37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 757123 |
Time | |
Date | 200710 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : zzz.airport |
State Reference | US |
Altitude | msl single value : 3000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : zzz.tracon tower : mem.tower |
Operator | general aviation : personal |
Make Model Name | PA-34-200 Seneca I |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | climbout : takeoff |
Flight Plan | VFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | other |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : multi engine pilot : commercial pilot : instrument |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 45 flight time total : 990 flight time type : 400 |
ASRS Report | 757123 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | other |
Function | observation : passenger |
Events | |
Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : 'red' gear unsafe light other other : 1 |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Aircraft |
Primary Problem | Aircraft |
Narrative:
In the cockpit was me; as PIC and PF; and a commercial/CFI rated passenger. On attempting to retract the landing gear upon takeoff from ZZZ the red 'gear unsafe' light remained lit and the nosewheel did not fully retract; but remained at an 'angle' as shown in the convex mirror mounted on the nacelle of each engine. We recycled the gear twice and each time the red 'gear unsafe' light remained lit and the green 'down and locked' lights confirmed that the nosewheel did not lock down; a condition confirmed by visual inspection. In each case; the nosewheel neither retracted nor extended fully. We had departed VFR and expected to pick up our IFR flight plan to ZZZ1 from ZZZ2 approach. Instead; we reported the situation to ZZZ2 approach and asked for VFR assistance to ZZZ2 for a possible landing. ZZZ2 approach asked if we wanted to remain VFR or go IFR. We elected VFR given the good WX. We set up for a long final approach to stabilize the aircraft and attempted to recycle the gear a 3RD (or possibly 4TH) time. On that occasion; the nosewheel finally 'dropped' in place; although the wheel remained at an 'angle' from the longitudinal axis (bent like that of the air carrier flight that had landed a few months earlier with great tv coverage). At that point all 3 of the green gear 'down and locked' lights turned on; but the red 'gear unsafe' light remained on. We could not tell if the nosewheel was locked. We elected to leave 'good enough' alone and not recycle the gear again. We asked ZZZ2 approach for a low approach over the runway for the tower to verify visually the condition of our landing gear. Tower cleared us for a low approach; which we did at approximately 250 ft. An observer vehicle was posted in midfield and confirmed the 'twisted' (at an angle) condition of the nosewheel. We made left traffic and the tower asked us to extend our downwind to allow departing traffic to depart before we attempted to land and possibly closed the runway. We observed on this first pass that emergency vehicles had already deployed. (I believe; but am not certain; that inbound flts were being delayed.) we approached on a long final and executed a successful soft field landing; cutting the engine on touchdown and 'coasting' to a midfield taxiway off the runway almost past the hold short line. We were immediately pushed past the hold short line by several ground personnel standing by. Upon contact with the runway; the nosewheel 'straightened out' and; apart from a slight shudder on nosewheel contact and or cutting the engines on touchdown; the landing was entirely uneventful. Next day; the a&P at the local repair shop; where the airplane had been towed from the taxiway; reported finding that the 2 bolts that secure the metal assembly that 'guides' the nosewheel gear downwards in a circular motion to have been (I) sheared (one of them) and (ii) the other having lost its retaining nut due to the threads having worn off; apparently by long-term stress and friction (the nut was found in the wheel well). I can't say if this condition happened simultaneously or if 1 bolt had failed long before the other. Apparently; our repeated recycling of the gear eventually 'realigned' the ball bearing joint at the top of the landing gear back into its track; although at an angle. At that point the gear 'dropped' but remained twisted. (I am not technically versed; although I observed the sheared bolt and the worn threads on the other bolt.) approach and tower; as well as ground personnel; behaved flawlessly. I believe that in the tension of the moment; I did not literally declare an 'emergency;' but services (and apparently priority) were given as if I had; as the nature of the situation was clear. We balanced the danger of a wheels-up landing with full tanks against flying with a semi-retracted nosewheel to ZZZ3 and burning fuel; thus reducing weight; but attempting to land at night; and correctly decided to land at ZZZ2 given the runway length; VFR WX; and wind at 150 degrees at 5 KTS. We did not actuate the emergency gear switch and only recycled the gear. This was (by happenstance) a correct decision since the failure was not of the power pack. In fact; had we actuated the emergency gear lowering mechanism (which drains pressure and allows the gear simply to 'drop') the nosewheel may have collapsed (in the a&P's opinion) as it was only the power-pack mechanism that kept the nosewheel locked (again; repeating what I was told at the shop). Lesson: the emergency gear extension instructions in the PA34 (and perhaps other aircraft) assume that the problem in the gear failing to lower is the power pack; not the physical gear; draining pressure may be; as in this case; precisely the wrong recipe. We continued recycling until the gear seemed to 'drop' because we noted that the power pack was working and that the problem therefore must be a physical interference of some kind (which we incorrectly thought was the nosewheel doors having jammed). Causing the gear simply to 'drop' against a physical impediment would have been useless and would have prevented us from repeated recycling; which ultimately gave us a workable nosewheel.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A PA34-G PILOT NOTICED THE RED 'GEAR' UNSAFE LIGHT REMAINED LIT AND THE NOSEWHEEL DID NOT FULLY RETRACT AFTER TKOF.
