37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 719116 |
Time | |
Date | 200612 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : zzz.airport |
State Reference | US |
Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Night |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | general aviation : personal |
Make Model Name | PA-44 Seminole Turbo Seminole |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | landing : roll |
Route In Use | approach : visual |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Controlling Facilities | tower : teb.tower |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | other |
Function | instruction : instructor |
Qualification | pilot : private pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : cfi pilot : commercial |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 57 flight time total : 465 flight time type : 74 |
ASRS Report | 719116 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | other |
Function | instruction : trainee |
Qualification | pilot : student |
Events | |
Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical ground encounters : gear up landing other anomaly |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa other flight crewb |
Resolutory Action | flight crew : executed go around |
Consequence | other |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Narrative:
After completing the maneuvers; we received radar vectors from approach for the ILS to at ZZZ. After being vectored to the north for a few mi; we received our final vector and intercepted the localizer. As we were being vectored; I queried the student as to whether or not the approach checklist and briefing had been completed. The student confirmed that they had been completed; and I verified that they were. We then intercepted the localizer and began the approach. We reported established and were handed over to the tower moments later. I then asked the student what speed he was going to shoot the approach at. I recommended 110 KTS for an instrument approach in this particular aircraft. The student slowed the aircraft to 110 KTS passing through intersection. We then proceeded down the GS and I monitored the student's execution of the approach. As we were approximately 400 ft above da; I noticed the IAS steadily increasing; eventually reaching 130-135 KTS. At this point; I made a brief indication to the student that the aircraft was a bit fast. However; with 10000 ft of runway ahead of us; it did not cause me a great deal of concern at the time. Upon reaching da; I instructed the student to remove his foggles and to pull the power back to slow the aircraft down as much as possible. The student then removed his foggles and reduced the power to idle. We then proceeded toward the runway for a landing and flared the aircraft to bleed off the remaining airspeed. The aircraft proceeded down the runway in the flare with me assisting with aft yoke pressure; and the airspeed bled down to safe touchdown speed. It was at this moment that the student and I heard a distinct sound of metal impacting the runway surface. The sound lasted for about 1-2 seconds. There was no doubt in my mind that some portion of the aircraft had come into contact with the runway. My initial thought was that the propellers had hit. However; there was no vibration; or yawing; or any kind of erratic movement of the aircraft itself. We felt no movement; we only heard the sound. After realizing that an abnormal situation existed; I instinctively transitioned my brain into 'go around' mode. The student then reached down for the gear handle to move it into the 'up' position. It was at this point that the 2 of us realized that the gear was already in the 'up' position. I quickly reached up for the throttles and pushed them full forward and took control of the aircraft. We then climbed out normally and I asked the tower for a turn onto downwind for a full stop landing. While in the traffic pattern; there were no vibrations; or abnormal sounds or erroneous engine indications. We continued on the downwind and executed the 'before landing checklist.' we then turned base and then final for a normal landing. Upon exiting the runway and taxiing back; the aircraft continued to exhibit completely normal operational characteristics. In response to this; both the student and I thought that we possibly could not have had a 'propeller' strike; but instead probably had a 'tail' strike. We taxied the aircraft back to the ramp and shut down the engines. It was at this time that we noticed the damage to the tips of the propellers. We then exited the aircraft and conducted a thorough inspection; starting with the engine nacelles and propellers. We saw that the left engine propeller had sustained slight damage; but that it was very difficult to detect it without very close inspection. The right engine propeller sustained more damage than the left; with the tips bent approximately 1 inch. After that; we inspected the airframe itself and concluded that no damage had been inflicted.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: PIPER-SEMINOLE INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT HAVE A GEAR UP LNDG.
