Narrative:

I was on a long (6 mi) straight-in approach. I started the checklist (proper tank, etc) and waited to finish the checklist when we were closer. Upon resuming checklist, the landing gear failed to be properly checked. The checklist should have been completed in its entirety instead of resuming the checklist. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that the damage was minimal, propeller replaced and some skin on the belly replaced. He indicated his passenger was his father-in-law who owns the aircraft. Seemed to be confusion regarding IFR or DVFR flight plan and whether they were even on an IFR flight plan or not. It seems the father-in-law completed the upper portion of the report after reporter had completed the narrative. Analyst suggested that a checklist should be started from the beginning if not completed in sequence.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMANCHE PLT LANDS GEAR UP.

Narrative: I WAS ON A LONG (6 MI) STRAIGHT-IN APCH. I STARTED THE CHKLIST (PROPER TANK, ETC) AND WAITED TO FINISH THE CHKLIST WHEN WE WERE CLOSER. UPON RESUMING CHKLIST, THE LNDG GEAR FAILED TO BE PROPERLY CHKED. THE CHKLIST SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN ITS ENTIRETY INSTEAD OF RESUMING THE CHKLIST. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT THE DAMAGE WAS MINIMAL, PROP REPLACED AND SOME SKIN ON THE BELLY REPLACED. HE INDICATED HIS PAX WAS HIS FATHER-IN-LAW WHO OWNS THE ACFT. SEEMED TO BE CONFUSION REGARDING IFR OR DVFR FLT PLAN AND WHETHER THEY WERE EVEN ON AN IFR FLT PLAN OR NOT. IT SEEMS THE FATHER-IN-LAW COMPLETED THE UPPER PORTION OF THE RPT AFTER RPTR HAD COMPLETED THE NARRATIVE. ANALYST SUGGESTED THAT A CHKLIST SHOULD BE STARTED FROM THE BEGINNING IF NOT COMPLETED IN SEQUENCE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.