The pilot did a great job. My flight instructor told me that "Once you decide it's an emergency the plane now belongs to the insurance company and your only job is to minimize your injuries."
@Bill Sbac Stopping the prop from windmilling with the engine off takes an extra step of flying down to near stall speeds, an extra step that a pilot in an emergency probably wouldn’t remember or care to do.
@Bill Sbac Cutting the engine is also not performed to keep the option of a go around until the last moment. The prop is likely to hit the ground anyway so you're better to keep all the options available for the pilot. Even if they are in metal, prop are quite "soft" and will bend easily on impact so no real downside of them still turning.
And the injuries of everyone else on board. Cuz if not the easiest way is to YEETELYDEET yourself out with a parachute. Thats of course if it's just you on board.
When I was a kid, my dad owned a Cherokee Arrow, a low wing retractable gear 4 seat aircraft. We often flew on Sunday evenings around the city, taking off during daylight, flew around the city, watching the sun go down and the lights of the city brighten. (Houston Hobby HOU). One Sunday evening my parents were up front and me and my little brother was in the back and in preparing for landing, the light in the instrument panel did not come on indicating the front landing gear was down and in place. We flew past the tower many times and they tried to illuminate us to see if the front gear was down. They think they saw the gear down but were not sure, and even if the gear was down, with the light off, they could not be certain the front gear was locked in place preventing it from folding up upon landing. So we flew quite some time to burn off fuel. The airport lined the end of the runway where they expected us to end up with a slew of emergency vehicles, fire trucks, ambulances, foam trucks, etc. My dad came in for the landing. He was a pilot in the service and very skilled. He had my brother and I lower our heads and clasp our hands across the back of our heads. He approached the runway tilted up and flying slow, the rear wheels touched down, he balanced on those 2 rear wheels while slowing his ground speed and when he could no longer keep the front up, he touched the front down and came to a stop pretty quick. We were in complete darkness, several hundred feet from the emergency vehicles. I remember the tower asking my dad where we were. Haha! As it turns out, the front gear was down and locked in place, and the bulb in the instrument panel was burned out. That was about 40 or 50 years ago. Remember it like it was yesterday.
What an awesome story, and a fantastic learning experience. I'm glad your dad took the situation so seriously. I think you would have had a positive outcome either way. Sounds like your dad was a great pilot.
It seems like a lot of you criticizing are not even pilots (*cough* flight simmers). Until you have actually been in an emergency situation you will not understand why he did what he did. He did a great job and I can't criticize him since he walked away unharmed. What he did worked. As a pilot, you should NEVER worry about the damage the plane might get during an emergency. That will get you killed. You do what you have to do to get the plane down, regardless if you're gonna total that plane or loose it. You can replace a plane, but not your life.
I like it. You're definitely right, put your life forth every last strain possible before you put any effort into recovering the aircraft from any damage you are going to cause.
I owned a T210L. In this 210 he did an adequate job, nothing bad, nothing remarkable. Once landing assured, I would have stopped the engine to possibly reduce the damage but odds were great for sudden stoppage, etc.
That was a perfect approach and then I was like, what happened? Then I read and saw that the nosewheel wasn't locked for some reason. Then I realized how amaazing this truly was. Excellent job dude.
@thomasschute123 I don't think so, because the CG is within the tricycle-gear envelope and therefore in front of the main gear, so it wouldv'e tipped forward no matter what the pilot did.
That is absolutely correct. All he would have had to do was to have known the front gear would fail ahead of time and converted the plane to a taildragger configuration. Moving the main gear forward and installing a tail wheel might have been a little tricky but a good pilot could have accomplished it mid-flight.
I agree, I was just explaining to another poster, unless the prop stopped perfectly horizontally, it would need a teardown afterward anyway. That's not the kind of stuff to worry about when you are doing this, he was probably more worried about whether or not the thing will flip over on its back or catch fire. I think he did a great job.
Because, besides the safety reasons which are genuine (never shut the engine off unless it's literally on fire), your insurance company will have to buy you a new engine when the prop-strike will cause internal engine damage.
@andreg00 As an instructor, I understand the question. However, though damage may be done to the powerplant at prop strike and gas fires a common symptom after such a landing, the pilot may have determined the engine stay on during final approach. Not many pilots, potentially including myself, may possess the focus to both perform a soft field landing, bleed airspeed to full stall after touchdown, and accomplish emergency shutdown all at the same time. I just want to point out the stress at hand
@riddlebrandan im a pilot in training aka like 10 hours of flight 4 of ground something like that, now what u mean, when i land i hold back the entire time, how come that happened, did he go forward to quick or something with the yoke, why would something like this happen unless proper landing is acquired.
Ive had to land a C210 gear up, left main would not come down. elected to land with all gear up, less damage. I had grass soft surface to land on, still wonder if he might have been better of doing same?
