Skycare Navajo Gear up YRL Fri May 23rd

[YYZSaabGuy]

in addition to how you already feel

And there it is. Remember, the pilot's
feelings are vastly more important than
the damage they have done.

In today's Canada, it's ok to bend tin and
hurt and kill people. Just don't hurt anyone's
feelings, ok? As long as everyone thinks you're
a great guy, it doesn't matter if you're a sh1t pilot.

I don't think anybody's actually said that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I do think there's a level of fatigue with the piling on and Monday morning quarterbacking in this thread. Complexintentions nailed it. Nobody is saying it's OK to bend tin.

[Colonel Sanders]

Nobody is saying it's OK to bend tin

Oh yes, they are. Go back and read this thread
from the beginning, and you will find numerous
people trying to excuse their screwup.

It's not a "learning experience".

Contrast that with the horrified reaction of people
that someone's feelings might get hurt, and we
have a Monty Python sketch. Surreal.

Monday morning quarterbacking

Now look at whom is indulging in hyperbole.

What was challenging about this flight? Was
the aircraft mechanically not functioning? Was
the weather bad? Was the runway/airport
environment difficult?

What we have is two guys, with a thick checklist,
under benign conditions, that couldn't remember
how to fly an airplane.

That's a statement of fact - not "Monday Morning
Quarterbacking".

No one cares, but having two pilots and a thick
checklist didn't help, did it?

Compare the two YRL heroes with this old guy,
who had to land a King Air after the gear wouldn't
come down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohtoifa5bNM


And he did that single-pilot. Probably reading
the checklist during the flare and touchdown.

[YYZSaabGuy]

Go back and read this thread
from the beginning, and you will find numerous
people trying to excuse their screwup.

It's not a "learning experience".

In fact, I have gone back and reviewed from the beginning.
The closest I can find to excusing the event was Trey's suggestion that we should all celebrate it as a learning experience.
I'm pretty sure he was being ironic.
But hey, feel free to keep piling on, because it adds so much value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse

[Colonel Sanders]

Your reading comprehension is terrible:

Mach1 wrote:

We've all made mistakes. Most of us caught the mistakes in time or were lucky enough to recover from it before winding up on the internet. All people are fallible and no one is perfect. I hope that this is viewed as a learning experience by the crew and an opportunity to focus them in the future. I also hope no one was injured. I can't see how any of the negative comments are going to help what has already been done. The sharing of good habits is constructive and helpful.


Koalemos wrote:

What is the sequence of events that lead to the gear up landing?
What were the mechanical and environmental factors?
How much experience did the pilots have (in general, on type, in that environment)?
What was their training like?
Was there a reason they might have *elected* to do a gear up landing?


rxl wrote:

you have absolutely NO idea what actually took place here - certainly you have NO business passing judgement on the crew.
The saying "there but by the grace of God go I" applies to every single one of us.


complexintentions wrote:

thankful no one was hurt and the damage was limited to bent metal

You're voting Liberal in the next Ontario election,
correct?

[Illya Kuryakin]

Okay then. Just for shits and giggles, let's attempt to learn something from this calamity. Okay?

When, and how do YOU check the gear on approach?

I put it down at the 5 mile, check it then,check it next on my final flap setting. I check it again with my "three green, flaps are full, runway's clear, landing...."call. Then, over the fence, a so go to close the throttles, my eyes ALWAYS slip down to the little green Christmas tree before my flare....
If, perchance I leave it up for a reason, I always stuff an LE chart between the prop levers to TELL me I need to drop the gear.....the finial two checks still apply. I don't use paper checklists day to day.
I'm far from perfect. I tend to forget to raise the flaps after landing...I can live with that one.

What do YOU do? Kind of like having a routine before you putt. A wee ritchual if you must. If you don't have one, give it some thought, and develope one. Checklists just aren't working here.

Illya

[white_knuckle_flyer]

You're voting Liberal in the next Ontario election,
correct?

That's one helluva extraneous leap, right there.

I guess there are two types of parents. Let's say a kid does something dangerous that can hurt them. The one type will perhaps blow off some steam and then attempt to discuss the dangers of repeating this action. The other type will definitely blow off some steam and then just keep right on going, rationalizing that the best way ( only way?) the kid is going to learn anything is if they are emotionally tormented and made incapable of repeating such an offence.

The second type of parenting was common up to the 70s or 80s, and like 70s fashion, it is best left in the 70s.

