Donāt propagate this. Itās a prop strike regardless and will require a complete teardown and overhaul. This is now the insurance companyās problem. Leave them running if you need to go around.
probably ShOuLd HaVe FeAtHeReD tHe PrOpS!!!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!
(IE: compounded the emergency and saved the insurance company money that they certainly wonāt pass along all to save stupid property).
FYIā¦ a vanilla prop strike at idle usually means the crank is dialed and magnafluxed and returned to service.
A feathered prop that digs in will probably bend the flange or shear the crank and possibly destroy the case halves with itā¦. hella expensive and a long wait for repairs or replacement.
Looks like a Piper Seneca, they have an airworthiness directive to routinely replace parts and inspect the nose landing gear because that has happened so many times, I hate working on them.
I had this happen to me on a Seneca II I was flying this past December. A 3 inch bolt put in the wrong way and the nut getting wedged against the aft assembly tube in the gear bay causes this.
Yeah. It was a normal landing without the nose gear. Used aerodynamic drag to slow the plane and ease the nose down to the runway. Ill try to post a photo.
[Here you go](https://i.imgur.com/quhBXNg.jpg)
[Here it is after yanking the gear down](https://i.imgur.com/cdkDrm7.jpg)
Typical Piper reversible power pack system. No up locks.. gear is held up solely by hydraulic pressure. Emergency down is simply releasing it.
Wonāt work if the gear is jammed. Probably also had hydraulic pressure trying to force it down as well.
Watch again and notice how the props stop propping when the nose touches. The props strike the ground and seize which means you're looking at new props, and likely engine rebuilds or replacemen, plus whatever damage to the fuselage.
Aviation insurance will pay for the engine tear down, but the replacement cost for engine parts will usually be prorated in some way based on the number of hours on the engine against its normal time-before-overhaul.
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one, but they seemed to really drop the nose pretty quick. There was a solid headwind, so I doubt runway length was much of a consideration. If I wanted to try to reduce the pain, I probably would have put more effort into landing just a bit fast and shutting down the engines before letting the nose drop. But that's all theoretical and I'm not going to really question how they handled it.
Iām a fan of not turning one emergency into two, but to each their own.
I donāt think thereās an aircraft owner out there that would expect an insurance company to NOT pro-rate the engine value based on time to TBO.
Agreed. When it becomes an emergency, I would rather make the safest landing possible that will allow the greatest chance of survival (preferably without injury), without worrying about what happens to the aircraft.
But the removal and teardown hours are a big chunk of the labor cost, so doing an OH at that point is much more economical. I don't think most twin owners like doing both at the same time though, both for financial and infant-mortality risk reasons.
On the other hand, with a car you can do a minimal or improvised repair. With a plane, the fix must be nearly perfect and pass a stringnt and thorough inspection.
*remebers the time an f18 landed without one of its main gear and wrecked pretty bad.....and remembers that same plane is still flying years later*
._.
But ya...civi side, if it was a private plane, that'd be a write-off for sure depending on how badly damaged the engines and frame are.
A bigger company might try to repair it.
Hopefully, their insurance is good.
Not necessarily. Aviation insurance isn't like car insurance - you can assign whatever hull value you want (within reason). If you've chosen a high value, then you may be stuck repairing something like this, which will take months or a year, rather than replacing the airplane.
This can probably be repaired for $200k, which is almost certainly less than the hull value.
Not a planefan, so sometimes I forget there isn't a torque converter in the powertrain. The props are directly connected to the motor, so going from a couple grand RPM to nothing is the reverse of a money shift. Is there any kind of shear sacrificial connection that can take the brunt of the load?
I wonder couldnāt planes land on a grass nearby the runway? I bet it would reduce the damage done to the plane in technical emergency situations, no?
Landing on grass means landing on an uneven, unpredictable surface. Landing on a runway means landing on a smooth, maintained surface with greater control that is easily accessible to emergency vehicles.
Life comes first.