@andreg00 The main reason you would not shut the engine off in a circumstance like that is, in the event of some other emergency (another aircraft on the runway, animals etc) you would still be able to go around and retry the controlled crash landing. If the engine was shut off, this would not be a possibility. So essentially, the pilot is choosing to keep his options open to maximize his person safety over the cost of repairs.
If the engine was running OK and it was only the nosewheel, maybe try a hard touch and go? But then he was probably concerned about the main gear being properly deployed as well.
Btw, this is aircraft has retracts. It's a Cessna 177RG. You can see the seams for the landing gear doors just behind the prop. And all aircraft that have retracts also have a emergency landing gear extension handle to manually pump the gear down.
The plane my family and I were on circled Detroit's Willow Run airport for hours to burn off fuel for a belly landing due to a front gear failure back in the 60's, so I know first hand what it feels like! It was pure terror, and the ground has never felt better under my feet than on that night! My hat's off to pilots who are faced with these life and death situations daily, and still continue to perform at peak proficiency.
Very good job! Im not sure about the 172 but in the 152 its apparently possible to keep the nose up and come to a stop if you give power while breaking and thus getting the missing elevator authority at slow speeds.
Great job in landing the airplane. After reviewing the various comments, although true, one should not be concerned with damaging the airplane, this was an approach to landing well under control. It appears there was sufficient speed/energy (may be a little hot) management at the bottom to secure the engine/power off. Also, the quick brakes application slammed the airplane nose harder than ideal. I speak from experience; this happened to me on a 177RG, and although I only had two blades, I saved the prop/engine, and used no brakes, and eventually flew the airplane again after being repaired, yes I got back in it. On the 177, though, having the full movable stabilizer helps to keep the nose up longer and higher. Had the airplane had 3-bladed prop, I would have done the same as I did. I hope she was fixed to fly again.
Great landing. Even under pressure the pilot forcused on the task at hand and executed a text-book landing. I guess the guys who wanted him to cut the power know the prop probably would have been either still "windmilling" and and thus still turning OR been stopped in a position that would have still struck the runway. Had you been able to stop it from turning and it still struck the runway you would still have to tear the engine down to assess and document internal condition of the engine.
"but could have used airflow over elevator to enhance performance possibly. " Good point, you can touch down slower with some power, as we learn doing soft field landings. I hadn't thought of that.
It never ceases to amaze me of the number of arm chair and MS flight simulator pilots making derogatory comments. This was a great landing of a crippled airplane, and hope if I ever find myself in a similar situation that I can do as well.
@lardman2228 If it was windmilling it would create a lot of drag. You can't feather jet engine in case one engine failure in a multi-engine jet airplane. In small airplanes like Cessna 150, 152, Piper 160,180 and similar, prop stops right away. They are just too slow.
The other day I was thinking about what if I lost my nose wheel. I was wondering if pulling out the mixture once landing was assured to minimize damage. Possibly save the engine from breaking but ruin the prop. Or it could further reduce the damage on the prop. But this all happens so fast. If I was good on gas, maybe I’d circle a bit and think out my strategies
@GrizzlyRecoveryZone1 The nose gear failed to extend, which forced the pilot to perform a gear up landing. It messed up the propeller but the maneuver put him on the ground safely.
I must have been tired, didn't spot the tell tale holes in the fuselage where the wheels retract... of course it's the RG model. Nosegear falling off in flight is surprisingly common... sometimes the oleo links fail, sometimes the bulkhead suffers and the whole leg shakes around till it falls off. Usually, the landing occurs soon after takeoff, as the vibrations reach a silly level. There are lots of mandatory inspections for faults around the gear mounts! High engine hours? Land on the nose...
because at the speed theyre at, the air flowing over the prop keeps it spinning even though the engine would be off. That and im pretty sure that most 210s have 3 blade props, still gonna destroy the prop flange on the crankshaft
I mean, that's absolutely the best possible outcome for that airplane. It'll need a new prop and an engine overhaul, but the plane will fly again. What a stud of a pilot.
@ho3s1td0wn I just finished watching a video where the pilot does the opposite, cuts the engines (twin engine) before touchdown and the whole comment section was complaints about what if he needed to go around. It seems no matter what decision the pilot makes he will always be criticized. Anyway not cutting the engines was the right choice in case of needing to go around.
I mean on or off it really overall didn't matter. I would say off in this landing would be better just based on the description saying that he burned all his fuel off before this landing. If I've got five minutes of fuel left in the tank the last thing I would want to do would be to go around. I could understand leaving the power in for the soft field landing so maybe that's why he did it.
@andreg00 I doubt that would help much anyway. Even if you got lucky and the prop stopped in a horizontal position to where it wouldn't dig into the ground, the impact would probably still be enough to warrant tearing down the engine and inspecting everything. Ignore the engine though and you still have the cowling and skin to repair.
