Air NZ B1900 belly lands

[creator2003]

Loved watching this on the news last night and hearing the guys in the background talking like they where at the drag races
also seen another two belly landings on tv lastnight ,1 of them was that ethopin 767 plane that ditched it in the water {belly landing }couple of years back .

and that ozzy chopper off the coast of fiji last year bouncing of the back of the ship
awesome footage ....

[FlyingKiwi]

3 News brought a good point...

Air investigators have not yet figured out what went wrong, or why the manual lowering system did not work.

Or are they way off the mark? i.e. is there such a thing for the 1900?

There is a handpump to lower the gear manually. In the Beech 1900D the gear is actually held up hydraulically though, through the use of a shuttle valve in the actuator. The handpump overcomes the shuttle valve and then extends the gear. (along with gravity as well of course)

I'm hardly an expert on the system though, that previous statement is based on what I've heard from various sources, not personal experience...

[creator2003]

didnt they say it was just that the gear would not lock in place or something ,it would be in that case safer to do what they did instead of risking one of the gear to colapse and serve of the runway etc...... bang boom crash ,,roll
i could be wrong ofcourse ,but this was my understanding of the news

[Zöltuger]

Well assume that was the case, surely the impact of a nosewheel or main gear collapsing on the runway (i.e. falling from a height) is more severe than the careful bellylanding done yesterday?

[Kelburn]

ZKTOM is persistent that it is pilot error saying the pilot pulled out a knob from the gear in the preflight tests and forgot to pt it back confusing the gear.

I feel this theory doesn't work because as far as I know there is no such thing in the gear, the pilot wouldn't forget to put it back and the aircraft manufacturers aren't stupid because if it was moved the gear wouldn't be able to go up as well. Also why did all the gear fail. If you removed something like that (if it did exist) wouldn't it only stuff up one gear?

I think that there was a piece of thin metal (like the stuff that burst the Concorde's tire in CDG) that got flicked up into the gear bay either by the wheels or by the prop-wash and got loosely attached to the top of the gear or something. When the gear got raised the metal attached itself somehow (maybe by a bolt fitting into a hole in the metal) and locking the gear into place. But again wouldn't that stop only one gear from coming down.

Anyway what do you think. about my idea and ZKTOM's?
Do you have your own theory?

[ZKTOM]

Cause is most probably the squat switch. Look up if you want to. It was most probably checked before the flight and not secured.

...

Adding onto that. It supports my theory and the story as the gear once retracted would've been useless. The pilots when realising the gear didn't extend probably knew that manual pumping would be useless. So therefore a belly landing would've been inevitable. I rest my case.

[Kelburn]

but why did all the gear fail?
At least the other two wheels would've come down.
Plus what does a squat switch do?
At the very least if it was secured properly the gear probably wouldn't have gone up

[ZKTOM]

READ CRAEFULLY-The squat is a device that stops the landing gear being retracted whilst on the ground. When the plane took off-in the sky-the gear was retracted. Now because there is something wrong with the squat, while the gear was retracted the squat behaved like it was on preventing the landing gear from extending. The squat should've been checked by the pilot responsible before the flight. The discovery shortly before arriving in Wellington suggests that the pilots knew there was nothing that could've been done so the only option was to belly land.

Hope this explains

[ZK-KAG]

Well whatever happened, we will all find out for sure in a few months time

[towerguy]

I think I will wait until all the facts are made known by a 'reputable' investigator before I make any comment what so ever - I was not present on the flight deck at the time - I am not a qualified aeronautical engineer licensed on the aircraft type - and I do not have access to cockpit tapes or interviews with the crew involved. If others here have the above qualifications then I am happy to hear their 'informed speculation' as to likely causes. What I object to most strenuously is the near 'accusatory' speculation of ill informed wanabees that may have heard from other 'sources' - be it friends, websites or relatives that possibly work as 'the second assistant mail sorter to the cleaner' at an organisation that are not known widely for being able to find their own arse even with both hands and a map.

Metal fatigue and mechanical failure are just two phrases that spring to mind. Just read 'Vector' magazine to see the list of ongoing failures. Okay, I don't deny that Human error is a factor in a large number of incidents and accidents but there are a lot more that occur that have no more human input above the fact that a human was actually present ie last night ANZ8 struck 4 swans on departure and had to return with substantial damage to the nose area. 4 black swans at night! was this pilot error for not dodging?!

It is both irresponsible and despicable to launch in and make such statements at such an early stage before the facts are even collated, let alone studied! To do so even in a Forum such as this reflects a lack of knowledge of the aviation industry and a level of disrespect for those involved that is hard to credit. It also indicates to me that there is a base ignorance and immaturity involved that makes me hope that the individual involved sticks wholly and forever more to SIMULATED aviation!