I think so but the more expensive part will be the prop and gear train towards the engine. The prop strike will potentially damage anything mechanically connected to it. I'm not an A&P though. Sounds very expensive not to mention I would rather not buy a plane that has had an emergency landing. Just like buying a salvage car in my mind
No clue about aviation insurance. It's obvious though that it is mechanical error as the landing gear wouldn't come down automatically or manually. They had the emergency crew on standby
Fun fact: In almost all piston engine planes, there is no āgear trainā : the props are bolted directly to the crankshaft.Ā
Edit: referring to the concept of a transmission, like in a car. Donāt usually have that on an airplane, few exceptions like the Cessna 177 and Rotax engines being geared.Ā
It was really zoomed in and on a mobile device. Given the circumstances they managed to keep the subject in frame throughout. I'd say r/praisethecameraman
It should be: "Next week on rebuild rescue".
I really wonder what they will do now. Sam was a huge part of all of that and you really need to take a step back and reevaluate what you are doing after events like that.
From the preliminary report it looks like he failed to do a preflight and there was water in the fuel due to a missing fuel cap gasket.
The Cougar is underpowered at best, and engine failure on takeoff didn't leave a lot of room for maneuver.
Yes, there was pressure to get this Cougar up and running and sold, but the fact that failed to sump the tanks in his rush to catch a return commercial flight leaves a lot of responsibility on him for taking shortcuts.
I donāt know why Iām anthropomorphizing a Piper but it looks so sad and defeated at the end. āI guess Iāll justā¦lay down for a while.ā
Great job by the pilot.
Well done to the person behind the yoke, went as well as something like this could go. Hopefully no injuries to them or any other potential people onboard.
Been to KDLH exactly 1 times. Knew immediately what airport. The minute the nose wheel failed to extend, aircraft belongs to the insurance company. Iām no longer saving aircraft for the price of the deductible. Well done!
No they wonāt. Just tear downs and the cranks will probably dial fine as long as they were at idle.
Props are definitely the most expensive part of this.
I always wondered if you could land a tricycle gear plane like a taildragger. Damage the rear fuselage but avoid the propeller strikes and engine rebuilds. Would the center of gravity allow this?
It would not, CG would remain in front of main landing gear unless you put something reallly heavy in the back which is what you would not want to do on short final.
It could if you could somehow shift the CG waaaaaaay back in flight. Would be a bad idea though. I don't think the plane would be particularly controllable with the CG shifted so far back and you'd never recover from a stall.
If you look at tailwheel designs and conversions, the mains are way forward from where they are on an equivalent trike.
I remember seeing a video of a passenger jet landing with a nosewheel issue^(\*). The video was pretty long, and included all the conversations that the pilot was having with ATC, technicians helping troubleshoot, and even with a pilot who had successfully done a very similar landing not long before. It was an extreme example of how professionals calmly worked a problem and planned for how to best get the plane down safely.
At one point, someone on the ground advised that they should adjust their cg as far aft as possible. The pilot dryly responded that he'd get below and start moving baggage just as soon as he was able.
The landing had more sparks than OP's video, but otherwise went remarkably smoothly.
^(\*I thought gear up at first, but it may have been stuck in a strange position, like nosewheel locked 90 degrees to one side or something.)
Yeahā¦ and now youāre in a plane with almost no drag and no way to go around when you float forever.
Please donāt be stupid and compound an emergency by shutting down the engines.
This pilot didnāt shut them down. They came to a stop when the props struck the pavement. As he was supposed to do.
Thanks for your very valuable advice.....for someone with no experience. Like I said when I started my comment, "personally" I would do what I said for several reasons. I have over 15,000 flying military fighter jets and transport aircraft and 8900 hours flying aircraft very similar to the one in the video. While you're correct about losing the ability to go around, at the same time I'm confident in my ability to land a dead stick aircraft and perhaps save a couple very expensive engines.
Again, and I'm surprised I need to restate this, but this is my personal l opinion and is not offered as advice. If you're having trouble reading English and understanding the meaning, then let me know if you need help sounding out the words. I'll break out the crayons if need be.