@andreg00 #1, he might have, the prop continues to spin even with the engine not running. #2, he probably didn't, because if he needed to go around, he wouldn't be able to.
as a student pilot myself and reading the discription... don't you think it would have been wiser to instead of the prop strike landing to have used what was remaining of fuel to climb to adequete altitude and then perform engine shutoff during flight and then assume best glide toward the field...and then pefrom a landing w/o power"deadstick".this to me seems like the better option.
@lardman2228 Obviously you have never had an engine failure in flight. Yes the prop would stop. Even if it is a fixed pitch. In addition in colder climates after engine failure oil gets cold and THICK quickly. Have seen it done on a Cessna 172. Engine shut down. Prop stopped. Pilot landed gliding it. It could be done. Could have saved prop and engine.
@DonKofAK indeed, remember a sudden stop of the prop might damage the crankshaft and the engine will have to be inspected before it can return safely to service, failure to do so might produce a massive engine failure maybe not right away, but down the road for sure.
@austerace The main gear is retractable as well. The fold back towards the tail of aircraft. Do you see that dark opening on the lower side of the fuselage (beneath the rear window)? That's where the tires sit when the gear is retracted. @shess0501 It's great to armchair quarterback a situation with 20/20 hindisight when your health and probably life isn't in danger and a great deal of adrenalin isn't flowing through your veins, right?
approach speed perfect, the engine is to be dismantled and blueprinted regardless, and he had full deflection of the elevator could you be any more wrong?
either way its automatic overhaul, new prop, and reskin the belly. As trevor said, its less structural damage. The damage to the nose (structure, engine, prop, and everything else) wouldn't be much different, it would still be essentially totaled
Good plan, but I'm pretty sure this is a model with retractable gear that had the nosewheel get stuck (going by the description). How else would its nosewheel be missing?
When I was flight instructing and teaching soft field technique, I'd tell my students to try and strike the tail. They never did but it seemed to help get the nose a bit higher. This guy got pretty close.
I was thinking he was a little hot there and not as nose-high as I would have wanted. Whatever the case, no reason not to be able to land it like he did, it would be a failure not to, but he got it on the ground and walked away.
@@robertjones8598 I think it is good to be a bit hot here. It gives more elevator control. Too slow and your nose could come down very quickly after touch down. It's good safety if you have plenty of runway.
If you look at Pt2 of the video, it looks like it is a 3 bladed prop. Even if he stopped the engine, chances are one of the blades would hit the dirt! I like the way he had the doors ajar so they wouldn't jam if thing went really bad. Good job all around!
You're correct but the damage from sudden stoppage would have been less if he simply shut the engine down once the mains were on the ground. Certainly a B+ or A- landing.
@@ekpoole957 who gives a shit about the prop? It’s going to need to be replaced and paid for by the insurance company so why does it matter? Much more important to keep the engine on in case you need to go around for whatever reason than to worry about saving the insurance company a few bucks on the prop.
Great landing in general but especially due to the emergency. I couldn’t quite tell if the pilot shut the engine down, but I did notice the passenger door is ajar, which is proper procedure. That way the cowling, if shoved back, cannot jam the door shut. I’m quite sure the left door was ajar also. I would have turned engine off once the airstrip was made and turned fuel selector to the Off position.
Aircraft is a 1976 Cessna Centurion 210 w/ retractable landing gear. Doors are open in accordance with forced / emergency landing procedure. Any landing you walk away from is a good landing. VH-FTM , Single, piston engine w/ tricycle-retractable landing gear Manufacturer: CESSNA , Model: 210L Serial Number: 21061159 Registered in AUSTRALIA: 05 May 1976 Owner: NORTHERN AIR MAINTENANCE PTY LTD Experience flying Cessna 172's and 182T Skylane w/ G1000. Always a student!
I see your point, but I've never seen a prop stop in the horizontal position, they always seem to stop at 11/5 position, and any strike, even when not turning, means a teardown. So you're right, but as a practical matter I don't think it would help and the insurance would take care of the engine anyway. If it's close to TBO, he might get an overhaul out of the deal :-)
@k00lkatt Soaring is dangerous. A lot of glider pilots die every year. And comparing something that’s designed to glide and has a single lever that can change the glide ratio from 30:1 to 5:1 and back again instantly without changing anything else is a lot different than a heavier faster plane with a 10:1 glide ratio and fiddling with shutting down and clocking an engine just to “save” it. Would you fiddle with your vario or whatever on short final to an out landing? Give me a break.. even you glider pilots aren’t that stupid.
UM no, your wrong...VH means it is registered as a General Aviation Aircraft in AUSTRALIA - the FAA has nothing to do with Australia. So what are you talking about, and secondly it is not a 182 because you can put any paint job on any aircraft...it is a cessna 210 Centurion
How about retracting the landing gear back up, cutting the engine, get the propeller to stop on a level position to save the engine and just do a gliding belly landing in the grass on the side of the strip? Since there where plenty of time to do that, it would have save a lot of damage to the aircraft and prevented a potential flipping situation in the same time.