[Liquid Charlie]

It's time that we drag ourselves out of the "good old days" -- that old military phrase -- "march the guilty bastards in" -- guys start with these 703 operators who are for the most part micro-managing tyrants -- who sit there are terrorize and brainwash young pilots to the point they think the same way -- the majority do finally see the light and move on but unfortunately carry the scars with them -- we all or should be aware that human factors and a series of events lead to most incidents/accidents -- but no -- march the guilty bastards in shoot them -- in 703 no one seems to care why something happens -- just blame the pilot -- nail his balls to the fence -- kick the sh1t out of him and give him a knife and set the barn on fire -- preventable accidents -- there is so much material - training and information about this - no exposure in 703 - and not much in 704 -- why do guys get this training only when they find themselves in 705 and even that is degrading with all the "online" training -

There is no more "ata boy" in this industry -- you go and something happens -- it will become a real lonely world -- don't even get me started on cabin class twins and single engine IFR -- fck we are a cynical bunch of assholes

[YYZSaabGuy]

Your reading comprehension is terrible:

[/quote]Speaking of reading comprehension, I'd suggest you develop some ability there yourself - maybe try the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/excuse
Your posts would be somewhat more helpful if you responded to what people were actually saying rather than putting words in their mouth to start an argument. Guess that wouldn't be as much fun though, right?

You're voting Liberal in the next Ontario election, correct?

Not a snowball's chance in hell. Not now, not ever.
That's about the only subject on which you and I consistently agree.

[Koalemos]

Your reading comprehension is terrible:

Mach1 wrote:

We've all made mistakes. Most of us caught the mistakes in time or were lucky enough to recover from it before winding up on the internet. All people are fallible and no one is perfect. I hope that this is viewed as a learning experience by the crew and an opportunity to focus them in the future. I also hope no one was injured. I can't see how any of the negative comments are going to help what has already been done. The sharing of good habits is constructive and helpful.


Koalemos wrote:

What is the sequence of events that lead to the gear up landing?
What were the mechanical and environmental factors?
How much experience did the pilots have (in general, on type, in that environment)?
What was their training like?
Was there a reason they might have *elected* to do a gear up landing?


rxl wrote:

you have absolutely NO idea what actually took place here - certainly you have NO business passing judgement on the crew.
The saying "there but by the grace of God go I" applies to every single one of us.


complexintentions wrote:

thankful no one was hurt and the damage was limited to bent metal

You're voting Liberal in the next Ontario election,
correct?

CS, you're taking posts out of context. I never said it was excusable to bend an aircraft if avoidable. Those are questions I'd like answers to, as I believe getting information and answering questions is an important step in fixing the problem.

[complexintentions]

Colonel,

Sorry, but it's your own reading comprehension that sucks. Pulling a few words from here and there, out of context, has to be the definition of a cowardly, bs argument. You lose. I did not say "thankful no one was hurt and the damage was limited to bent metal". I said "Being thankful no one was hurt and the damage was limited to bent metal, isn't the same as saying it's acceptable." Got it? You should be a journalist, the way you're twisting words.

And don't even try to start painting me as touchy-feely. I'll put my boots to some prick right quick and take pleasure in it, when I feel the situation warrants it. But calling time out on the glee that you and others take in the mistakes of others is hardly suggesting a group hug. It's only revealing who were probably the schoolyard sadists pulling the wings off bugs. There sure are a lot in aviation.

No one is making excuses for these guys, how about some answers? You've contributed the sum total of F-all towards that goal. It's pointless to state the obvious - they screwed up. Assuming it wasn't intentional, then why? Stating that it's because they're "shit pilots" will not prevent it happening again, because it's highly unlikely this happened because they're "shit pilots". Only an idiot would believe that and while I have my doubts some days, I'm mostly convinced you're not an idiot.

Just for a change of pace, try and contribute something constructive, even though this accident has nothing to do with aerobatics.

[Colonel Sanders]

try and contribute something constructive

Already have, and it was ignored.

I pointed out that having two pilots in a Navajo
(which was certificated single pilot) using a
checklist thicker than the Encyclopedia Britannica
didn't work.

There were four pilots in Asiana 214 and no shortage
of paper in the cockpit, when they drove it into the
seawall at SFO. That didn't work very well, either.
Did they need five pilots? Six pilots? Another 100
pounds of paper?

I guess being developmental in this crowd doesn't
work very well. I then pointed out a superbly
handled gear up on a King Air which was flown
single pilot, who probably wasn't reading the
checklist when he was feathering the props in
the flare.

No one could give a flying f__k at a donut what
I think, but pilots are trained by groundpounders
and paperpushers to pay attention to all the wrong
stuff, and not to use their brains. Their prioritization
is simply horrible.