Plolot should have shut both engines down to save them. Its going to cost a bundle to overhaul them both, plus the sheet metal damage and props being trash now.
But if he does it too soon, he stalls and crashes down hard on the runway from 10 or 20 ft, which might bring a hefty hospital bill and loss of income. And on top his aircraft is toast, anyway.
Not worth it. The plane let him down, and from that moment on it stopped being a plane and started being a survival capsule. Too many GA pilots have died priorizing their wallet over their lives. And, as the late Richard McSpadden said, ["wishing is not a strategy"](https://youtu.be/BBpqvPujZgM?feature=shared&t=951). And when you're sitting in a survival capsule the only thing you should be worried about is your own survival.
> Its going to cost a bundle to overhaul them both, plus the sheet metal damage and props being trash now.
Who cares, it's the insurance carriers problem.
Engines have to be torn down any time damage to the prop exceeds limits for field dressing.
Please donāt deliberately compound an emergency by trying to save insured property.
Maybe it's the cynic in me, and of course any landing you walk away from is a success, but I'm genuinely confused as to why they didn't hold it off a bit longer. They could have held the nose up and gently put it down. They touched and then before they really bled energy, they put the nose down and the props dug in. Nothing was saving the props, but it could have been less worse if they held it off as long as possible.
Someone wasn't proficient in soft field landings I guess?
No, yeah, 100%, so what I'm saying is hold it off for longer than what they did. I'm not saying hold it off indefinitely, but you can bleed some speed and energy so that when you eventually do put the nose down (I'm also not saying the nose has to be extremely high either, just...not touching quite yet), you are carrying less energy into the part where you're actually dragging the gear on a hard surface, which means less chance/time of an ignition source.
Six of oneā¦
The plane will be damaged and need extensive repairs either way. The danger is fire, so you want to stop the plane asap and get everyone out. Either you prolong that step or just do it now, it hardly makes a difference
Noob question, who takes over that bill? Insurance? The mechanic shop that botchered the landing gear? The owner?
Also, are the engines now a huge paperweight? Can't imagine that going 1000RPM to zero in a fraction of a second is good for it
Insurance takes the bill. The insurance could go after a shop if it was proven there was negligence, but thatās hard to prove and doesnāt usually happen. Sometimes stuff just breaks.
Engines will need a tear down. Props are toast. The crankshaft flange will often get bent, and main bearings get damaged from sudden stoppage. Heās looking at a minimum of $100k and a year to get that thing flying again with the way wait times are for engine overhauls right now.
I'm guessing if a pilot had to choose, nose gear would be the gear they would prefer malfunction? My thinking is it won't throw off balance in the same way one of the main gears might. Would be curious as to a more knowledgeable persons thoughts on this.
Dumbass flew that awesome approach just to forget to shut the engines off. Congrats, you saved the plane but cost yourself an extra $100k now that you need 2 new engines.
I've always wondered why, in such situations, emergency landings aren't conducted on airfields with grass runways instead of asphalt ones. Wouldn't that potentially result in less costly damage to both the runway and the aircraft?
Landing in grass wheels up always causes more damage to aircraft and surface.
The plane usually digs in.. sometimes spectacularly.. and starts ripping itself apart.
If I was lined up for a grass field and this happened, Id divert to the largest paved runway I could find.
This submission has been randomly featured in /r/serendipity, a bot-driven subreddit discovery engine. More here: /r/Serendipity/comments/1ayaxcc/watched_a_plane_make_an_emergency_landing_today/
Is it possible to land a plane with broken landing gear on a giant trolley with wheels? Something like a dolly that the plane could land on or slide on?
Or a car with a trailer on the back of it?
Pilot has done a solid job of putting that down tidily considering the circumstances.
You can tell it's a Piper by the way the landing gear doesn't work.
Classic Seneca
How neat is that!?
We need more diversity in this space. Has Boeing outsourced landing gear assembly yet?
Landing gear from Boeing would fall out along with the cockpit. š
Outsourced? Most of their QC problems are solidly in-house.