1) Shutting down the engine and fiddling with the prop trying to level it is exactly what not to do. The plane is already slippery with no gear and a stopped prop is going to make it slipperier. It’s also likely that the prop wouldn’t stop because it doesn’t feather so it will just windmill and dig in anyway. Plus you now take away any chance of a go around. 2) A belly landing on grass actually causes MORE damage to aircraft as it can dig in and in extreme cases break apart or cartwheel. Bottom line. Trying to save INSURED PROPERTY should NEVER enter a pilots decision making process. The insurance company sure isn’t going to give you any of the money you might save them… and there are many dead pilots who tried to save their aircraft.
I think that is a 182RG, I can tell from the paint. They must have forgotten to put the structs back on while the fereral aviation administration (FAA) was performing an inspection which is required to fly them.
very well done bravo! personally i would of attempted to shut engine off after touchdown and tried to keep nose high as long as i could to let prop stop spinning to minimize engine damage and be able to salvage the plane possibly but in the heat of the moment those are choices that fly by faster than we can think till we look back
At the time the lift decreases, the drag increases. Meaning when the speed goes down the weight goes up. The center of gravity in this Cessna is in front of the Nose gear.
Yes absolutely and a significant number do cut power to the magneto(s) to create a chance of avoiding the otherwise inevitable prop strike. The engine is kept on until the plane touches down though, or at the very soonest, as the flair just before touch done happens. One must keep the engine on (and at idle) prior to this point in case the need to make an emergency go-around arises.
look at the elevators - the wheels must have hit a bump or similar which tossed the nose in. Was going great up till then and there's nothing the pilot could of done better
Great job, bu I think he could've done one thing more: As he was committed to the landing and already on the ground, wouldn't it have been a good move to shut down the engine before the prop strikes the ground? It was in idle anyway and wasn't producing thrust... Just a thought. Would've avoided having to tear down the engine too...no?
@trydreamin Shutting off the engine is not always a good idea, if you make a bad approach then you can't go around. even waiting till the last minute can be detrimental, you divide your attention from flying a crippled aircraft to shutting off the engine and setting the prop.
sir, there are several models with retractable gear on it like the R182. pause at 0:13 and look at the hole in the after-fuselage, there goes the main-gear-wheel!
@andreg00 It shouldhave been a go around. Landed deep - fast and then hqad to brake harder - but had more runway, so why so much brake and yeah - why ruin your engine and prop for a poor approach. Doh.
@marcs990 Tis better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. It's a Cessna 210, and yes it has retractable gear, and although I haven't flown one I have flown a 182 with retracts, which is basically the same configuration just smaller.
It's a Cessna 210. All 210s had retractable gear (that usually works!). other high-wing Cessnas with folding gear are 172RG, 182RG, 177RG, 337. Maybe others I forget.
@andreg00 too much loss of thrust vector, for most airplanes, a windmilling propeller would exist upon shut down, creating substantial drag as a blade with a very high angle of attack cuts excess air, even though the plane is in ground effect, it will still windmill, regardless of fuel flow to the engine, he could have done it, but he safely landed with idle power because that is how he learned soft fields, I don't blame him, if it was me tho I would have cut engines upon main gear touchdown...
What do you mean it's doubtful it would have stopped windmilling? Anytime I've ever shut down the engine with the mixture it's taken 2 seconds max. If he had shut it off with the mags it would have been almost instant. Would have at least saved his engine, and even the prop, if it stopped horizontally. You've got to explain this one to me lol cause I have no idea where you're getting any of your ^^above^^ ideas from.
I really don't understand this, I am no airplane expert, but an airplane fan, seems the landing went fine, and there was a lot of runway left, but then they gave it all the breaks? What did I miss?
@davidsholem and he also should have used full flaps to come as slow as possible, and the tail light is blinking so he should have turned off electrics master too..
I see the logic in shutting down the engine prior to landing, but the fact is if you need to go around then your screwed. On top of that, even if you shut the engine down and the prop stops, if a blade contacts the ground you're going to have to take the engine apart to inspect it. The impact could cause the crankshaft or any number of parts in the engine to deform. Unless you bump the starter to get the prop horizontal to the ground, and tear down of the engine should be done.
I used to taxi a 172 quite slowly on the mains with full flap and power - this was only because nobody would fix the shimmy damper. Power keeps elevator authority. Don't know if it would have helped this chap - good landing anyway. 182s seem so heavy compared to 172s though
@charlieechovictor none taken.. and i dont know, im just saying that since that didn't work maybe the longer landing might have. but i was just asking too, i wasn't saying it will deffinitly
The pilot did a great job.
My flight instructor told me that "Once you decide it's an emergency the plane now belongs to the insurance company and your only job is to minimize your injuries."
That is such a good way to put it. Thanks for sharing
Unless it's underinsured....and you're the owner.