Paper is no substitute for brains, judgement and
skill, no matter how much people think it should
be.

One good pilot is better than four sh1tty pilots, as
Asiana 214 taught us. A good question is why the
two guys at YRL in the 'ho aren't good pilots, who
by definition remember to lower the gear, control
the airspeed, etc.

[complexintentions]

Standing by for your solutions, then. Other than wringing your hands like an old woman about the way things are. Or more accurately, how your perceive them to be. Given that an awful lot of flights don't end the way this one or Asiana did.

I'm not even arguing that what you state is wrong. It's just a bit light on any suggestions to actually effect change. Don't give us that aw-shucks bullshit about how no one cares about what you think, it's pretty clear YOU do and that that's who opinion matters most to you.

How is pointing out that something didn't work constructive? Wasn't that obvious from the picture at the beginning?

[YYZSaabGuy]

No one could give a flying f__k at a donut what I think

And yet, you continue to post..........http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_first_sai ... s?#slide=1

[Colonel Sanders]

complexintentions asked a question, and
I attempted to answer him.

Is that sequence of logic too complicated
for your tiny Toronto brain to follow?

[Colonel Sanders]

It's just a bit light on any suggestions to actually effect change

I will try to use only a few, small words.

FLIGHT TRAINING IN CANADA SUCKS.

Do we agree on that axiom, or not? If
we do not, then there is to be no progress
in this discussion.

[CpnCrunch]

I will try to use only a few, small words.

FLIGHT TRAINING IN CANADA SUCKS.

You could be right. I just came across these gems:

http://www.spectrumairways.com/assets/d ... edures.pdf
http://www.langleyflyingschool.com/PDF% ... 282%29.pdf

In both cases there is no 'gear down' in the pre-landing check, unless I've somehow missed it. There is only a single gear check in the final approach check. If you have a look at the PA34 POH (helpfully provided by Langley Flying School on their website) you see that there is a 'gear down' check in Piper's pre-landing checklist (and it also says you should check the gear twice - once in downwind, and again on final).

[YYZSaabGuy]

complexintentions asked a question, and
I attempted to answer him.

Is that sequence of logic too complicated
for your tiny Toronto brain to follow?

Simmer down there, Skippy......no need to be rude about this stuff, we're just chatting.

I will try to use only a few, small words.

FLIGHT TRAINING IN CANADA SUCKS.

Do we agree on that axiom, or not? If
we do not, then there is to be no progress
in this discussion.

Sorry, but no, you don't get to unilaterally decide what's to be discussed. I think the subject is a bit more complicated than your binary brain seems to be able to absorb. Absolutely flight training in Canada could be improved, a lot. Some of us are working to effect that. Others seem to be content with calling down folks who disagree with them, or people who make mistakes in their flying, and TYPING IN LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS because of course shouting must mean you know what you're talking about. See the difference?

[Chris M]

I guess there are two types of parents. Let's say a kid does something dangerous that can hurt them. The one type will perhaps blow off some steam and then attempt to discuss the dangers of repeating this action. The other type will definitely blow off some steam and then just keep right on going, rationalizing that the best way ( only way?) the kid is going to learn anything is if they are emotionally tormented and made incapable of repeating such an offence.

The second type of parenting was common up to the 70s or 80s, and like 70s fashion, it is best left in the 70s.

You missed the third type, that bubble wraps their kids and never allows them to be exposed to anything resembling a dangerous situation where the ability to weigh consequences and make critical decisions is important. I'm honestly not sure whether #2 or 3 is more dangerous; the one who does things by rote because to do something they haven't been explicitly taught brings wrath and can't work through a bad situation because it isn't one they've seen and learned, or the one who has no respect for the choices that could get themselves and others hurt/killed.

[Illya Kuryakin]

And I thought I harped.
Illya

[complexintentions]

Well, at least the thread has progressed to a debate...of sorts...hahah!

I think "flight training in Canada sucks" may oversimplify a bit. If anything, there's just a dearth of critical thinking in all professions, everywhere. As the old grand-mere would say, "Common sense, isn't".

I agree with the Colonel Ego, a good pilot will replace any number of crap ones. But a mistake - even a basic, crucial one like the gear - does not necessarily a crap pilot make. There's the rub. How DO we get people thinking critically, not following procedures blindly or prioritizing the wrong task at the wrong time? These are the sort of questions that drive human factors people crazy.