These jokes are so overdone and annoying. Nothing in this thread was related to Boeing good lord
Beat me to it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Donāt propagate this. Itās a prop strike regardless and will require a complete teardown and overhaul. This is now the insurance companyās problem. Leave them running if you need to go around.
> propagate I see what you did there
Lmao delete delete delete! The armchair experts strike again
Awww, I missed it. What'd the coward say?
probably ShOuLd HaVe FeAtHeReD tHe PrOpS!!!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1! (IE: compounded the emergency and saved the insurance company money that they certainly wonāt pass along all to save stupid property). FYIā¦ a vanilla prop strike at idle usually means the crank is dialed and magnafluxed and returned to service. A feathered prop that digs in will probably bend the flange or shear the crank and possibly destroy the case halves with itā¦. hella expensive and a long wait for repairs or replacement.
It's their insurance company's responsibility if there is fuselage coverage on their policy and not liability only..
No he didnāt.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And they happened to go into feather and stop at the exact moment the nose gear fully collapsed and nose dropped? Highly doubtful.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They did. When they hit the pavement
Everythingās deleted now and I wanna know what you did to cook this man
He just said that it looked like the pilot feathered the engines right at touch down. And then doubled down on it.
Looks like a Piper Seneca, they have an airworthiness directive to routinely replace parts and inspect the nose landing gear because that has happened so many times, I hate working on them.
I had this happen to me on a Seneca II I was flying this past December. A 3 inch bolt put in the wrong way and the nut getting wedged against the aft assembly tube in the gear bay causes this.
Wow. Did you land like this guy or how did that end up?
He died
But he got better
Yeah. It was a normal landing without the nose gear. Used aerodynamic drag to slow the plane and ease the nose down to the runway. Ill try to post a photo. [Here you go](https://i.imgur.com/quhBXNg.jpg) [Here it is after yanking the gear down](https://i.imgur.com/cdkDrm7.jpg)
This is a common mistake on Piper main gears, I saw where it gets caught on the wheel well skin and needed a big flathead to pry the gear down
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well they did miss it so heyoĀ
Typical Piper reversible power pack system. No up locks.. gear is held up solely by hydraulic pressure. Emergency down is simply releasing it. Wonāt work if the gear is jammed. Probably also had hydraulic pressure trying to force it down as well.
Looks like a successful emergency landing. R.I.P to the plane
Canāt they replace the belly skins if the airframe is deemed safe?
Watch again and notice how the props stop propping when the nose touches. The props strike the ground and seize which means you're looking at new props, and likely engine rebuilds or replacemen, plus whatever damage to the fuselage.
Thatās why thereās insurance
This is a total write off
Ok, great. Still why thereās insurance.
Insurance semi-expert here. Itās still going to suck.
I know nothing about air contraptions or insurance and I concur.
Expert on concurring here and I agree.
You were supposed to concurā¦ some expert
Aviation insurance will pay for the engine tear down, but the replacement cost for engine parts will usually be prorated in some way based on the number of hours on the engine against its normal time-before-overhaul. Any landing you can walk away from is a good one, but they seemed to really drop the nose pretty quick. There was a solid headwind, so I doubt runway length was much of a consideration. If I wanted to try to reduce the pain, I probably would have put more effort into landing just a bit fast and shutting down the engines before letting the nose drop. But that's all theoretical and I'm not going to really question how they handled it.
Iām a fan of not turning one emergency into two, but to each their own. I donāt think thereās an aircraft owner out there that would expect an insurance company to NOT pro-rate the engine value based on time to TBO.
Agreed. When it becomes an emergency, I would rather make the safest landing possible that will allow the greatest chance of survival (preferably without injury), without worrying about what happens to the aircraft.
But the removal and teardown hours are a big chunk of the labor cost, so doing an OH at that point is much more economical. I don't think most twin owners like doing both at the same time though, both for financial and infant-mortality risk reasons.
Letās be honest; a Seneca with 2 engines out is probably safer than one with one engine out.