@Bill Sbac Stopping the prop from windmilling with the engine off takes an extra step of flying down to near stall speeds, an extra step that a pilot in an emergency probably wouldn’t remember or care to do.
@Bill Sbac Cutting the engine is also not performed to keep the option of a go around until the last moment. The prop is likely to hit the ground anyway so you're better to keep all the options available for the pilot. Even if they are in metal, prop are quite "soft" and will bend easily on impact so no real downside of them still turning.
And the injuries of everyone else on board. Cuz if not the easiest way is to YEETELYDEET yourself out with a parachute.
Thats of course if it's just you on board.
When I was a kid, my dad owned a Cherokee Arrow, a low wing retractable gear 4 seat aircraft. We often flew on Sunday evenings around the city, taking off during daylight, flew around the city, watching the sun go down and the lights of the city brighten. (Houston Hobby HOU).
One Sunday evening my parents were up front and me and my little brother was in the back and in preparing for landing, the light in the instrument panel did not come on indicating the front landing gear was down and in place. We flew past the tower many times and they tried to illuminate us to see if the front gear was down. They think they saw the gear down but were not sure, and even if the gear was down, with the light off, they could not be certain the front gear was locked in place preventing it from folding up upon landing.
So we flew quite some time to burn off fuel.
The airport lined the end of the runway where they expected us to end up with a slew of emergency vehicles, fire trucks, ambulances, foam trucks, etc. My dad came in for the landing. He was a pilot in the service and very skilled. He had my brother and I lower our heads and clasp our hands across the back of our heads. He approached the runway tilted up and flying slow, the rear wheels touched down, he balanced on those 2 rear wheels while slowing his ground speed and when he could no longer keep the front up, he touched the front down and came to a stop pretty quick. We were in complete darkness, several hundred feet from the emergency vehicles. I remember the tower asking my dad where we were. Haha! As it turns out, the front gear was down and locked in place, and the bulb in the instrument panel was burned out.
That was about 40 or 50 years ago. Remember it like it was yesterday.
What an awesome story, and a fantastic learning experience. I'm glad your dad took the situation so seriously. I think you would have had a positive outcome either way. Sounds like your dad was a great pilot.
I enjoyed reading your story. :D
Vivid childhood memories. Like yesterday. Wow
That’s a tremendous story, glad it turned out well
Nice. Out of curiosity, do you remember if your dad tried to swap the gear lights? In an Arrow that's how you check if you have a burnt out light.
That was real nice landing for the situation that they were in. Really good pilot.
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.
@@isick357 It is indeed.
Are you still alive?
It seems like a lot of you criticizing are not even pilots (*cough* flight simmers). Until you have actually been in an emergency situation you will not understand why he did what he did. He did a great job and I can't criticize him since he walked away unharmed. What he did worked. As a pilot, you should NEVER worry about the damage the plane might get during an emergency. That will get you killed. You do what you have to do to get the plane down, regardless if you're gonna total that plane or loose it. You can replace a plane, but not your life.
I like it. You're definitely right, put your life forth every last strain possible before you put any effort into recovering the aircraft from any damage you are going to cause.
I'm an X-Plane veteran and I find this offensive.
I owned a T210L. In this 210 he did an adequate job, nothing bad, nothing remarkable. Once landing assured, I would have stopped the engine to possibly reduce the damage but odds were great for sudden stoppage, etc.
@@tranceyy fuck-off
Exactly, in this case keep the prop out of the dirt as long as possible until you lose elevator authority so the ground speed is as slow as possible.
As the late, great Bob Hoover said,"if you are going to crash, fly the plane as far as you can into the crash". Good job here
Hey, any landing you can walk away from is a good one.
And if you can fly the plane he next day, its an outstanding landing.
Your words are so deep. I mean the way you spoke is so good..
By the way you wrote this comment when I was in 1st class🙃😄
@@devangyadav7633 crazy! 11 years in aviation is a roller-coaster.
@@Mav1843 bruh you literally replied me. You made my day...😄😄 thankyou
please it looks better than my first solo landing 😭✋🏻
Awww! We all have failures. If you didn't let that stop you there, then you're a great fucking pilot in the making (or already made!)
@@wetter4293 you know it won’t stop me!!! thanks!
@@Jen-py3du Hell yeah I do! 💪💪💪💪💪
😂
That was a perfect approach and then I was like, what happened? Then I read and saw that the nosewheel wasn't locked for some reason. Then I realized how amaazing this truly was. Excellent job dude.
@thomasschute123 I don't think so, because the CG is within the tricycle-gear envelope and therefore in front of the main gear, so it wouldv'e tipped forward no matter what the pilot did.
That is absolutely correct. All he would have had to do was to have known the front gear would fail ahead of time and converted the plane to a taildragger configuration. Moving the main gear forward and installing a tail wheel might have been a little tricky but a good pilot could have accomplished it mid-flight.
That's not terrible, that's perfect!
