|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1801 To 2400|
|Locale Reference||airport : zzz.airport|
|Altitude||agl single value : 0|
|Make Model Name||M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 91|
|Flight Phase||landing : roll|
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
|Qualification||pilot : instrument|
pilot : multi engine
pilot : commercial
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 90|
flight time total : 1800
flight time type : 800
|Function||observation : passenger|
|Anomaly||aircraft equipment problem : critical|
non adherence : published procedure
other anomaly other
|Independent Detector||aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : position lights|
other flight crewa
|Resolutory Action||none taken : detected after the fact|
|Problem Areas||Chart Or Publication|
Flight Crew Human Performance
|Primary Problem||Flight Crew Human Performance|
Last night I landed gear up. I was on an IFR flight plan that was closed in the air above the airport upon my arrival to the area. The WX was clear, and the winds were calm. The gear up landing that occurred was primarily the result of pilot error through a failure to properly perform a prelndg check. Contributing factors were a non-standard approach to the airport, and the failure of the gear warning horn to operate. I believe my failure to properly perform the prelndg check was related to having allowed myself to feel 'a little too comfortable' with the airplane. A contributing factor was that a non-standard approach to the airport interrupted the normal landing sequence. We arrived several thousand ft above pattern altitude. This was due to an effort to control the descent rate required to alleviate the ear pain my child was experiencing. Upon initiating the last phase of the descent to pattern altitude, I recall verifying that the airspeed was below 140 KTS, and then in my mind, I lowered the gear. Obviously, a properly performed prelndg check, with visual verification, would have shown that the gear was not actually down. The other contributing factor was the fact that the gear-warning horn failed to operate. Mr X from FBO as well as mr Y from the FSDO, verified this condition. Had the horn operated properly, I would have had a chance to avoid the incident. Due to the fact that the airframe did not receive substantial damage, the FAA is classifying the event as an incident, not an accident. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated a proper prelndg check and a working landing gear warning system would have avoided this incident. The reporter said maintenance on testing the landing gear warning, found when the throttle was retarded smoothly, the horn would not sound. The reporter stated that if the throttle was hammered back, the horn would sound. The reporter said the throttle switch was .250 inches out of adjust, and was replaced and readjusted per the mooney maintenance manual. The reporter stated the only damage incurred was to the engine and propeller.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A MOONEY 20 LANDED GEAR UP, INCURRING DAMAGE TO THE PROP AND ENG, AND MINIMAL DAMAGE TO AIRFRAME.
Narrative: LAST NIGHT I LANDED GEAR UP. I WAS ON AN IFR FLT PLAN THAT WAS CLOSED IN THE AIR ABOVE THE ARPT UPON MY ARR TO THE AREA. THE WX WAS CLR, AND THE WINDS WERE CALM. THE GEAR UP LNDG THAT OCCURRED WAS PRIMARILY THE RESULT OF PLT ERROR THROUGH A FAILURE TO PROPERLY PERFORM A PRELNDG CHK. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE A NON-STANDARD APCH TO THE ARPT, AND THE FAILURE OF THE GEAR WARNING HORN TO OPERATE. I BELIEVE MY FAILURE TO PROPERLY PERFORM THE PRELNDG CHK WAS RELATED TO HAVING ALLOWED MYSELF TO FEEL 'A LITTLE TOO COMFORTABLE' WITH THE AIRPLANE. A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS THAT A NON-STANDARD APCH TO THE ARPT INTERRUPTED THE NORMAL LNDG SEQUENCE. WE ARRIVED SEVERAL THOUSAND FT ABOVE PATTERN ALT. THIS WAS DUE TO AN EFFORT TO CTL THE DSCNT RATE REQUIRED TO ALLEVIATE THE EAR PAIN MY CHILD WAS EXPERIENCING. UPON INITIATING THE LAST PHASE OF THE DSCNT TO PATTERN ALT, I RECALL VERIFYING THAT THE AIRSPD WAS BELOW 140 KTS, AND THEN IN MY MIND, I LOWERED THE GEAR. OBVIOUSLY, A PROPERLY PERFORMED PRELNDG CHK, WITH VISUAL VERIFICATION, WOULD HAVE SHOWN THAT THE GEAR WAS NOT ACTUALLY DOWN. THE OTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS THE FACT THAT THE GEAR-WARNING HORN FAILED TO OPERATE. MR X FROM FBO AS WELL AS MR Y FROM THE FSDO, VERIFIED THIS CONDITION. HAD THE HORN OPERATED PROPERLY, I WOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO AVOID THE INCIDENT. DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE AIRFRAME DID NOT RECEIVE SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE, THE FAA IS CLASSIFYING THE EVENT AS AN INCIDENT, NOT AN ACCIDENT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED A PROPER PRELNDG CHK AND A WORKING LNDG GEAR WARNING SYS WOULD HAVE AVOIDED THIS INCIDENT. THE RPTR SAID MAINT ON TESTING THE LNDG GEAR WARNING, FOUND WHEN THE THROTTLE WAS RETARDED SMOOTHLY, THE HORN WOULD NOT SOUND. THE RPTR STATED THAT IF THE THROTTLE WAS HAMMERED BACK, THE HORN WOULD SOUND. THE RPTR SAID THE THROTTLE SWITCH WAS .250 INCHES OUT OF ADJUST, AND WAS REPLACED AND READJUSTED PER THE MOONEY MAINT MANUAL. THE RPTR STATED THE ONLY DAMAGE INCURRED WAS TO THE ENG AND PROP.
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.