Narrative: IN THE COCKPIT WAS ME; AS PIC AND PF; AND A COMMERCIAL/CFI RATED PAX. ON ATTEMPTING TO RETRACT THE LNDG GEAR UPON TKOF FROM ZZZ THE RED 'GEAR UNSAFE' LIGHT REMAINED LIT AND THE NOSEWHEEL DID NOT FULLY RETRACT; BUT REMAINED AT AN 'ANGLE' AS SHOWN IN THE CONVEX MIRROR MOUNTED ON THE NACELLE OF EACH ENG. WE RECYCLED THE GEAR TWICE AND EACH TIME THE RED 'GEAR UNSAFE' LIGHT REMAINED LIT AND THE GREEN 'DOWN AND LOCKED' LIGHTS CONFIRMED THAT THE NOSEWHEEL DID NOT LOCK DOWN; A CONDITION CONFIRMED BY VISUAL INSPECTION. IN EACH CASE; THE NOSEWHEEL NEITHER RETRACTED NOR EXTENDED FULLY. WE HAD DEPARTED VFR AND EXPECTED TO PICK UP OUR IFR FLT PLAN TO ZZZ1 FROM ZZZ2 APCH. INSTEAD; WE REPORTED THE SITUATION TO ZZZ2 APCH AND ASKED FOR VFR ASSISTANCE TO ZZZ2 FOR A POSSIBLE LNDG. ZZZ2 APCH ASKED IF WE WANTED TO REMAIN VFR OR GO IFR. WE ELECTED VFR GIVEN THE GOOD WX. WE SET UP FOR A LONG FINAL APCH TO STABILIZE THE ACFT AND ATTEMPTED TO RECYCLE THE GEAR A 3RD (OR POSSIBLY 4TH) TIME. ON THAT OCCASION; THE NOSEWHEEL FINALLY 'DROPPED' IN PLACE; ALTHOUGH THE WHEEL REMAINED AT AN 'ANGLE' FROM THE LONGITUDINAL AXIS (BENT LIKE THAT OF THE ACR FLT THAT HAD LANDED A FEW MONTHS EARLIER WITH GREAT TV COVERAGE). AT THAT POINT ALL 3 OF THE GREEN GEAR 'DOWN AND LOCKED' LIGHTS TURNED ON; BUT THE RED 'GEAR UNSAFE' LIGHT REMAINED ON. WE COULD NOT TELL IF THE NOSEWHEEL WAS LOCKED. WE ELECTED TO LEAVE 'GOOD ENOUGH' ALONE AND NOT RECYCLE THE GEAR AGAIN. WE ASKED ZZZ2 APCH FOR A LOW APCH OVER THE RWY FOR THE TWR TO VERIFY VISUALLY THE CONDITION OF OUR LNDG GEAR. TWR CLRED US FOR A LOW APCH; WHICH WE DID AT APPROX 250 FT. AN OBSERVER VEHICLE WAS POSTED IN MIDFIELD AND CONFIRMED THE 'TWISTED' (AT AN ANGLE) CONDITION OF THE NOSEWHEEL. WE MADE L TFC AND THE TWR ASKED US TO EXTEND OUR DOWNWIND TO ALLOW DEPARTING TFC TO DEPART BEFORE WE ATTEMPTED TO LAND AND POSSIBLY CLOSED THE RWY. WE OBSERVED ON THIS FIRST PASS THAT EMER VEHICLES HAD ALREADY DEPLOYED. (I BELIEVE; BUT AM NOT CERTAIN; THAT INBOUND FLTS WERE BEING DELAYED.) WE APCHED ON A LONG FINAL AND EXECUTED A SUCCESSFUL SOFT FIELD LNDG; CUTTING THE ENG ON TOUCHDOWN AND 'COASTING' TO A MIDFIELD TXWY OFF THE RWY ALMOST PAST THE HOLD SHORT LINE. WE WERE IMMEDIATELY PUSHED PAST THE HOLD SHORT LINE BY SEVERAL GND PERSONNEL STANDING BY. UPON CONTACT WITH THE RWY; THE NOSEWHEEL 'STRAIGHTENED OUT' AND; APART FROM A SLIGHT SHUDDER ON NOSEWHEEL CONTACT AND OR CUTTING THE ENGS ON TOUCHDOWN; THE LNDG WAS ENTIRELY UNEVENTFUL. NEXT DAY; THE A&P AT THE LCL REPAIR SHOP; WHERE THE AIRPLANE HAD BEEN TOWED