I agree, I was just explaining to another poster, unless the prop stopped perfectly horizontally, it would need a teardown afterward anyway. That's not the kind of stuff to worry about when you are doing this, he was probably more worried about whether or not the thing will flip over on its back or catch fire. I think he did a great job.
@youghostme thats a centurion c 210 i think. it has retractable gear.
there is also 172 RG but i dont recall if nosegear is retractable.main gear is.
@superfly181 no, some cessna airplanes have retractile gears too.
just question why didnt you shut the engine down
Because, besides the safety reasons which are genuine (never shut the engine off unless it's literally on fire), your insurance company will have to buy you a new engine when the prop-strike will cause internal engine damage.
@andreg00 As an instructor, I understand the question. However, though damage may be done to the powerplant at prop strike and gas fires a common symptom after such a landing, the pilot may have determined the engine stay on during final approach. Not many pilots, potentially including myself, may possess the focus to both perform a soft field landing, bleed airspeed to full stall after touchdown, and accomplish emergency shutdown all at the same time. I just want to point out the stress at hand
@riddlebrandan im a pilot in training aka like 10 hours of flight 4 of ground something like that, now what u mean, when i land i hold back the entire time, how come that happened, did he go forward to quick or something with the yoke, why would something like this happen unless proper landing is acquired.
that was one of the best soft feild landings i have ever seen not to mention the slight pressure of the nose gear stuck up. wow great pilot!
Ive had to land a C210 gear up, left main would not come down. elected to land with all gear up, less damage. I had grass soft surface to land on, still wonder if he might have been better of doing same?
@andreg00 The main reason you would not shut the engine off in a circumstance like that is, in the event of some other emergency (another aircraft on the runway, animals etc) you would still be able to go around and retry the controlled crash landing. If the engine was shut off, this would not be a possibility. So essentially, the pilot is choosing to keep his options open to maximize his person safety over the cost of repairs.
If the engine was running OK and it was only the nosewheel, maybe try a hard touch and go?
But then he was probably concerned about the main gear being properly deployed as well.
Thanks for sharing this! Perfect video to show students. Makes ya think!
Btw, this is aircraft has retracts. It's a Cessna 177RG. You can see the seams for the landing gear doors just behind the prop. And all aircraft that have retracts also have a emergency landing gear extension handle to manually pump the gear down.
What about turning of the engine after touch down?
The plane my family and I were on circled Detroit's Willow Run airport for hours to burn off fuel for a belly landing due to a front gear failure back in the 60's, so I know first hand what it feels like! It was pure terror, and the ground has never felt better under my feet than on that night! My hat's off to pilots who are faced with these life and death situations daily, and still continue to perform at peak proficiency.
Just a question, flare was good, keep the door open is good but should he have not cut the engine before the nose touched the ground?
Very good job! Im not sure about the 172 but in the 152 its apparently possible to keep the nose up and come to a stop if you give power while breaking and thus getting the missing elevator authority at slow speeds.
Great job in landing the airplane. After reviewing the various comments, although true, one should not be concerned with damaging the airplane, this was an approach to landing well under control. It appears there was sufficient speed/energy (may be a little hot) management at the bottom to secure the engine/power off. Also, the quick brakes application slammed the airplane nose harder than ideal. I speak from experience; this happened to me on a 177RG, and although I only had two blades, I saved the prop/engine, and used no brakes, and eventually flew the airplane again after being repaired, yes I got back in it. On the 177, though, having the full movable stabilizer helps to keep the nose up longer and higher. Had the airplane had 3-bladed prop, I would have done the same as I did. I hope she was fixed to fly again.
Looks like he did an amazing job given the circumstances
Great landing. Even under pressure the pilot forcused on the task at hand and executed a text-book landing. I guess the guys who wanted him to cut the power know the prop probably would have been either still "windmilling" and and thus still turning OR been stopped in a position that would have still struck the runway. Had you been able to stop it from turning and it still struck the runway you would still have to tear the engine down to assess and document internal condition of the engine.
"but could have used airflow over elevator to enhance performance possibly. " Good point, you can touch down slower with some power, as we learn doing soft field landings. I hadn't thought of that.
It never ceases to amaze me of the number of arm chair and MS flight simulator pilots making derogatory comments. This was a great landing of a crippled airplane, and hope if I ever find myself in a similar situation that I can do as well.
@lardman2228 If it was windmilling it would create a lot of drag. You can't feather jet engine in case one engine failure in a multi-engine jet airplane. In small airplanes like Cessna 150, 152, Piper 160,180 and similar, prop stops right away. They are just too slow.
The other day I was thinking about what if I lost my nose wheel. I was wondering if pulling out the mixture once landing was assured to minimize damage. Possibly save the engine from breaking but ruin the prop. Or it could further reduce the damage on the prop. But this all happens so fast. If I was good on gas, maybe I’d circle a bit and think out my strategies
@GrizzlyRecoveryZone1 The nose gear failed to extend, which forced the pilot to perform a gear up landing. It messed up the propeller but the maneuver put him on the ground safely.
