Narrative:

The following has at present been classified as an incident by the FAA. During flight training on the missed approach from a simulated single engine ILS, the student, a first officer in upgrade training, was instructed to execute a VFR traffic pattern and land runway 30. The scenario was a simulated single engine, no flap approach and landing. The student flew a normal 0 flap (larger than normal) pattern with all normal checklists being called for except the single engine before landing checklist, which was delayed until final approach. All other items on the checklist were done except the gear down call, which was delayed until landing assured. On final approach the student and I forgot to call for gear down and to verify it respectively. The aircraft landed gear up and sustained damage to the propellers, rear fuselage and belly. This commuter type small transport is equipped with a gear warning horn which is activated when the flaps are selected past 20 degrees with gear up (the horn was prevented from sounding because the flaps were not deployed), and/or the throttles are retarded below approximately 10% torque. Due to the fact that the left engine was at 0 thrust (approximately 15% torque) and the right engine was operating at approximately 30%, the horn was not activated. Although none of this relieves the crew of responsibility, if the horn had sounded the gear up landing could have been averted. The above events occurred in the early am during training (mostly emergency situations). Both crew members had been awake since morning the previous day and had dead-headed to the training location the previous afternoon. The reporter had been instructing another student from late pm to early am. The students had then rotated and the student flying during the above events had initially been observing the first student flying and then had been flying for 1 hour. Although both crew members did not feel or considered themselves fatigued, a certain reduction in alertness and performance could have been a factor given the hour, and the fact that the crew had been awake for 20 hours. The reporter had been instructing for 4 hours at the time of the incident with only a 15 min break while the students rotated. This could also have been a contributing factor.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER SMT FLT CREW ON TRAINING FLT LAND GEAR UP.

Narrative: THE FOLLOWING HAS AT PRESENT BEEN CLASSIFIED AS AN INCIDENT BY THE FAA. DURING FLT TRNING ON THE MISSED APCH FROM A SIMULATED SINGLE ENG ILS, THE STUDENT, A F/O IN UPGRADE TRNING, WAS INSTRUCTED TO EXECUTE A VFR TFC PATTERN AND LAND RWY 30. THE SCENARIO WAS A SIMULATED SINGLE ENG, NO FLAP APCH AND LNDG. THE STUDENT FLEW A NORMAL 0 FLAP (LARGER THAN NORMAL) PATTERN WITH ALL NORMAL CHKLISTS BEING CALLED FOR EXCEPT THE SINGLE ENG BEFORE LNDG CHKLIST, WHICH WAS DELAYED UNTIL FINAL APCH. ALL OTHER ITEMS ON THE CHKLIST WERE DONE EXCEPT THE GEAR DOWN CALL, WHICH WAS DELAYED UNTIL LNDG ASSURED. ON FINAL APCH THE STUDENT AND I FORGOT TO CALL FOR GEAR DOWN AND TO VERIFY IT RESPECTIVELY. THE ACFT LANDED GEAR UP AND SUSTAINED DAMAGE TO THE PROPS, REAR FUSELAGE AND BELLY. THIS COMMUTER TYPE SMT IS EQUIPPED WITH A GEAR WARNING HORN WHICH IS ACTIVATED WHEN THE FLAPS ARE SELECTED PAST 20 DEGS WITH GEAR UP (THE HORN WAS PREVENTED FROM SOUNDING BECAUSE THE FLAPS WERE NOT DEPLOYED), AND/OR THE THROTTLES ARE RETARDED BELOW APPROX 10% TORQUE. DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE LEFT ENG WAS AT 0 THRUST (APPROX 15% TORQUE) AND THE RIGHT ENG WAS OPERATING AT APPROX 30%, THE HORN WAS NOT ACTIVATED. ALTHOUGH NONE OF THIS RELIEVES THE CREW OF RESPONSIBILITY, IF THE HORN HAD SOUNDED THE GEAR UP LNDG COULD HAVE BEEN AVERTED. THE ABOVE EVENTS OCCURRED IN THE EARLY AM DURING TRNING (MOSTLY EMER SITUATIONS). BOTH CREW MEMBERS HAD BEEN AWAKE SINCE MORNING THE PREVIOUS DAY AND HAD DEAD-HEADED TO THE TRNING LOCATION THE PREVIOUS AFTERNOON. THE RPTR HAD BEEN INSTRUCTING ANOTHER STUDENT FROM LATE PM TO EARLY AM. THE STUDENTS HAD THEN ROTATED AND THE STUDENT FLYING DURING THE ABOVE EVENTS HAD INITIALLY BEEN OBSERVING THE FIRST STUDENT FLYING AND THEN HAD BEEN FLYING FOR 1 HR. ALTHOUGH BOTH CREW MEMBERS DID NOT FEEL OR CONSIDERED THEMSELVES FATIGUED, A CERTAIN REDUCTION IN ALERTNESS AND PERFORMANCE COULD HAVE BEEN A FACTOR GIVEN THE HR, AND THE FACT THAT THE CREW HAD BEEN AWAKE FOR 20 HRS. THE RPTR HAD BEEN INSTRUCTING FOR 4 HRS AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT WITH ONLY A 15 MIN BREAK WHILE THE STUDENTS ROTATED. THIS COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR.

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.