Savin' the Prop

[pelmet]

...And the engine.

"C-FLBX, a privately registered Cessna 177RG aircraft, was conducting a flight from Dog Creek (abandoned), BC to Nanaimo, BC (CYCD). During the approach to land at CYCD, the pilot received an indication that the nose wheel was not in the down and locked position. After numerous attempts to fully extend the landing gear, the pilot notified ATC and completed a low level pass for visual inspection; the nose wheel was confirmed to be extended. The pilot shut the
engine down during the final approach, and positioned the propeller in a horizontal position. During the landing roll, the nose wheel collapsed and the aircraft came to rest on the runway. No injuries to the 2 occupants were reported."

[PostmasterGeneral]

Nicely done

[jakeandelwood]

Insurance companies always like it when you save them money.

[pelmet]

Insurance companies always like it when you save them money.

Some people don't have hull insurance. They like to save money too.

[jakeandelwood]

Insurance companies always like it when you save them money.

Some people don't have hull insurance. They like to save money too.

I'll bet he has hull insurance now. Probably bought himself a gear mirror as well.

[fish4life]

well done, its a sign of good decision making and not only to save the engine but a turning prop can also be deadly if spinning when hitting the ground.

[Zaibatsu]

Maybe in a Michael Bay movie. But then, the whole aircraft would have exploded, regardless.

Deliberately compounding an emergency to save pieces of the aircraft is a stupid thing to do.

[phillyfan]

So using that logic. Would you ever shut down an engine on a twin that showed no oil pressure, or should someone just run it in hopes that it won't seize up?

[Hellocopter]

So using that logic. Would you ever shut down an engine on a twin that showed no oil pressure, or should someone just run it in hopes that it won't seize up?

nothing wrong with shutting down an engine.

pilots are trained to fly on 1 engine and on all engines. not 1.5 engines

i believe the thunderbird crash a few years ago short final at yvr was because of that

[cncpc]

Maybe in a Michael Bay movie. But then, the whole aircraft would have exploded, regardless.

Deliberately compounding an emergency to save pieces of the aircraft is a stupid thing to do.

I take it you've fucked up an engine and prop for no good reason, and resent it when other pilots extend well deserved praise for someone else who showed better airmanship, and are compelled to say the pilot who saved his or her engine is "stupid"?

If you can't shut down a single engine over the button at 20 feet, and move the prop to horizontal and flare and land the airplane, you shouldn't have a pilot's license.

[C.W.E.]

If you can't shut down a single engine over the button at 20 feet, and move the prop to horizontal and flare and land the airplane, you shouldn't have a pilot's license.

Exactly, how in hell is saving your prop and engine compounding an emergency?

If these people are flying the paying public around the industry is truly in trouble.

[5x5]

So using that logic. Would you ever shut down an engine on a twin that showed no oil pressure, or should someone just run it in hopes that it won't seize up?

Not sure you quite got the logic right. I believe he meant that you've compounded the emergency by taking away the ability to overshoot when you shut down a perfectly good engine on a single engine airplane with a possible gear problem. Not the same as shutting down a hurting engine on a twin at all.

If you can't shut down a single engine over the button at 20 feet, and move the prop to horizontal and flare and land the airplane, you shouldn't have a pilot's license.

I don't remember when they taught and practiced that procedure in PPL training, or CPL training for that matter. I do remember being prepared to overshoot all the way to the touchdown though. As for doing it, how many times have you practiced/done it? I haven't ever and I'm not sure that it would be quite as easy as you assert - flaring and touching down with the right hand (not something most pilots have practiced) while the left is turning the key to bump the prop and focusing on that as you try to manage the flare and touchdown sounds like it might not be the slam-dunk you think it is.

[cncpc]

So using that logic. Would you ever shut down an engine on a twin that showed no oil pressure, or should someone just run it in hopes that it won't seize up?

Not sure you quite got the logic right. I believe he meant that you've compounded the emergency by taking away the ability to overshoot when you shut down a perfectly good engine on a single engine airplane with a possible gear problem. Not the same as shutting down a hurting engine on a twin at all.