FROM THE TXWY; REPORTED FINDING THAT THE 2 BOLTS THAT SECURE THE METAL ASSEMBLY THAT 'GUIDES' THE NOSEWHEEL GEAR DOWNWARDS IN A CIRCULAR MOTION TO HAVE BEEN (I) SHEARED (ONE OF THEM) AND (II) THE OTHER HAVING LOST ITS RETAINING NUT DUE TO THE THREADS HAVING WORN OFF; APPARENTLY BY LONG-TERM STRESS AND FRICTION (THE NUT WAS FOUND IN THE WHEEL WELL). I CAN'T SAY IF THIS CONDITION HAPPENED SIMULTANEOUSLY OR IF 1 BOLT HAD FAILED LONG BEFORE THE OTHER. APPARENTLY; OUR REPEATED RECYCLING OF THE GEAR EVENTUALLY 'REALIGNED' THE BALL BEARING JOINT AT THE TOP OF THE LNDG GEAR BACK INTO ITS TRACK; ALTHOUGH AT AN ANGLE. AT THAT POINT THE GEAR 'DROPPED' BUT REMAINED TWISTED. (I AM NOT TECHNICALLY VERSED; ALTHOUGH I OBSERVED THE SHEARED BOLT AND THE WORN THREADS ON THE OTHER BOLT.) APCH AND TWR; AS WELL AS GND PERSONNEL; BEHAVED FLAWLESSLY. I BELIEVE THAT IN THE TENSION OF THE MOMENT; I DID NOT LITERALLY DECLARE AN 'EMER;' BUT SVCS (AND APPARENTLY PRIORITY) WERE GIVEN AS IF I HAD; AS THE NATURE OF THE SITUATION WAS CLR. WE BALANCED THE DANGER OF A WHEELS-UP LNDG WITH FULL TANKS AGAINST FLYING WITH A SEMI-RETRACTED NOSEWHEEL TO ZZZ3 AND BURNING FUEL; THUS REDUCING WT; BUT ATTEMPTING TO LAND AT NIGHT; AND CORRECTLY DECIDED TO LAND AT ZZZ2 GIVEN THE RWY LENGTH; VFR WX; AND WIND AT 150 DEGS AT 5 KTS. WE DID NOT ACTUATE THE EMER GEAR SWITCH AND ONLY RECYCLED THE GEAR. THIS WAS (BY HAPPENSTANCE) A CORRECT DECISION SINCE THE FAILURE WAS NOT OF THE PWR PACK. IN FACT; HAD WE ACTUATED THE EMER GEAR LOWERING MECHANISM (WHICH DRAINS PRESSURE AND ALLOWS THE GEAR SIMPLY TO 'DROP') THE NOSEWHEEL MAY HAVE COLLAPSED (IN THE A&P'S OPINION) AS IT WAS ONLY THE PWR-PACK MECHANISM THAT KEPT THE NOSEWHEEL LOCKED (AGAIN; REPEATING WHAT I WAS TOLD AT THE SHOP). LESSON: THE EMER GEAR EXTENSION INSTRUCTIONS IN THE PA34 (AND PERHAPS OTHER ACFT) ASSUME THAT THE PROB IN THE GEAR FAILING TO LOWER IS THE PWR PACK; NOT THE PHYSICAL GEAR; DRAINING PRESSURE MAY BE; AS IN THIS CASE; PRECISELY THE WRONG RECIPE. WE CONTINUED RECYCLING UNTIL THE GEAR SEEMED TO 'DROP' BECAUSE WE NOTED THAT THE PWR PACK WAS WORKING AND THAT THE PROB THEREFORE MUST BE A PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE OF SOME KIND (WHICH WE INCORRECTLY THOUGHT WAS THE NOSEWHEEL DOORS HAVING JAMMED). CAUSING THE GEAR SIMPLY TO 'DROP' AGAINST A PHYSICAL IMPEDIMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN USELESS AND WOULD HAVE PREVENTED US FROM REPEATED RECYCLING; WHICH ULTIMATELY GAVE US A WORKABLE NOSEWHEEL.
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.