Shutting off engine with a gear failure?

[Drcodyjones]

Earlier I was skimming through AOPA's Flight Training magazine and I came across an article where there was a Cessna 310 on approach to Van Nuy's. The aircraft's nose gear didn't come down so the pilot was forced to do a two-gear landing.

He shut off the engines and feathered the prop horizontally to avoid a potential prop strike. The article then goes on to debate whether he should have done that.

What would you guys do? Land without a nose gear with the engine running and risk a prop strike or kill the engines and land powerless, potentially missing the runway and not being able to go around?

In the article the pilot ends up hitting both props on the runway surface and lands at the very start of the runway threshold.


Cody

[airkevin]

Guess it really depends. You could, in theory, fly up to the runway and shut it down when you get really close to the runway, which it's possible that's what he did.

[Flying Officer Jevans]

Well, you could, but by the time you were assured of a landing, you'd have no time to shut the engine down and get it feathered in the right place.

[airkevin]

Well, you could, but by the time you were assured of a landing, you'd have no time to shut the engine down and get it feathered in the right place.
Mm....how long does that entire process take.

[Drcodyjones]

@AirKevin
In the article in the magazine it said that he was about 3/4 mile away from the runway when he killed the engines.

@FlyingOfficerJevans
Good point, I would end up landing on the nose, and REALLY screwing something up :P

[wolf2]

i DID land a 310 with no nosegear. a 310d, many years ago. i landed with power. would never have occured to me to do otherwise. i shot many "deadstick" landings for fun by setting zero thrust. id pick a spot on the runway and try to put the wheels on it. but i never shot a deadstick intentionally, and would not have.

[Michael E.]

Depends on whether or not it was my airplane.

[BMG50]

With enough altitude you will have time to shut off engines,fuel valves and position the props..When props hit runways,it gets VERY expensive..Is the the video?? .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2cgqUFmBZY&feature=related

[lnuss]

One thing that needs to be considered in such a situation is that if the prop(s) hit the ground with engine(s) running, then a teardown inspection of the engine(s) is required. If the prop hits with the engine stopped, that expensive teardown may not be required.

Balanced against that, of course, is the fact that your life is worth a little something, too, so you have to figure that into the "equation."

Adding to the problem in this case is that it's a Cessna 310. While I don't have a lot of time in 310s, I do know that during a normal landing you need to carry a touch of power until after touchdown -- chop the power before touching down results in a rather abrupt, firm arrival (yes, I found out the hard way), so you'd want a tad of extra speed if you were deadstick. Conversely, in certain Cessna or Beech singles it might not be so much of a problem, or even an Aztec or Baron might not be as much of a problem.

One example of HAVING to deadstick was many years ago when I was towing sailplanes with a Cessna 180. After the glider released, while I was headed back to the field at high power, the throttle linkage came loose, leaving me with full throttle -- no choice. So once I had the field made, I cut the mixture, then made a slightly long landing, obviously not going through my usual routine of dropping the rope in a special place, but rather just getting rid of it in a way that it wouldn't impede my deadstick landing (just a higher, slightly faster release point, this time).

So conditions, your knowledge of the aircraft and field, the risk(s) you're willing to take, whether anyone else is on board, how much runway is available, all play a part in the decision.

[Drcodyjones]

BMG, Yes, that is the video they were referencing in the magazine.

[Brett_Henderson]

The problem I'd have (as a selfish coward), is that I'd want the option for a go-around.. so engine costs be damned.. the ground is going to shut them down for me ..lol

[ReggieF5421]

My first flight in a complex C172RG, in the pre-flight brief the instructor discussed the procedure for a no gear or unsafe gear indication landing.

He said he would shut down the engine in the last couple hundred feet altitude before landing - after he was committed to land. His reason was that shutting down would decrease the possible ignition sources for a fire, and that it would save thousands of dollars in getting the plane returned to flight conditions. He didn't mention the engine teardown aspect which I now understand.

As mentioned above - depends upon who is going to pay for the repairs.

Costs is a HUGE factor in real world flying which we ignore in FS.

[tigisfat]

I've always said that I'd shut the engines down for a gear up landing. It makes too much sense. As for the safety of a go-around, in light winds at a large airport, you're being paranoid if you demand the luxury of a go around at a cost of 50,000 dollars plus. That's like the old adage of constantly flying as if the engine would quit at any time. I'm not for undue risks, but I've never felt like a risk-taker for flying a 3 degree glideslope at a stabilized 1.3Vso instead of dive bombing the runway every time so that I am assured of making the pavement.