37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 1022426 |
Time | |
Date | 201207 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
State Reference | US |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | MU-2 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | Landing |
Route In Use | Visual Approach |
Flight Plan | VFR |
Component | |
Aircraft Component | Landing Gear Indicating System |
Person 1 | |
Function | Pilot Flying Single Pilot |
Qualification | Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Commercial Flight Crew Multiengine |
Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 20 Flight Crew Total 4600 Flight Crew Type 650 |
Events | |
Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe |
Narrative:
Pilot primary operational experience is in mu-2B-20. Aircraft flown was mu-2B-26. Formal differences training received 2 years prior; and pilot had recent re-orientation flights in previous 24 hours. Aircraft diverted from original destination due to inadequate fuel (headwinds); arrived at secondary airport with approximately 1 hour fuel remaining. Airport in sight; canceled IFR; entered pattern. Gear down with nose-gear (only) unsafe indication. Gear re-cycled with same indication. While circling; [I] attempted to adjust/remove nose-gear indicator light without success. [I] attempted to contact FBO personnel without response; planning fly-by for visual nose gear inspection. Local traffic indicated FBO personnel unavailable. [I] proceeded to a larger nearby airport under VFR. Emergency checklist consulted and manual extension considered; circuit breakers cycled and reset but manual extension deferred as there was no other indication of mechanical problem- gear remained down. Approach control was contacted and advised of nose gear unsafe indication. No emergency was declared. Approach offered fly-by and external gear inspection; provided vectors for the runway to follow commercial traffic. Tower advised air show in progress on opposite side of airport and emergency vehicles would stand-by for low-approach inspection. Initial fly-by inspection indeterminate and 2nd fly-by was requested by ground personnel. Second inspection confirmed nose gear down. Landing accomplished without incident. Emergency crew briefed at FBO upon shutdown. Further manipulation of nose-gear indicator was successful in removing lamp and confirmed burned-out bulb; replaced with on-board spare. Flight to original destination resumed when air show departure window allowed. Factors affecting decision-process included distraction by relative low-fuel state and prolonged operations at low altitude VFR in high-drag; high-fuel-consumption condition. Incomplete familiarity with the aircraft model operated resulted in a focus on mechanically testing gear-indicator bulbs; when in fact a master gear-light press-to-test was available (not available on mu-2B-20). Recent reports of nose-gear collapse incidents in mu-2 aircraft probably also altered the perceived complexity of the problem. Perhaps a better course of action would have been to contact approach; climb to altitude for better fuel specifics and IFR traffic protection; and proceed with additional trouble-shooting during a stabilized hold on autopilot. ATC handling of the situation was exemplary; and the supportive nature of approach and tower controllers was certainly appreciated.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: MU2 Captain experiences an unsafe nose gear indication and diversion to a Tower controlled airport for a fly by. Gear is reported down and a normal landing ensues. The indicator bulb was found to be burned out and the reporter was not familiar with the test switch in this model MU2.
Narrative: Pilot primary operational experience is in MU-2B-20. Aircraft flown was MU-2B-26. Formal differences training received 2 years prior; and pilot had recent re-orientation flights in previous 24 hours. Aircraft diverted from original destination due to inadequate fuel (headwinds); arrived at secondary airport with approximately 1 hour fuel remaining. Airport in sight; canceled IFR; entered pattern. Gear down with nose-gear (only) unsafe indication. Gear re-cycled with same indication. While circling; [I] attempted to adjust/remove nose-gear indicator light without success. [I] attempted to contact FBO personnel without response; planning fly-by for visual nose gear inspection. Local traffic indicated FBO personnel unavailable. [I] proceeded to a larger nearby airport under VFR. Emergency checklist consulted and manual extension considered; circuit breakers cycled and reset but manual extension deferred as there was no other indication of mechanical problem- gear remained down. Approach Control was contacted and advised of nose gear unsafe indication. No emergency was declared. Approach offered fly-by and external gear inspection; provided vectors for the runway to follow commercial traffic. Tower advised AIR SHOW in progress on opposite side of airport and emergency vehicles would stand-by for low-approach inspection. Initial fly-by inspection indeterminate and 2nd fly-by was requested by ground personnel. Second inspection confirmed nose gear down. Landing accomplished without incident. Emergency crew briefed at FBO upon shutdown. Further manipulation of nose-gear indicator was successful in removing lamp and confirmed burned-out bulb; replaced with on-board spare. Flight to original destination resumed when air show departure window allowed. Factors affecting decision-process included distraction by relative low-fuel state and prolonged operations at low altitude VFR in high-drag; high-fuel-consumption condition. Incomplete familiarity with the aircraft model operated resulted in a focus on mechanically testing gear-indicator bulbs; when in fact a master gear-light press-to-test was available (not available on MU-2B-20). Recent reports of nose-gear collapse incidents in MU-2 aircraft probably also altered the perceived complexity of the problem. Perhaps a better course of action would have been to contact Approach; climb to altitude for better fuel specifics and IFR traffic protection; and proceed with additional trouble-shooting during a stabilized HOLD on autopilot. ATC handling of the situation was exemplary; and the supportive nature of Approach and Tower controllers was certainly appreciated.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.