If you can't shut down a single engine over the button at 20 feet, and move the prop to horizontal and flare and land the airplane, you shouldn't have a pilot's license.

I don't remember when they taught and practiced that procedure in PPL training, or CPL training for that matter. I do remember being prepared to overshoot all the way to the touchdown though. As for doing it, how many times have you practiced/done it? I haven't ever and I'm not sure that it would be quite as easy as you assert - flaring and touching down with the right hand (not something most pilots have practiced) while the left is turning the key to bump the prop and focusing on that as you try to manage the flare and touchdown sounds like it might not be the slam-dunk you think it is.

How many times have I done it? Well, let's see what I can remember. A 310 on 12 at YVR back in the mid 80's. (No right main light, switch knocked off by a rock on takeoff from the old Vernon strip) A Grumman Cougar at Midden-Zeeland in Holland in 97 (no nose indication, gear had fallen out by itself, mechanic found that the whole nose gear uplock cylinder had departed the airplane after takeoff from Charleboise, I think it was) and a 337 at Castlegar in 2009. (Shut the rear down on final before dropping gear as a cable was whipping the aircraft and appeared to be coming from the front gear door, passenger side, and shut front down in flare).

Practiced? Probably 20-30 times. I used to be an instructor. Near the end of training, I would give one or more forced approaches with the engine shut down and deadsticked from 500 feet. Always at at least a 5000 foot strip with a sizeable grass area suitable for landing before the ashphalt. Never had a go around, never had a bounce that needed power to cushion. I wasn't the only instructor demo-ing that back in the day.

If you cut early, you have the prop in position before the flare. Most times, it seems to end up that way anyhow. Different with a three blade.

I take the fella's point about a danger from a spinning prop, but every prop I've ever seen strike (YouTube) has never busted. They're pretty bendable, and not likely they'd go off somewhere. More risk in a twin with the prop arc beside people. Not much energy though if it first hits, then breaks. The main benefit to the shutdown is to avoid the requirement for a teardown and check of the crankshaft, bearings, etc.

[JasonE]

Practiced? Probably 20-30 times. I used to be an instructor. Near the end of training, I would give one or more forced approaches with the engine shut down and deadsticked from 500 feet. Always at at least a 5000 foot strip with a sizeable grass area suitable for landing before the ashphalt. Never had a go around, never had a bounce that needed power to cushion. I wasn't the only instructor demo-ing that back in the day.

My first dead stick was real.....That was an eye opener. Made a runway (not the one I departed) and remembered to drop the gear. Demonstrating one would be good for students!

[jakeandelwood]

Maybe in a Michael Bay movie. But then, the whole aircraft would have exploded, regardless.

Deliberately compounding an emergency to save pieces of the aircraft is a stupid thing to do.

I take it you've fucked up an engine and prop for no good reason, and resent it when other pilots extend well deserved praise for someone else who showed better airmanship, and are compelled to say the pilot who saved his or her engine is "stupid"?

If you can't shut down a single engine over the button at 20 feet, and move the prop to horizontal and flare and land the airplane, you shouldn't have a pilot's license.

All you are doing at that point is saving your insurance company money, if you own a plane and can't afford hull insurance something is wrong. The tower flyby always baffles my mind, what are they going to tell you? " the gear is down and maybe locked" that's what you really need to know, if it's locked, not just appearing to be down. If you've checked the indicator bulbs and done all you can do just land, you'll have to eventually. "Gee Mr. Controller, thanks for telling me my gear LOOKS down, I'll now prepare for a possible nose wheel collapse just like I was before I did the flyby"

[cncpc]

Practiced? Probably 20-30 times. I used to be an instructor. Near the end of training, I would give one or more forced approaches with the engine shut down and deadsticked from 500 feet. Always at at least a 5000 foot strip with a sizeable grass area suitable for landing before the ashphalt. Never had a go around, never had a bounce that needed power to cushion. I wasn't the only instructor demo-ing that back in the day.

My first dead stick was real.....That was an eye opener. Made a runway (not the one I departed) and remembered to drop the gear. Demonstrating one would be good for students!

Mine was into San Francisco Bay. On wheels, with 3 pax. I had 53 hours.

That's why I used to have my students fly at least one forced with the prop stopped once the runway was made. You can't pick where you get an engine fail, not like in training. Throttled back is not the same as seeing the prop stopped in front of you with just the sound of wind.

[fish4life]

Maybe in a Michael Bay movie. But then, the whole aircraft would have exploded, regardless.

Deliberately compounding an emergency to save pieces of the aircraft is a stupid thing to do.

I take it you've fucked up an engine and prop for no good reason, and resent it when other pilots extend well deserved praise for someone else who showed better airmanship, and are compelled to say the pilot who saved his or her engine is "stupid"?

If you can't shut down a single engine over the button at 20 feet, and move the prop to horizontal and flare and land the airplane, you shouldn't have a pilot's license.

All you are doing at that point is saving your insurance company money, if you own a plane and can't afford hull insurance something is wrong. The tower flyby always baffles my mind, what are they going to tell you? " the gear is down and maybe locked" that's what you really need to know, if it's locked, not just appearing to be down. If you've checked the indicator bulbs and done all you can do just land, you'll have to eventually. "Gee Mr. Controller, thanks for telling me my gear LOOKS down, I'll now prepare for a possible nose wheel collapse just like I was before I did the flyby"

Sometime it’s just a sensor, the tower fly by can also give some more awareness of where the gear is, attached at all? Still up completely or partially down.

As for not having hull insurance, lots of people don’t have it because sometimes it doesn’t make financial sense because it can be more expensive than it’s worth. An example would be some time float planes are around 10% of the hull value so as long as you don’t crash every 10 years it’s cheaper to not have it.

[jakeandelwood]

Maybe in a Michael Bay movie. But then, the whole aircraft would have exploded, regardless.

Deliberately compounding an emergency to save pieces of the aircraft is a stupid thing to do.

I take it you've fucked up an engine and prop for no good reason, and resent it when other pilots extend well deserved praise for someone else who showed better airmanship, and are compelled to say the pilot who saved his or her engine is "stupid"?

If you can't shut down a single engine over the button at 20 feet, and move the prop to horizontal and flare and land the airplane, you shouldn't have a pilot's license.

All you are doing at that point is saving your insurance company money, if you own a plane and can't afford hull insurance something is wrong. The tower flyby always baffles my mind, what are they going to tell you? " the gear is down and maybe locked" that's what you really need to know, if it's locked, not just appearing to be down. If you've checked the indicator bulbs and done all you can do just land, you'll have to eventually. "Gee Mr. Controller, thanks for telling me my gear LOOKS down, I'll now prepare for a possible nose wheel collapse just like I was before I did the flyby"

Gear up, down, partially extended, what's the difference in the end, you know you have a gear problem, you know it may collapse, nevermind the meaningless circling, save your fuel and get to an airport where you can get the gear up landing damage repaired easily. Or you could do multiple tower flybys, and circling like a certain Cessna 210 did a number of months ago down in the US after his gear wouldn't go all the way down and the poor soul finally ran out of gas and crashed short of the runway

[Zaibatsu]

cncpc

I’ve never had a prop contact the ground. I’ve never had my plane land without the correct gear contacting the correct surface. Not once. Nada. You seem to have all the experience in that regard. Maybe I’m more lucky than you are.

However, I’ve witnessed many props hit the ground when running and the results are very anticlimactic. A couple blades strike and curl, and the engine stops. I’ve seen far more damage done from props slinging rocks when taxiing than they ever did contacting the ground at low power.

Did the insurance companies give you a portion of the money you saved them? Did your employer? I highly doubt it.

I wonder what they would have done if you overshot in your now very clean aircraft trying to perform a landing in a configuration you’ve never practiced before? Or if the feathered prop dug in and sheared a crank flange off because that simple clocking it wasn’t so simple.

As some others said, we aren’t taught it, we aren’t told to do it, and valuing the post landing condition of the aircraft over the safe arrival of the occupants is perhaps one of the most dangerous attitudes in aviation.

[jakeandelwood]

I saw pilot try and taxi a Lake amphibian into a his hangar and (yes, with the engine running!) the wooden prop hit the not fully open hangar door and the prop just exploded into flying bits. Metal props bend but not wood ones.

