MEMORANDUM
Good afternoon,
As requested, attached is my recommendation report aviation investigation report A09C0028.
Sincerely
(First name, last name)
Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Introduction
A gear up landing takes place when the aircraft makes a landing without the ecompletrel extension of the landing gear. The term gear- up details that the underside of the aircraft is applied in order to land. Conventionally, there are occurrences where gear up is referenced by the events where a mechanical error deters the pilot from extending the landing gear. In the event of a gear- up landing, there is normally substantial damage that is incurred to the aircraft. The gear- up landings infers that the aircraft may catch fire, flip over or disintegrate in the event that the landing is realized with too much force. The is a degree of precision that is required in order to ensure that the aircraft lands in a manner that is as level and as straight as possible while maintaining the quality of adequate airspeed in order for the aircraft pilot to maintain control. The factors of the aircraft having incurred damage, strong crosswinds and low visibility substantially increase the hazard of the gear up belly landings. Notwithstanding, gear up belly landings are the most frequently encountered category of aircraft accidents. Usually the gear- up landings has not resulted in fatalities when carefully performed (Air Combat Command Affairs 1; Cenciotti 1)).
In the outcome of results that were released in the investigation of a gear up landing incident that involved a C-17 Globemaster that was compelled to land with its landing gear in the retracted position at Bigram Airbase in Afghanistan. The Air Mobility Command came to the determination that the cause of the accident was attributed to pilot error. . The pilot error caused the failure of the lowering of the landing gear and the verification of the correct aircraft landing configurations. As an outcome of the AMC investigation, it was ascertained that there were crew distractions, diminished cockpit visibility cues and a deficiency of the flight crew with regards to the safety monitoring of the crew performance protocols. In addition, the crew accidently disabled the ground proximity alert system. The C- 17 aircraft landed with its landing gear retracted on an asphalt surface and slid four thousand five handed fee prior to coming to a stop. There were no fatalities. The damage incurred to the C-17 aircraft was substantial (Candiotti 1).
Accident
The accident that is the subject of review is the gear up landing that was incurred by the Perimeter Aviation Limited Swearingen SA226- TC Metro II C- FSLZ in Winnipeg, Manitoba on 03 March 2009. This aviation investigation report number is A09C0028. The aircraft was traveling inbound to Winnipeg / James Armstrong International Airport from a departure point of St. Theresa point, Manitoba. There were two crew members in the cockpit. As the aircraft was conducting its final approach into Winnipeg/ James Armstrong International Airport, the landing gear mechanical procedure was initiated. It was discovered in the course of the landing process that the right landing gear failed to extend from the wheel well. The aircraft crew executed a missed approach procedure. Subsequently, an emergency was declared and the crew was advised to maintain a holding pattern in order to attempt a rectification of the landing gear malfunction (Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 1).
The right primary landing gear was not able to extend the conventional or auxiliary means. The aircraft’s crew selected the option of performing a gear- up landing in the direction of the wind on Runway number 18. The firefighting staff and the aircraft rescue ream were positioned on the runway. The crew executed an emergency shutdown of the two aircraft engines and the propellers were feather while the plane was passing the threshold of Runway 18. The aircraft landed and the aircraft crew was able to maintain the aircraft in a stable landing condition while the landing was being executed. The aircraft came to a halt on its belly and landed on the center of runway 18. The landing took place at 1209 CST. There were no injuries or fatalities that were reported when the aircraft rescue team evacuated the aircraft crew. The damage that was sustained to the aircraft was substantial. The accident involved damage to the aircraft aft belly section, flaps and the propeller (Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 1).
The takeoff that was performed from St. Theresa Point, Manitoba indicated that the landing gear was fully functional. The wind direction was assessed at 180 ° T (true) with a wind velocity between 20 knots to 30 knots. The visibility was estimated at fifteen stature miles. The weather was evaluated at 4° C with a dew point of -7° C. The altimeter reading was assessed at 29.99 inches of Hg. The quality of the weather was not considered as a contributing factor in the accident. Subsequent to the inspection of the aircraft, it was discovered that the number three panel wheel failed to extend from the wheel well. The outboard right door mechanism was viewed to be tightly fitted against the number three wheel keelson as the landing gear was in the extended position. There is a minimum clearance that is required of 0.0063 inches that was not maintained on the aircraft as specified by the M7 Aerospace SA226 Series Maintenance Manual, Section 32- 00- 00 (Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 3).
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2009/a09c0028/images/a09c0028_photo_1.jpg
Photo 1: Insufficient clearance for the number three landing gear wheel to exit the landing gear bay
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2009/a09c0028/images/a09c0028_photo_2.jpg
Photo 2: Landing Gear with wheel number three demonstrating insufficient clearance for landing gear egress.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2009/a09c0028/images/a09c0028_photo_4.jpg
Photo 3: The landing gear door with the structural ridge that impeded the egress of the number three wheel.
Subsequent to the investigation, it was determined that the wheel that was applied for the number three landing gear possessed a diameter of a half inch more than the specifications for the number four wheel. It was ascertained that the number three wheel possessed a tire that was a retreaded 19.5 x 6.75 inch Michelin tire. The tire had been placed on the wheel on 23 February 2009. The inboard right landing gear mechanism was not precisely set. The imprecision diminished the clearance between the gear door and the rite extension. The imprecisely rigged door did not attract attention in the four distinct inspections. The mutual influence of the imprecisely rigged landing door mechanism and the installation of a retreaded tire that possessed a greater wheel radius caused the number three wheel to become impeded with regards to its agree from the right inboard landing wheel bay (Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 4).
Recommendation
A risk evaluation should be conducted by means of the safety administration system of the aircraft operators. The entire fleet should be inspected in order to diminish the potential of landing gear mishaps. In addition a few possible areas of preventative safety action should be examined. An examination of the Form 31 of the examination program should be performed regularly. This should be considered with the objective of reviewing for the evidence of the tire abrasion and landing bay door contact with the tire. . In addition, a more compressive review of the landing gear system should be performed in order to ensure that the stops and the nacelle channels do not impede the egress of the landing gear wheels. . The implement for the measurement of the tire diameter should be amended from 19.2 inches in diameter to 18.95 inches in diameter. All of the tires that do not comply with the specification should be extracted from the supply depots. A review should also be conducted with regards to the modification of the aircraft landing bay gear doors (Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 4).
CONCLUSION
A number of aircraft gear-up landings can be avoided. The mechanical failure that took place in the review could have been avoided. Gear- up aircraft landings are routine, they are costly. Regular inspection and maintenance can prevent many of the mechanically caused gear up landings.
References
Air Combat Command Public Affairs. ”Report: pilot error caused B-1B crash.” Air Combat Command, 18 September 2006. Web. 30 October 2014. http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123027298
Cenciotti, David. “C’-17 gear up landing investigation results.” The Aviationist, 8 May 2009. Web. 30 October 2014. http:/theaviationist.com/2009/05/08/c-17’gear-up- landing-investigation-results/
Transportation Safety Board of Canada. ”Aviation investigation report A09C0028 gear- up landing Perimeter Aviation Limited Swearingen SA226-TC Metro IIC’ FSLZ Winnipeg, Manitoba 03 March 2009.” Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 3 March 2009 Web. 30 October 2014. http://www.bst-tsb.gc.cdfa/eng/rapports- reports/aviation/2009/a09c0028/a09c0028.pdf
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports- reports/aviation/2009/a09c0028/images/a09c0028_photo_1.jpg
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports- reports/aviation/2009/a09c0028/images/a09c0028_photo_2.jpg
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports- reports/aviation/2009/a09c0028/images/a09c0028_photo_3.jpg