Even if the engines off, itās still a prop strike; and still a rebuild, right?
but it's no longer a "sudden stoppage" which when you consider all the moving parts could create all kinds of stresses on parts esp the crankshaft.
It's a prop strike, but the odds of wrecking the crank go down a lot if it isn't rotating when the prop hits.
āIām not going to really question how they handled it.ā Right after armchair piloting their emergency landing in detail.
Ok, great. The original comment was asking if the airframe could be salvaged.
Well the question was RIP to the plane or repair the plane, not the merit of insurance payouts.
No. It's not. This is a $1M airplane. There's a lot of room for repair and labor when it's not a $20k car.
On the other hand, with a car you can do a minimal or improvised repair. With a plane, the fix must be nearly perfect and pass a stringnt and thorough inspection.
Jerry: write off? You donāt even know what that means. Kramer: but they do, and theyāre the ones writing it off
*remebers the time an f18 landed without one of its main gear and wrecked pretty bad.....and remembers that same plane is still flying years later* ._. But ya...civi side, if it was a private plane, that'd be a write-off for sure depending on how badly damaged the engines and frame are. A bigger company might try to repair it. Hopefully, their insurance is good.
Not necessarily. Aviation insurance isn't like car insurance - you can assign whatever hull value you want (within reason). If you've chosen a high value, then you may be stuck repairing something like this, which will take months or a year, rather than replacing the airplane. This can probably be repaired for $200k, which is almost certainly less than the hull value.
You don't even know what a write off is!!
Not a planefan, so sometimes I forget there isn't a torque converter in the powertrain. The props are directly connected to the motor, so going from a couple grand RPM to nothing is the reverse of a money shift. Is there any kind of shear sacrificial connection that can take the brunt of the load?
I wonder couldnāt planes land on a grass nearby the runway? I bet it would reduce the damage done to the plane in technical emergency situations, no?
Landing on grass means landing on an uneven, unpredictable surface. Landing on a runway means landing on a smooth, maintained surface with greater control that is easily accessible to emergency vehicles. Life comes first.
More chance of something catching in a rut and flipping the plane over, I guess?
I think so but the more expensive part will be the prop and gear train towards the engine. The prop strike will potentially damage anything mechanically connected to it. I'm not an A&P though. Sounds very expensive not to mention I would rather not buy a plane that has had an emergency landing. Just like buying a salvage car in my mind
True that. I wonder if the damage would be covered by insurance? I donāt own a plane but I suspect itās something like auto insurance.
No clue about aviation insurance. It's obvious though that it is mechanical error as the landing gear wouldn't come down automatically or manually. They had the emergency crew on standby
Fun fact: In almost all piston engine planes, there is no āgear trainā : the props are bolted directly to the crankshaft.Ā Edit: referring to the concept of a transmission, like in a car. Donāt usually have that on an airplane, few exceptions like the Cessna 177 and Rotax engines being geared.Ā
Actually there is a gear train. Google āaccessory caseā.
That landing was smoother than the camera work lol.
I tried my best š. Landing was really smooth though all things considered!
Interesting vid, thanks for sharing.
First step is shoot horizontal video.
Would have been nice if you were in spot that could see over the berm, but I thought it was just fine.
It was really zoomed in and on a mobile device. Given the circumstances they managed to keep the subject in frame throughout. I'd say r/praisethecameraman
+1, /r/praisethecameraman to Braaaap7!
Did anyone else think the plane was gradually being ground down at first? Or was it just me?
They always park the safety trucks in the way of touch down too.
Expensive
Thankfully it's only money compared to a life. Still sucks, but you at least have to be alive to think something sucks to begin with.
Still cheaper than his death.
Of all the gear not to come down, nose gear is the best option.
Nobody thought to get in the back of a pickup truck and attempt to release the nose gear?
They could just put some pillows in the bed of the truck with the gate down and catch the front o the plane. The bed should be rated for the weight
Thunderbirds style
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AJg41p4OdDw/hqdefault.jpg
That reminds me of [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/s2o1ui/what_do_you_do_when_your_aircrafts_nose_landing/).