[PilotDAR]

My complements to a pilot who, a): flies the plane safely until it stops, and b): has the coolness and skill to take additional action minimize damage while doing it. Stopping an engine while crossing the fence under control to an appropriate landing spot is not unsafe - even if you went off the end a bit (CYTZ excepted!). If the pilot's motivation was that the aircraft is not hull insured, even better for them! I choose to not hull insure my planes, as many people I know do. That makes me self insured, and responsible to myself for saving the insurer money, so I'm even more eager!

Having the "out" of the opportunity for an overshoot is nice, when you can. But not every landing enables that, and some times, you simply have to apply your skill to getting it right. I've had many gear unsafe experiences in my flying, including circling north of CYYZ for several hours solo in a C310, whose gear refused to budge down, electric, or manual. By eventually bending the handcrank, I got it down. The C177RG was notorious for indication failures, and nose gear lock down problems. I expect that experienced Cardinal pilots keep this in the back of their mind.

If you can't plan and neatly execute a power off landing from turning base, you should practice more. That skill will give you assurance that should you need to shut down an engine (which I have done), you can still put the plane back safely, and save someone lots of money and grief. It sounds to me that this pilot did an above average job in a stressful situation, and deserves respect for that - he/she has mine.

[laminar]

I’m a very low time pilot, so maybe this thought might be considered stupid to some. I can see the benefit of saving an engine like discussed, but if I had nose gear problems and had thoughts of a nose gear collapse I’d consider engine shutdown to secure the engine and turn my fuel flow off. I wouldn’t want to have the front of the AC chewed up (including the potential of fuel lines being damaged) and end up with a fire. I think it would make things a little safer (at least from the fuel selector back).

[cncpc]

cncpc

I’ve never had a prop contact the ground. I’ve never had my plane land without the correct gear contacting the correct surface. Not once. Nada. You seem to have all the experience in that regard. Maybe I’m more lucky than you are.

However, I’ve witnessed many props hit the ground when running and the results are very anticlimactic. A couple blades strike and curl, and the engine stops. I’ve seen far more damage done from props slinging rocks when taxiing than they ever did contacting the ground at low power.

Did the insurance companies give you a portion of the money you saved them? Did your employer? I highly doubt it.

I wonder what they would have done if you overshot in your now very clean aircraft trying to perform a landing in a configuration you’ve never practiced before? Or if the feathered prop dug in and sheared a crank flange off because that simple clocking it wasn’t so simple.

As some others said, we aren’t taught it, we aren’t told to do it, and valuing the post landing condition of the aircraft over the safe arrival of the occupants is perhaps one of the most dangerous attitudes in aviation.

Well, we have different experiences, leading to different perspectives, and different judgments about whether basing behaviour on a pathologically stupid expectation of a scenario based on pilot incompetence is or isn't one of the most dangerous attitudes in aviation.

I have an old well used flying jacket tacked up on backing and framed. At the bottom it says "Not everything is learned in a book".

I doubt anyone is luckier than me.

[C.W.E.]

Reading this is really depressing to know that there are people that do not have the experience or self confidence to set the airplane up so you do not do unnecessary damage to your prop and engine.

It is people ( notice I said people, not pilots. ) like some here who are so lacking in flying skills they can't perform a simple basic task like such we are discussing.

No wonder insurance is so expensive and the properly trained pilots have to pay for the incompetent ones.

[shimmydampner]

cncpc

I’ve never had a prop contact the ground. I’ve never had my plane land without the correct gear contacting the correct surface. Not once. Nada. You seem to have all the experience in that regard. Maybe I’m more lucky than you are.


As some others said, we aren’t taught it, we aren’t told to do it, and valuing the post landing condition of the aircraft over the safe arrival of the occupants is perhaps one of the most dangerous attitudes in aviation.

We get it, you don’t have experience beyond what you’ve been taught and told to do. Which is probably plenty for right seat at Jazz or Encore. However, some pilots are expected to be able to think outside that small box to successfully and safely complete their day to day. This one was evidently able to keep everyone on board safe while saving the prop and, let’s not forget, the engine. Job well done I’d say.