[Alex]

Rightio chaps, just a general warning, if this keeps getting more and more heated we may have to lock it etc, we are here for fun, not to argue. And its starting to get a wee bit personal.

Alex

[ZKTOM]

My apologies for any misunderstanding. I'm not directing my views at the pilot but rather the part and no discovery of it. Of course there may have been factors in the environment that may have led to no discovery. However the part itself must be relatively new as they are a part to be replaced.
In my personal opinion I strongly believe in what I said above in my last posts.
These forums are for discussing things and incidents like this have a number of different views and we should all, as members, respect that.
In anyhow this part should be given attention by manufacturers to make sure this type of incident never happens again.

[ZK-KAG]

In my personal opinion I strongly believe in what I said above in my last posts.

Perhaps if you gave a source of your information it might take the speculation out of it..?

[kiwiflyboy]

Squat switch? christ even the Beech 76 has a pressure sensor in the pitot system linked to the gear (can not be retracted below 50ish knots) im sure if the 1900 relied on a "squat switch" and a pilot to flick it during preflight.... there would be atleast one other person that checks it.... and the only indication they would get in the cockpit that the gear was/wasnt locked would be 3 lights, so im sure if they didnt think it was locked, they would still land with it down and perhaps not locked as bulbs can blow and microswitches can break.......

[ZKTOM]

"The gear-up landing accident record on the nonstandard versions, however, is about 40 percent higher than for the comparison aircraft. I expect to receive at least a few letters extolling the virtues of the old arrangement and the importance of pilot familiarization. Human beings do make mistakes,..."

-Found on a site just after explaining squat switches on Bonanza's by 'Beechcraft'-A bit of a connection?

[HardCorePawn]

Personally I think this whole episode smacks of a typical port-side secondary thronomister failure...

see... I can make wild unsubstantiated claims too...

I think it speaks volumes that the discussion on the 'Professional' pilots rumor network (PPRUNE) about this incident revolves around 2 things:

1. The obvious skill of the crew that got it back on the ground in (mostly) one piece
2. The benefits/risks of feathering vs. non-feathering the props

Absolutely ZERO speculation on the cause of this incident... as it would be just that... speculation...

Read this thread and you may learn some things...

the photo's of the damage are quite interesting... answered one of my questions as to whether or not the pilots would have been able to used the brakes to slow it down, as the 1900's wheels are exposed in the gear up position...

[Boeing]

I have heard of these squat switches from another accident involving a learjet 45. It had to perform a wheels up landing like the one the other day.ZKTOM brings up a good point about the switch however I'm waiting for the final report before I make up my mind.

[Naki]

I wonder if the recent RNZAF King Air wheels up incident is similar to what has happned with the 1900 considering the similarities of the two types

[nzav8tor]

Considering the integrity and reliablity of modern transport aircraft, required by ICAO to have an alternative system of gear extension should the primary system fail, any accident of this sort is nothing short of a freak occurence.

A company with a virtually perfect safety record like Eagle Air, highly trained pilots and accepted and functional standard operating procedures I believe will be unlikely to sight a pilot oversight as the cause of an incident of this nature.

From a mechanical point of view a failure in the gear uplock mechanism seems likely but as many others have pointed out speculation is pointless and disrespectful to those involved.

It is recognised in aviation that all accidents and incidents can be attributed to a series of failures and occurences in the lead up to the event itself, some which may have taken place as long ago as the time the aircraft and its components were manufactured.
That TAIC is investigating demonstrates the seriousness of the accident but as with all accident investigations performed by CAA the outcome will likely result in ammendment to procedures, recommendations to the manufacturer, operator and maintainence organisations to hopefully prevent future occurences.
You can be sure that Raytheon is following this closely and will be involved in the investigation process with the Eagle maintainence department.

Hats off to the crew who handled a serious situation in a professional and 'by the book' manner - just like they have been trained to do in numerous refreshers and sim checks.

There is no right and wrong in these situations, especially considering everyone was lucky to get out with just an unpleasant memory, but lessons to be learned and if nothing else, a demonstration of the standard of professionalism the Eagle crews have.
The human factor is present in all facets of aviation and unfortunatley can never be completely eliminated.
But by continual checking and amendment of procedures the risks can be lowered to acceptable levels and most accidents are prevented before they get to the inevitable stage.

Think before you speak.

[HardCorePawn]

Think before you speak.

I think I will make this my sig...