There has to be balance. Stick and rudder will only get you so far. Technical knowledge will only get you so far. Rote procedure will definitely only get you very little further. But how do you learn to identify the situations, the factors that will really screw you big time, that one time? Who's teaching that? Or can the only teacher be experience, and hope that until you gain that experience you don't get your picture on AvCanada so you can be verbally ass-raped by your peers? Seems inefficient.

Anyway it's 11pm here in Dubai and I'm half in the bag, the g/f is away so time to go rent some of the talent prowling around in front of my place on SZR.

[Rookie50]

Not to jump into this 100 LL cesspool; but I think a thread discussing when for different types is a good point in the sequence to drop the gear might be useful.

I'll start referencing my 182RG. My routine is to reduce power just outside the pattern, or at the FAF IFR; slow to @ 120 KIAS, "gear down flaps 10", which puts me at a nice 100 -105 KIAS approach / downwind speed; slow to 90 on downwind, flaps 20, turn base, flaps 30, gumps check except mixture which I leave out; turn one mile final; on speed, flaps full; final gear check including the mirror, mixture goes in. Its a flow; I rarely look at the checklist in the air anymore.

It helps that my plane doesn't easily slow to approach speed without gear and at least flaps 10, unless the power is all the way back.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Studies have shown that the pilots most likely to have an accident, are the ones who have already had an accident. I'd have a very hard time hiring a pilot who had forgotten to put the gear down. I don't feel I have to justify that. I'm sure many would disagree, but I'm thinking the silent majority will agree.
Illya

[Colonel Sanders]

I think "flight training in Canada sucks" may oversimplify a bit

But it's a good starting point.

At the risk of another oversimplification, we
can divide pilots up into four groups.

4) this group of people has terrible aptitude
and such low knowledge / skill level that they
do not pass the qualifications

3) this group of guys is really marginal. They
lack aptitude, might not work very hard, might
not really be very motivated, but for whatever
reason, skate right on the edge of failure but
somehow manage to skate through, perhaps
via luck, timing, connections, etc. Occasionally
you might think they are in group #4 when they
fail out, but they reappear later through another
attempt.

2) this group of guys is inert. They pass the tests
but an original thought and a cold drink of water
would probably kill them. They can probably fly
an airplane without wrecking it as long as nothing
really challenging happens. Flying is just a job to
them. If they could earn the same money driving
a tractor, they would.

1) this group of guys are great pilots. They're the
guys who always figure out how to survive.

Now, expose these four groups of guys to the really
bad flight training we have in Canada.

Group #4 is toast.

Group #3 (eg left seat Colgan 3407) should really
find other work which is more suited to their personal
aptitudes. The bad flight training in Canada is
certainly not going to be of any help to them.

Group #2 is the target rich environment. These
inert and mostly uninterested guys do what they
are told which is unfortunate, because an awful
lot of what they are taught is complete nonsense
and totally obfuscating.

Group #1 survive really bad flight training. No
amount of bad flight training will stop them from
figuring out what they need to do, and doing it.

So, group #4 and #3 should be flushed, regardless.
Apologies if that seems to lack egalitarianism.

Group #1 doesn't need any help.

It's group #2 that could benefit from improved training.

There is an enormous gap between military and
civilian aviation (and flight training) in Canada.

We are happy with really bad civilian flight training.
I see it all the time. 90 hrs to PPL. CPL that can't
land in a crosswind. Class 4 instructor candidate
that can't keep the ball in the center. Instrument
rated pilot that can't fly an ILS.

Is it a wonder that these people forget to lower
the gear? Not really.

One simple suggestion: get rid of in-house DPE's.
Wild conflict of interest there. It would help enormously
to have a rule requiring that a DPE not be an
employee or officer or owner of the FTU.

Crap away from a great height.

[YYZSaabGuy]

I don't necessarily disagree with your classification, although I think you're focused on the far ends of a normal distribution and missing that great swath in the middle.

If your Group 1 pilots are the hot sticks with natural hands and feet, then I think there's room to add a group that falls somewhere in between your Groups 1 and 2: guys who maybe aren't as proficient as Group 1, but who by no means are "inert" or "uninterested", as you've described Group 2. Competent pilots who are reasonably bright, motivated, professional, competent, capable of flying an aircraft to pretty high standards without killing themselves or their passengers, and smart enough to survive bad flight training (should they ever encounter it) and to benefit from good flight training. In other words, the 80% or so of the pilot population that doesn't fall into one of Groups 1-4.

[sstaurus]

My god Colonel, stop being a martyr all the time, some of your posts are just painful. We are well aware of your greatness and how aviation has gone to sh!t despite your tireless efforts, which of course you repeatedly tell us no one listens to.