Narrative: AFTER COMPLETING THE MANEUVERS; WE RECEIVED RADAR VECTORS FROM APCH FOR THE ILS TO AT ZZZ. AFTER BEING VECTORED TO THE N FOR A FEW MI; WE RECEIVED OUR FINAL VECTOR AND INTERCEPTED THE LOC. AS WE WERE BEING VECTORED; I QUERIED THE STUDENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE APCH CHKLIST AND BRIEFING HAD BEEN COMPLETED. THE STUDENT CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAD BEEN COMPLETED; AND I VERIFIED THAT THEY WERE. WE THEN INTERCEPTED THE LOC AND BEGAN THE APCH. WE RPTED ESTABLISHED AND WERE HANDED OVER TO THE TWR MOMENTS LATER. I THEN ASKED THE STUDENT WHAT SPD HE WAS GOING TO SHOOT THE APCH AT. I RECOMMENDED 110 KTS FOR AN INST APCH IN THIS PARTICULAR ACFT. THE STUDENT SLOWED THE ACFT TO 110 KTS PASSING THROUGH INTXN. WE THEN PROCEEDED DOWN THE GS AND I MONITORED THE STUDENT'S EXECUTION OF THE APCH. AS WE WERE APPROX 400 FT ABOVE DA; I NOTICED THE IAS STEADILY INCREASING; EVENTUALLY REACHING 130-135 KTS. AT THIS POINT; I MADE A BRIEF INDICATION TO THE STUDENT THAT THE ACFT WAS A BIT FAST. HOWEVER; WITH 10000 FT OF RWY AHEAD OF US; IT DID NOT CAUSE ME A GREAT DEAL OF CONCERN AT THE TIME. UPON REACHING DA; I INSTRUCTED THE STUDENT TO REMOVE HIS FOGGLES AND TO PULL THE PWR BACK TO SLOW THE ACFT DOWN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THE STUDENT THEN REMOVED HIS FOGGLES AND REDUCED THE PWR TO IDLE. WE THEN PROCEEDED TOWARD THE RWY FOR A LNDG AND FLARED THE ACFT TO BLEED OFF THE REMAINING AIRSPD. THE ACFT PROCEEDED DOWN THE RWY IN THE FLARE WITH ME ASSISTING WITH AFT YOKE PRESSURE; AND THE AIRSPD BLED DOWN TO SAFE TOUCHDOWN SPD. IT WAS AT THIS MOMENT THAT THE STUDENT AND I HEARD A DISTINCT SOUND OF METAL IMPACTING THE RWY SURFACE. THE SOUND LASTED FOR ABOUT 1-2 SECONDS. THERE WAS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT SOME PORTION OF THE ACFT HAD COME INTO CONTACT WITH THE RWY. MY INITIAL THOUGHT WAS THAT THE PROPS HAD HIT. HOWEVER; THERE WAS NO VIBRATION; OR YAWING; OR ANY KIND OF ERRATIC MOVEMENT OF THE ACFT ITSELF. WE FELT NO MOVEMENT; WE ONLY HEARD THE SOUND. AFTER REALIZING THAT AN ABNORMAL SIT EXISTED; I INSTINCTIVELY TRANSITIONED MY BRAIN INTO 'GAR' MODE. THE STUDENT THEN REACHED DOWN FOR THE GEAR HANDLE TO MOVE IT INTO THE 'UP' POS. IT WAS AT THIS POINT THAT THE 2 OF US REALIZED THAT THE GEAR WAS ALREADY IN THE 'UP' POS. I QUICKLY REACHED UP FOR THE THROTTLES AND PUSHED THEM FULL FORWARD AND TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT. WE THEN CLBED OUT NORMALLY AND I ASKED THE TWR FOR A TURN ONTO DOWNWIND FOR A FULL STOP LNDG. WHILE IN THE TFC PATTERN; THERE WERE NO VIBRATIONS; OR ABNORMAL SOUNDS OR ERRONEOUS ENG INDICATIONS. WE CONTINUED ON THE DOWNWIND AND EXECUTED THE 'BEFORE LNDG CHKLIST.' WE THEN TURNED BASE AND THEN FINAL FOR A NORMAL LNDG. UPON EXITING THE RWY AND TAXIING BACK; THE ACFT CONTINUED TO EXHIBIT COMPLETELY NORMAL OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS. IN RESPONSE TO THIS; BOTH THE STUDENT AND I THOUGHT THAT WE POSSIBLY COULD NOT HAVE HAD A 'PROP' STRIKE; BUT INSTEAD PROBABLY HAD A 'TAIL' STRIKE. WE TAXIED THE ACFT BACK TO THE RAMP AND SHUT DOWN THE ENGS. IT WAS AT THIS TIME THAT WE NOTICED THE DAMAGE TO THE TIPS OF THE PROPS. WE THEN EXITED THE ACFT AND CONDUCTED A THOROUGH INSPECTION; STARTING WITH THE ENG NACELLES AND PROPS. WE SAW THAT THE L ENG PROP HAD SUSTAINED SLIGHT DAMAGE; BUT THAT IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO DETECT IT WITHOUT VERY CLOSE INSPECTION. THE R ENG PROP SUSTAINED MORE DAMAGE THAN THE L; WITH THE TIPS BENT APPROX 1 INCH. AFTER THAT; WE INSPECTED THE AIRFRAME ITSELF AND CONCLUDED THAT NO DAMAGE HAD BEEN INFLICTED.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.