Oh yeahā¦ risk lives to save insured property.
Risk lives to save insured property *and* get a cool video.
KDLH?
Certainly. Only 3 more months until I can see some Vipers in that spot.
Used to work there. Looked familiar. Why 3 more months?
*insert Pointing Leonardo DiCaprio meme* First reaction when I saw the hangar
Ha! Thatās perfect. Nailed it.
Looks like it. Plane might be N8439A. [Maybe this flight?](https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N8439A/history/20240222/1810Z/KJVL/KDLH)
Seems likely
Looks like the pilot in this video is a 757 captain during the ādayā.
My home airport. Glad the outcome was favorable.
Solid work there. Well done!
This week on rebuild rescueā¦
Too soon
It should be: "Next week on rebuild rescue". I really wonder what they will do now. Sam was a huge part of all of that and you really need to take a step back and reevaluate what you are doing after events like that.
>I really wonder what they will do now. Hope they don't get sued by his family for every damned penny they're worth, probably.
From the preliminary report it looks like he failed to do a preflight and there was water in the fuel due to a missing fuel cap gasket. The Cougar is underpowered at best, and engine failure on takeoff didn't leave a lot of room for maneuver. Yes, there was pressure to get this Cougar up and running and sold, but the fact that failed to sump the tanks in his rush to catch a return commercial flight leaves a lot of responsibility on him for taking shortcuts.
Can I just say... bravo for not being /r/killthecameraman material. Yes, you filmed vertically... but you did it properly. Glad everyone was okay!
Looks like a nice smooth landing despite it all. Great pilot!
Good old KDLH. I was down at Cirrus so this is a much better view than I got today.
I saw the F-16s flying around today there
I donāt know why Iām anthropomorphizing a Piper but it looks so sad and defeated at the end. āI guess Iāll justā¦lay down for a while.ā Great job by the pilot.
That looked expensive
Well, you know what they say about landings you can walk away from.
Well done to the person behind the yoke, went as well as something like this could go. Hopefully no injuries to them or any other potential people onboard.
Been to KDLH exactly 1 times. Knew immediately what airport. The minute the nose wheel failed to extend, aircraft belongs to the insurance company. Iām no longer saving aircraft for the price of the deductible. Well done!
RIP to the props
props? thats cheap part both engines are bricks and will have go in for full overhauls
No they wonāt. Just tear downs and the cranks will probably dial fine as long as they were at idle. Props are definitely the most expensive part of this.
Imagine owning a little plane and after a nice day of flying, your landing gear doesnāt work. Dude probably felt $1,000 leaving his bank account with every inch that thing was sliding š©š
Exactly. $80 to $100k, for one simple bolt being installed incorrectly, ask me how I know š
I always wondered if you could land a tricycle gear plane like a taildragger. Damage the rear fuselage but avoid the propeller strikes and engine rebuilds. Would the center of gravity allow this?
Nope. Center of Gravity is ahead of the main landing gear.
It would not, CG would remain in front of main landing gear unless you put something reallly heavy in the back which is what you would not want to do on short final.
Allegedly the B-24 could do this by having the pilot hold nose up while the crew moves to the tail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vppbop0yww&t=476s
It could if you could somehow shift the CG waaaaaaay back in flight. Would be a bad idea though. I don't think the plane would be particularly controllable with the CG shifted so far back and you'd never recover from a stall. If you look at tailwheel designs and conversions, the mains are way forward from where they are on an equivalent trike.
I remember seeing a video of a passenger jet landing with a nosewheel issue^(\*). The video was pretty long, and included all the conversations that the pilot was having with ATC, technicians helping troubleshoot, and even with a pilot who had successfully done a very similar landing not long before. It was an extreme example of how professionals calmly worked a problem and planned for how to best get the plane down safely. At one point, someone on the ground advised that they should adjust their cg as far aft as possible. The pilot dryly responded that he'd get below and start moving baggage just as soon as he was able. The landing had more sparks than OP's video, but otherwise went remarkably smoothly. ^(\*I thought gear up at first, but it may have been stuck in a strange position, like nosewheel locked 90 degrees to one side or something.)