@riddlebrandan in that case wouldn't the best thing to do is to speed up the rpm and taking a longer landing?
To keep the aircraft stable when down and when its touches down the egines will stop anyway as it his the ground part of your training
Just a question, wouldn't a belly landing be safer than a partial gear landing like this? I would think trying this is just asking to kiss the dash.
I must have been tired, didn't spot the tell tale holes in the fuselage where the wheels retract... of course it's the RG model.
Nosegear falling off in flight is surprisingly common... sometimes the oleo links fail, sometimes the bulkhead suffers and the whole leg shakes around till it falls off. Usually, the landing occurs soon after takeoff, as the vibrations reach a silly level. There are lots of mandatory inspections for faults around the gear mounts!
High engine hours? Land on the nose...
@marcs990 Actually this looks like C172 RG to me, which means he had nose gear depl failure. The stick you see under the cowl is the exhaust pipe.
Not a 172, look how far the flaps stretch. Wow 10 year old comment that's crazy.
i wonder if a slower approach and landing speed would be better at full flaps like why did he land so fast with only one notch of flaps?
because at the speed theyre at, the air flowing over the prop keeps it spinning even though the engine would be off. That and im pretty sure that most 210s have 3 blade props, still gonna destroy the prop flange on the crankshaft
I'm no pilot, but that looked like a perfectly controlled emergency landing. Thats nerves of steel for ya.
I mean, that's absolutely the best possible outcome for that airplane. It'll need a new prop and an engine overhaul, but the plane will fly again. What a stud of a pilot.
@ho3s1td0wn
I just finished watching a video where the pilot does the opposite, cuts the engines (twin engine) before touchdown and the whole comment section was complaints about what if he needed to go around. It seems no matter what decision the pilot makes he will always be criticized.
Anyway not cutting the engines was the right choice in case of needing to go around.
I mean on or off it really overall didn't matter. I would say off in this landing would be better just based on the description saying that he burned all his fuel off before this landing. If I've got five minutes of fuel left in the tank the last thing I would want to do would be to go around. I could understand leaving the power in for the soft field landing so maybe that's why he did it.
@andreg00 I doubt that would help much anyway. Even if you got lucky and the prop stopped in a horizontal position to where it wouldn't dig into the ground, the impact would probably still be enough to warrant tearing down the engine and inspecting everything. Ignore the engine though and you still have the cowling and skin to repair.
@andreg00 #1, he might have, the prop continues to spin even with the engine not running. #2, he probably didn't, because if he needed to go around, he wouldn't be able to.
how do they control crash them do they make it rc?
may I ask, why does not kill the engine on the ground before nose has touched?
as a student pilot myself and reading the discription... don't you think it would have been wiser to instead of the prop strike landing to have used what was remaining of fuel to climb to adequete altitude and then perform engine shutoff during flight and then assume best glide toward the field...and then pefrom a landing w/o power"deadstick".this to me seems like the better option.
wow very smooth touch down at 0:12! seriously :D
@lardman2228 Obviously you have never had an engine failure in flight. Yes the prop would stop. Even if it is a fixed pitch. In addition in colder climates after engine failure oil gets cold and THICK quickly. Have seen it done on a Cessna 172. Engine shut down. Prop stopped. Pilot landed gliding it. It could be done. Could have saved prop and engine.
@DonKofAK
indeed, remember a sudden stop of the prop might damage the crankshaft and the engine will have to be inspected before it can return safely to service, failure to do so might produce a massive engine failure maybe not right away, but down the road for sure.
wind direction?
@austerace
The main gear is retractable as well. The fold back towards the tail of aircraft. Do you see that dark opening on the lower side of the fuselage (beneath the rear window)? That's where the tires sit when the gear is retracted.
@shess0501
It's great to armchair quarterback a situation with 20/20 hindisight when your health and probably life isn't in danger and a great deal of adrenalin isn't flowing through your veins, right?
This is the cutlass (sp?) RG. Its a 172 with retractable gear
14m3l1t3 Cessna 210.
approach speed perfect, the engine is to be dismantled and blueprinted regardless, and he had full deflection of the elevator
could you be any more wrong?
either way its automatic overhaul, new prop, and reskin the belly. As trevor said, its less structural damage. The damage to the nose (structure, engine, prop, and everything else) wouldn't be much different, it would still be essentially totaled
Good plan, but I'm pretty sure this is a model with retractable gear that had the nosewheel get stuck (going by the description). How else would its nosewheel be missing?
When I was flight instructing and teaching soft field technique, I'd tell my students to try and strike the tail. They never did but it seemed to help get the nose a bit higher. This guy got pretty close.
I was thinking he was a little hot there and not as nose-high as I would have wanted. Whatever the case, no reason not to be able to land it like he did, it would be a failure not to, but he got it on the ground and walked away.
