Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Career Questions
Nose Gear Failure- Nose Gear up Landing >

Nose Gear Failure- Nose Gear up Landing

Notices
Career Questions Career advice, interview prep and gouges, job fairs, etc.

Nose Gear Failure- Nose Gear up Landing

Old 01-17-2017, 06:22 PM
  #1  
New Hire
Thread Starter
 
pilot07's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: B350/PC12
Posts: 4
Default Nose Gear Failure- Nose Gear up Landing

Was recently giving instruction to an MEI applicant in a light twin (BE-76). The nose gear failed to extend. We did everything we could but could not get it down, including manual free fall, G loading, etc. Gear doors wouldn't open. Since I was seated in left seat I flew the landing, shut the engines down at 100ft, feathered the props and used starter to get them horizontal. No prop strike, no sudden engine stoppage- touched down on mains and then eventually the nose came to ground. All in all not much damage to airplane minus nose cone, gear doors and some scraping on some panels near the nose. Was found to be a failure of the nose gear door linkage when the gear retracted, which locked the gear doors shut.

However, under NTSB part 830, it is considered an "accident" since the aircraft received "substantial damage" (NTSB Definition: damage or failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and that would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component). Since its requiring new paneling on the underside, new gear doors, new nose cone, Im being told its an accident since the aircraft could not be flown in its current state. The aircraft is being repaired and expected to be flying again in a couple of weeks.

Now to the point of my post - I was just filling out an insurance form for a client for instruction in his PC-12. It asked have you ever had an accident, incident or violation, check yes or no and explain. I felt terrible having to check yes, even though I explained it was a mechanical fault and not pilot error. Do insurance companies, or employers, look down on this now, since i technically have an accident I have to report, even if not pilot error? I guess its just a fear of being immediately discounted as soon as you check yes.
pilot07 is offline  
Old 01-17-2017, 07:24 PM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Twin Wasp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: Sr. VP of button pushing
Posts: 2,674
Default

You might want to look further at the NTSB definition of an accident. Are the paneling, gear doors or nose cone structural? Nowhere does the NTSB say not being able to fly the aircraft means it's an accident.

Of course if you've filed the report now it's in the system.
Twin Wasp is offline  
Old 01-17-2017, 07:43 PM
  #3  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 36,035
Default

It shouldn't hurt you, any reasonable employer should give you the opportunity to explain, either on the application or in person.

I think you could have gotten away with that not being NTSB reportable, but there is some grey area. Sometimes mechanics will file NTSB reports to CYA when they repair an aircraft...
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 01-17-2017, 08:33 PM
  #4  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,544
Default

It shouldn't, but it really can, and it often does.

You need to have the opportunity to explain, and often once that box is checked, that opportunity doesn't arise.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 01-17-2017, 08:50 PM
  #5  
New Hire
Thread Starter
 
pilot07's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: B350/PC12
Posts: 4
Default

Originally Posted by Twin Wasp View Post
You might want to look further at the NTSB definition of an accident. Are the paneling, gear doors or nose cone structural? Nowhere does the NTSB say not being able to fly the aircraft means it's an accident.

Of course if you've filed the report now it's in the system.
True. No report has been filed yet, has been only 3 days since the landing. And it seems that the NTSB is more clear on what substantial damage is not, rather than is. If a report has to be filed, I suppose could appeal that this did not constitute an accident.
pilot07 is offline  
Old 01-17-2017, 09:15 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,903
Default

Originally Posted by pilot07 View Post
Was recently giving instruction to an MEI applicant in a light twin (BE-76). The nose gear failed to extend. We did everything we could but could not get it down, including manual free fall, G loading, etc. Gear doors wouldn't open. Since I was seated in left seat I flew the landing, shut the engines down at 100ft, feathered the props and used starter to get them horizontal. No prop strike, no sudden engine stoppage- touched down on mains and then eventually the nose came to ground. All in all not much damage to airplane minus nose cone, gear doors and some scraping on some panels near the nose. Was found to be a failure of the nose gear door linkage when the gear retracted, which locked the gear doors shut.

However, under NTSB part 830, it is considered an "accident" since the aircraft received "substantial damage" (NTSB Definition: damage or failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and that would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component). Since its requiring new paneling on the underside, new gear doors, new nose cone, Im being told its an accident since the aircraft could not be flown in its current state. The aircraft is being repaired and expected to be flying again in a couple of weeks.

Now to the point of my post - I was just filling out an insurance form for a client for instruction in his PC-12. It asked have you ever had an accident, incident or violation, check yes or no and explain. I felt terrible having to check yes, even though I explained it was a mechanical fault and not pilot error. Do insurance companies, or employers, look down on this now, since i technically have an accident I have to report, even if not pilot error? I guess its just a fear of being immediately discounted as soon as you check yes.
Being told by whom? Many times, the NTSB will refrain from making a judgement, whether an event is an accident or an incident, in the initial days of the investigation, before they've gotten to look at pictures of the damage. I would keep inquiring with the NTSB Investigator In Charge as to the disposition of it, whether it's an accident and why. If it was just skidding a nose-cone on the ground, it would be very rare for it to be classified as an accident, and I do this stuff day in and day out. If it hit the nose hard and wrinkled skin that required a major repair, then you might have a good case for an accident. The NTSB investigator can tell you if it's being classified as an accident or incident. If you can't find this from the database (like it's only been a few days or weeks), then call your regional NTSB office to get the information. These people work for you, essentially.

Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.
Are you asking whether an accident shows on your FAA PRIA records? There are ways to find that out if you are not sure. It's a good idea to get a copy of your records before making any employment applications.
JamesNoBrakes is offline  
Old 01-18-2017, 11:53 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2016
Posts: 132
Default

I also think that it would be very rare for the NTSB to label that as an accident. The investigators understand the ramifications of that for a pilot so I'm betting they called it an incident.

You need to call the FAA or NTSB and find out how it got labeled.

If it did get labeled as an accident, that would be worth getting a lawyer and appealing.

I would refrain from filling out anymore job applications also. You do not want to go through all the headaches of filling one of those things out only to have an automatic filter throw your application in the trash.
NatGeo is offline  
Old 01-18-2017, 06:39 PM
  #8  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 36,035
Default

Originally Posted by NatGeo View Post
I would refrain from filling out anymore job applications also. You do not want to go through all the headaches of filling one of those things out only to have an automatic filter throw your application in the trash.
Why would they filter him out if he didn't also check the violation box?
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 01-24-2017, 09:01 PM
  #9  
All is fine at .79
 
TiredSoul's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 3,597
Default

Useless info alert:
Without looking at the regs and definitions to me this has all the qualities of an 'incident' and not an 'accident'.
TiredSoul is offline  
Old 01-24-2017, 09:43 PM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
awax's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,680
Default

Maybe this helps:

https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/ntsb/
awax is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AZFlyer
Your Photos and Videos
5
04-23-2014 09:39 AM
USMCFLYR
Safety
6
02-23-2014 10:53 AM
TheStranger
Flight Schools and Training
10
02-16-2014 07:31 PM
USMCFLYR
Safety
5
04-29-2013 06:56 PM
Gordon C
JetBlue
5
10-06-2005 04:28 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread