports, "Cleared to land, check gear down"
! becomes a mantra, part of the background noise, repeated so
! often, as not to be attended to. Do you really remember the
! specific "Cleared to land" at your last tower airport? I fly
! out of Santa Monica and Van Nuys, two of the busiest airports
! in the world.
Yes, I clearly remember the last cleared to land. I listen very
carefully for the cleared word. However, I agree if the check gear
down gets buried in the spiel with no pause etc. it may get lost.
But then, it may not and could just help as you point out below.
! I've landed at military airports. They're not very busy.
! The "Check gear down" was emphatic, isolated from other
! radio traffic, not part of a continuous stream of chatter.
Ahh... try a carrier during recovery ops. There is an aircraft
slamming onto the deck about every minute or less! The check
gear down is still used.
! You can be sure we checked gear down.
! Having said this, though, I can't see how it can hurt. I
! ran the Pilot's Associate program at ISI for a couple of
! years. Our major contribution was in an intelligent speech
! system for communicating anomalous conditions to the pilot.
! I ran through several years of NTSB accident reports demonstrating
! the efficacy of appropriate speech generation methods in
! curtailing many air carrier accidents. Our techniques focused
! on what to say, how to say it, when to repeat, how to prioritize,
! and how to understand the pilot's response.
Could you summarize the results for the net. Sound interesting.
Dave Rogers
Steve Schneider
>
>As flying on a US-Army field here in Mainz we have the possibility to
>perform GCA-apporaches during the week. I used this possibility a couple
>of times with our motorglider. The controller had some difficulties in
>picking me up, because the non-metal surface gave only a week signal.
>So he advised me to fly certain headings for identification. While
>turning final he always requested to perform the landing check, and
>short prior approaching the decision height he advised
>'check-gear-down' and asked for field in-sight.
>
>Obviously there is a check-list for this procedure, because it was always
>the same procedure independent from the controller.
>
>Needless to say, that our motorglider has a fixed gear.
>
I learned to fly at the Alameda Naval Air Station, where by the way,
the view of San Francisco made night time pattern work pretty enjoyable.
The Navy had a small shack at the approach end of the runway. An enlisted
man with binoculars was stationed in the shed and was responsible for
visually checking that each aircraft had its gear down -- if the gear
weren't down he'd notify the tower which would then issue a gear check
reminder. Safety procedures requried the tower to issue the gear check
reminder whenever the enlisted man was not on duty to provide the visual
inspection service.
With only a couple of Cessnas based at Alameda, this procedure seemed
pretty silly since the controllers knew our aircraft by tail number
well enough to know which had fixed gear and which didn't.
One tended to hear 'Gear down and welded' quite a bit around Alameda.
Steve
fixed gear
noif not he had to call the
. If the
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Stephen Schneider S-CUBED 3398 Carmel Mtn Rd.
schn...@scubed.com (619) 587-7295 San Diego, CA 92121
Amy Lindsay
Why doesn't everyone just visit their home tower (if they have one) and
ask the supervisor if she or he will institute this check at their field?
Why does the word have to be handed down from the federal level? As far
as I can see, there's no reason why local towers CAN'T have a gear-down
check, and as long as the local pilots are making a reasonable request
in a reasonable tone, the worst the controllers can do is say "no."
...But they just might say "sure, sounds like a good idea."
--amy
A.G.Lindsay, PP-ASEL * Cloud Rental: Reasonable Rates * a...@camex.com
Typography & Design Department ~ Camex, Inc. ~ Boston, MA (617-426-7550 x575)
Student pilot about posting on rec.aviation: "Kinda like we're penguins on the
ice shelf, wondering if there're killer whales below." (Eric Thiele)
Dick Zeitlin
> .properly, can effectively put another pair of eyes in the plane) is a bad
> .idea.
ST> .The idea here is not to provide a crutch, but to add a failsafe
> .to the system.
I doubt that anyone is suggesting that a gear-down reminder is a bad
thing, any more than anyone is suggesting that flight following is. The
problem is that neither of these are a failsafe!! Flight following
_might_ provide an additional warning, and it might not. A gear down
warning might prevent an incident, and it might not. Certainly, neither
is a failsafe. Some might consider them to be failsafes, and that's the
problem with instituting them as "mandatory" procedures.