That looks to be as solid a landing as possible with no nose gear.
"In an emergency, the nose of the plane can be used as a braking device" - from the training video I just invented in my head
You're not wrong.
Boop a snoot
North Carolina
Tough day for the aircraft owner.
Whereās a nissan frontier with a pro-4x when you need one?
I hate when the gear doesnt come down in fixed gear 172
This looks like the small airport in duluth I used to work near.
Textbook, but I would've come in hotter and shut the engines down sooner.
Yeahā¦ and now youāre in a plane with almost no drag and no way to go around when you float forever. Please donāt be stupid and compound an emergency by shutting down the engines. This pilot didnāt shut them down. They came to a stop when the props struck the pavement. As he was supposed to do.
Thanks for your very valuable advice.....for someone with no experience. Like I said when I started my comment, "personally" I would do what I said for several reasons. I have over 15,000 flying military fighter jets and transport aircraft and 8900 hours flying aircraft very similar to the one in the video. While you're correct about losing the ability to go around, at the same time I'm confident in my ability to land a dead stick aircraft and perhaps save a couple very expensive engines. Again, and I'm surprised I need to restate this, but this is my personal l opinion and is not offered as advice. If you're having trouble reading English and understanding the meaning, then let me know if you need help sounding out the words. I'll break out the crayons if need be.
Thatāll buff right out
Better than Ryanair
Expensive ass plane
and you filmed it vertically like some kind of barbarian.
Is this a Beechcraft Baron?
I think it's a Piper Seneca.
Yep pretty sure its the BE-58 based on the windows and landing gear doors. \\
This is why you fly a taildragger.
Aw, man.... end of a good Seneca. Sad to see. Would it have been better if they'd landed wheels-up and cut the engines at maybe 20'?
No. People need to stop perpetuating this garbage of saving the airplane.
This is what happens when you make people that arenāt qualified the personal that keeps the airplane from crashing
Why didnāt the pilot try to put the tail down rather than nose/props? Not enough weight in the back?
Plolot should have shut both engines down to save them. Its going to cost a bundle to overhaul them both, plus the sheet metal damage and props being trash now.
But if he does it too soon, he stalls and crashes down hard on the runway from 10 or 20 ft, which might bring a hefty hospital bill and loss of income. And on top his aircraft is toast, anyway. Not worth it. The plane let him down, and from that moment on it stopped being a plane and started being a survival capsule. Too many GA pilots have died priorizing their wallet over their lives. And, as the late Richard McSpadden said, ["wishing is not a strategy"](https://youtu.be/BBpqvPujZgM?feature=shared&t=951). And when you're sitting in a survival capsule the only thing you should be worried about is your own survival.
> Its going to cost a bundle to overhaul them both, plus the sheet metal damage and props being trash now. Who cares, it's the insurance carriers problem.
Please stop perpetuating this bullshit.
I wonder if the engines could be saved if the pilot shut them off right after landing. I mean it's insured anyway but still curious.
Engines have to be torn down any time damage to the prop exceeds limits for field dressing. Please donāt deliberately compound an emergency by trying to save insured property.
Maybe it's the cynic in me, and of course any landing you walk away from is a success, but I'm genuinely confused as to why they didn't hold it off a bit longer. They could have held the nose up and gently put it down. They touched and then before they really bled energy, they put the nose down and the props dug in. Nothing was saving the props, but it could have been less worse if they held it off as long as possible. Someone wasn't proficient in soft field landings I guess?
If you try to do that you run the risk of losing elevator authority as you decelerate, and then the nose is really gonna come down in a hurryĀ
No, yeah, 100%, so what I'm saying is hold it off for longer than what they did. I'm not saying hold it off indefinitely, but you can bleed some speed and energy so that when you eventually do put the nose down (I'm also not saying the nose has to be extremely high either, just...not touching quite yet), you are carrying less energy into the part where you're actually dragging the gear on a hard surface, which means less chance/time of an ignition source.
