Student and instructor land twin commanche gear up. Training in progress.

Attributes
ACN	312840
Time
Date	199508
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : cvo
State Reference	OR
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	general aviation : instructional
Make Model Name	PA-30 Twin Comanche
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	landing other
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	instruction : instructor oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 15 flight time total : 6700 flight time type : 200
ASRS Report	312840
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot instruction : trainee
Qualification	pilot : private
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 52 flight time total : 317 flight time type : 5
ASRS Report	312521
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other other : unspecified cockpit
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

I was instructing a student in multi-engine procedures as an evaluation to determine the student's readiness for a multi-engine chkride. We had completed a simulated go around and commenced another simulated single engine approach. The student stated he was performing a 'gumps' check on the downwind leg. I saw his hand on the gear switch, and commented that rather than use 'gumps,' he should perform a flow check appropriate to the make and model of aircraft, and then review the landing checklist. I did not check to see if the gear was, in fact, extended. I also ignored the opportunity to check the gear on short final, as is my usual policy. There were no traffic conflicts or other distrs to excuse my complacency. I simply failed to follow my usual behavior patterns in checking the gear before landing. I had encountered this situation at least 5 times in the past 20 yrs as a multi-engine instructor, and averted a gear-up landing because I used proper procedures. I cannot offer an excuse as to why I did not follow procedures on this approach. Instructors, follow established patterns and do not become complacent. It can happen to anyone.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR LAND TWIN COMMANCHE GEAR UP. TRAINING IN PROGRESS.

Narrative: I WAS INSTRUCTING A STUDENT IN MULTI-ENG PROCS AS AN EVALUATION TO DETERMINE THE STUDENT'S READINESS FOR A MULTI-ENG CHKRIDE. WE HAD COMPLETED A SIMULATED GAR AND COMMENCED ANOTHER SIMULATED SINGLE ENG APCH. THE STUDENT STATED HE WAS PERFORMING A 'GUMPS' CHK ON THE DOWNWIND LEG. I SAW HIS HAND ON THE GEAR SWITCH, AND COMMENTED THAT RATHER THAN USE 'GUMPS,' HE SHOULD PERFORM A FLOW CHK APPROPRIATE TO THE MAKE AND MODEL OF ACFT, AND THEN REVIEW THE LNDG CHKLIST. I DID NOT CHK TO SEE IF THE GEAR WAS, IN FACT, EXTENDED. I ALSO IGNORED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHK THE GEAR ON SHORT FINAL, AS IS MY USUAL POLICY. THERE WERE NO TFC CONFLICTS OR OTHER DISTRS TO EXCUSE MY COMPLACENCY. I SIMPLY FAILED TO FOLLOW MY USUAL BEHAVIOR PATTERNS IN CHKING THE GEAR BEFORE LNDG. I HAD ENCOUNTERED THIS SIT AT LEAST 5 TIMES IN THE PAST 20 YRS AS A MULTI-ENG INSTRUCTOR, AND AVERTED A GEAR-UP LNDG BECAUSE I USED PROPER PROCS. I CANNOT OFFER AN EXCUSE AS TO WHY I DID NOT FOLLOW PROCS ON THIS APCH. INSTRUCTORS, FOLLOW ESTABLISHED PATTERNS AND DO NOT BECOME COMPLACENT. IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE.

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.