Dan Melson
time to do so at every tower I'm aware of, and actually, in my experience,
it's more likely that controllers have time to check visually than spare time
on frequency to say "check wheels down" to every aircraft. There's kind of a
helpful hint, if you're retractable, don't say "Cessna 12345" "Piper 67890" or
whatever. Identify yourself as "Centurion 12345", "Cutlass 12345", or
"Comanche 67890" or "Aero 67890". In other words, if you're in a retractable
type aircraft, that as well as giving us a better idea of the type of aircraft
performance to expect, telling us the specific type aircraft will generally
give us a nudge to check that the gear IS down on final if your aircraft is a
retractable type. However, it's not a handbook requirement to say "check gear
down" except at military fields. A lot of us (e.g. me) will say it at night
in certain circumstances.
MY opinions ONLY!
DM
Lawrence H. Miller
>Controllers will visually check that your wheels are down ...
Which brings up the interesting question: have you ever
had to notify a pilot that his/her wheels were NOT down?
Randal L. Schwartz
>Controllers will visually check that your wheels are down ...
Which brings up the interesting question: have you ever
had to notify a pilot that his/her wheels were NOT down?
Yeah, but it was about 10 seconds too late, and by then I was already
looking at a bent prop and an engine rebuild. :-(
But it won't happen again, fersure. Once is enough to have it pounded
into each and every neuron in my head.
Randal L. Schwartz, PP-ASEL-IA, 270+ hours and waiting for the boat to sell...
--
Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
mer...@reed.edu (guest account) mer...@ora.com (better for permanent record)
cute quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon -- home of the California Raisins!"
200 Klaus Kraemer
No controller ever had to notify me to put my wheels down (so far).
But when my Mooney was still new (to me), tower once called me
when I was already up to 2,000 feet that my gear was still hanging down.
Embarrassing. I hope nobody is listening here....
Donald Dusza
No Klaus, were not listening here.
Don
Future pilot
(Can you say budget crunch? 8^) )
Donald L. Dusza |UTS: dl...@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation |Internet: dl...@charon.amdahl.com
1250 E. Arques Ave, M/S 176 |Mainframes are just PCs that can count
Sunnyvale, CA 94088 USA |on their fingers a lot faster!!
Michael Flower
There are only two types of pilots, those that have landed gear up and those that
are still to.
Michael Flower
Artificial Intelligence Systems Email: m.fl...@trl.oz.au
Telecom Research Laboratories Voice: +61 3 541 6179
Melbourne, AUSTRALIA Fax: +61 3 543 8863
Phil Fernandez
>I doubt that anyone is suggesting that a gear-down reminder is a bad
>thing, any more than anyone is suggesting that flight following is. The
>problem is that neither of these are a failsafe!! Flight following
>_might_ provide an additional warning, and it might not. A gear down
>warning might prevent an incident, and it might not. Certainly, neither
>is a failsafe. Some might consider them to be failsafes, and that's the
>problem with instituting them as "mandatory" procedures.
Here's a case where a gear-down reminder was a slightly "bad thing":
I was flying into PAO last night on an IFR flight from John Wayne
(SNA). I arrived about 1930 local. When I was on short final, about
1/4 mile, the tower called "Mooney 5632J, check gear down."
Well, I had completed my initial landing checklist, gear down, and a
final landing checklist passing through 500ft. Gear lights, and the
Mooney floor indicator saying the feet were down.
When the controller's call came through, my first reaction was "oh,
s*it, what's the matter with my gear?" The floor indicator is
mechanically connected to the gear on a Mooney, and is a pretty good
indicator of successful gear deployment, at least for the mains.
I didn't have time to query the controller before landing -- I had to
make a snap judgement whether to land or go-around and figure things
out. Snap judgement made, I did a final check of the lights and
indications, and with heart racing, landed uneventfully.
On the parallel, I asked the controller about the warning. He said,
"Oh, when it's dark I can't see if your gear is down, so I just
thought I'd give you the reminder. I like to avoid gear-up landings."
No real problem here, except the warning was entirely out of the
ordinary. I have zillions of night landings at PAO, and have never
had this warning before, day or night. It really threw me off. A
bad thing...
pmf
pp-asmel-ia
mooney n5632j
Kevin R Sullivan
>>
>>Until yesterday I had never heard that "check gear down" on
>...turning final he always requested to perform the landing check, and
>'check-gear-down' and asked for field in-sight.
>
>Obviously there is a check-list for this procedure, because it was always
>the same procedure independent from the controller.
>
>Needless to say, that our motorglider has a fixed gear.
The litany "cleared to land... check gear down and locked" is standard for
all US military controllers regardless of type aircraft. I admit I find it
rather funny when flying my 172 into an AFB, and usually reply "gear down and
welded...", but I admit I rather like the extra check when I'm in something
with foldable legs.
Kevin Sullivan