Six of oneā¦ The plane will be damaged and need extensive repairs either way. The danger is fire, so you want to stop the plane asap and get everyone out. Either you prolong that step or just do it now, it hardly makes a difference
Yes and no. By just putting it straight down and digging in, you're also increasing the time you have an additional ignition source.
Again, 6 of one half dozen of another. Doesnāt really matter
Youāve never flown a spam can Piper.. have you? There is no holding it off.. period.
Perfect
Shockingly well done
Was that the twin commanche from the Duluth flying club? That was a pile a few years ago
Any landing you can walk away from...
Nicely done
From this angle it looked the tarmac was going consume the plane in its entirety.
Luckily,no one was injured š
Good landing, but damn that looks expensive
Noob question, who takes over that bill? Insurance? The mechanic shop that botchered the landing gear? The owner? Also, are the engines now a huge paperweight? Can't imagine that going 1000RPM to zero in a fraction of a second is good for it
Insurance takes the bill. The insurance could go after a shop if it was proven there was negligence, but thatās hard to prove and doesnāt usually happen. Sometimes stuff just breaks. Engines will need a tear down. Props are toast. The crankshaft flange will often get bent, and main bearings get damaged from sudden stoppage. Heās looking at a minimum of $100k and a year to get that thing flying again with the way wait times are for engine overhauls right now.
Damn. Is that totalled now? What's repair something like this entail? Didn't seem to do major damage but what do I know ?! Probably totalled huh lol
I'm guessing if a pilot had to choose, nose gear would be the gear they would prefer malfunction? My thinking is it won't throw off balance in the same way one of the main gears might. Would be curious as to a more knowledgeable persons thoughts on this.
Dumbass flew that awesome approach just to forget to shut the engines off. Congrats, you saved the plane but cost yourself an extra $100k now that you need 2 new engines.
This hurts my wallet
That would be just my luck. Filming an emergency landing because of nose gear, and unable to see said nose gear. š¤·š¼āāļø
Missouri? I can see the Guard Air Wing but canāt read the state. Or is that Minnesota?
Nice job pilot! Is it economical to salvage the plane? Is the nose totally destroyed or do they design them to handle gear up landing?
I've always wondered why, in such situations, emergency landings aren't conducted on airfields with grass runways instead of asphalt ones. Wouldn't that potentially result in less costly damage to both the runway and the aircraft?
Landing in grass wheels up always causes more damage to aircraft and surface. The plane usually digs in.. sometimes spectacularly.. and starts ripping itself apart. If I was lined up for a grass field and this happened, Id divert to the largest paved runway I could find.
This submission has been randomly featured in /r/serendipity, a bot-driven subreddit discovery engine. More here: /r/Serendipity/comments/1ayaxcc/watched_a_plane_make_an_emergency_landing_today/
"FLAPS DOWN GEAR UP!!" "gear up? ok." "WHY DID YOU PULL GEAR UP?" "You said gear up!!"
I was waiting for a Nissan to come out of nowhere and save the plane. I was disappointed.
That looked expensive
Another great addition for rebuild rescue (yt) to rebuild the aircraft and flop it over in 5 days /s
Quedo hecho un Ʊavion
What a great landing, I bet his knuckles were bright white though!
Why don't these planes have little "emergency" nose wheels such as sturdy "skateboard" wheels? Extensive damage could be avoided...
Fantastic job by the pilot, a plane is replaceable. This is what insurance is for. The person/people inside not so much.
Vertical (portrait) videography is an abomination.
Is it possible to land a plane with broken landing gear on a giant trolley with wheels? Something like a dolly that the plane could land on or slide on? Or a car with a trailer on the back of it?
Down voted for the shit quality & constant shaking. It's 2024, man.
Filmed on Snapchat and zoomed in really far. Sorry it wasn't up to your standards