@@robertjones8598 I think it is good to be a bit hot here. It gives more elevator control. Too slow and your nose could come down very quickly after touch down. It's good safety if you have plenty of runway.
If you look at Pt2 of the video, it looks like it is a 3 bladed prop. Even if he stopped the engine, chances are one of the blades would hit the dirt!
I like the way he had the doors ajar so they wouldn't jam if thing went really bad.
Good job all around!
You're correct but the damage from sudden stoppage would have been less if he simply shut the engine down once the mains were on the ground. Certainly a B+ or A- landing.
@@ekpoole957 who gives a shit about the prop? It’s going to need to be replaced and paid for by the insurance company so why does it matter? Much more important to keep the engine on in case you need to go around for whatever reason than to worry about saving the insurance company a few bucks on the prop.
@@TheJacobshapiro I didn't say anything about the prop....sudden stoppage is about the engine.
Great landing in general but especially due to the emergency. I couldn’t quite tell if the pilot shut the engine down, but I did notice the passenger door is ajar, which is proper procedure. That way the cowling, if shoved back, cannot jam the door shut. I’m quite sure the left door was ajar also. I would have turned engine off once the airstrip was made and turned fuel selector to the Off position.
Why wouldn't he pull the mixture on short final?
Yes same question from me: Why did you not kill the engine on final ???
Aircraft is a 1976 Cessna Centurion 210 w/ retractable landing gear. Doors are open in accordance with forced / emergency landing procedure. Any landing you walk away from is a good landing.
VH-FTM , Single, piston engine w/ tricycle-retractable landing gear
Manufacturer: CESSNA , Model: 210L
Serial Number: 21061159
Registered in AUSTRALIA: 05 May 1976
Owner: NORTHERN AIR MAINTENANCE PTY LTD
Experience flying Cessna 172's and 182T Skylane w/ G1000. Always a student!
I see your point, but I've never seen a prop stop in the horizontal position, they always seem to stop at 11/5 position, and any strike, even when not turning, means a teardown. So you're right, but as a practical matter I don't think it would help and the insurance would take care of the engine anyway. If it's close to TBO, he might get an overhaul out of the deal :-)
at 0:18 why did he up the elevator ? any idea ?
I had the same thought... any input, guys?
@Doodles1947 Spot on. To say leveling the prop is poor piloting is to say soaring is dangerous.
@k00lkatt
Soaring is dangerous. A lot of glider pilots die every year.
And comparing something that’s designed to glide and has a single lever that can change the glide ratio from 30:1 to 5:1 and back again instantly without changing anything else is a lot different than a heavier faster plane with a 10:1 glide ratio and fiddling with shutting down and clocking an engine just to “save” it.
Would you fiddle with your vario or whatever on short final to an out landing? Give me a break.. even you glider pilots aren’t that stupid.
Looks like the default C172 aircraft of MSFS2004??
is that an australian plane? if not, why does it have a vh callsign?
UM no, your wrong...VH means it is registered as a General Aviation Aircraft in AUSTRALIA - the FAA has nothing to do with Australia. So what are you talking about, and secondly it is not a 182 because you can put any paint job on any aircraft...it is a cessna 210 Centurion
How about retracting the landing gear back up, cutting the engine, get the propeller to stop on a level position to save the engine and just do a gliding belly landing in the grass on the side of the strip?
Since there where plenty of time to do that, it would have save a lot of damage to the aircraft and prevented a potential flipping situation in the same time.
1) Shutting down the engine and fiddling with the prop trying to level it is exactly what not to do. The plane is already slippery with no gear and a stopped prop is going to make it slipperier. It’s also likely that the prop wouldn’t stop because it doesn’t feather so it will just windmill and dig in anyway. Plus you now take away any chance of a go around.
2) A belly landing on grass actually causes MORE damage to aircraft as it can dig in and in extreme cases break apart or cartwheel.
Bottom line. Trying to save INSURED PROPERTY should NEVER enter a pilots decision making process. The insurance company sure isn’t going to give you any of the money you might save them… and there are many dead pilots who tried to save their aircraft.
I think that is a 182RG, I can tell from the paint. They must have forgotten to put the structs back on while the fereral aviation administration (FAA) was performing an inspection which is required to fly them.
very well done bravo! personally i would of attempted to shut engine off after touchdown and tried to keep nose high as long as i could to let prop stop spinning to minimize engine damage and be able to salvage the plane possibly but in the heat of the moment those are choices that fly by faster than we can think till we look back
At the time the lift decreases, the drag increases. Meaning when the speed goes down the weight goes up. The center of gravity in this Cessna is in front of the Nose gear.
can a pilot in that situation turn the engine off to avoid damage, or should it stay on?
great filming and a very steady crash landing
Yes absolutely and a significant number do cut power to the magneto(s) to create a chance of avoiding the otherwise inevitable prop strike. The engine is kept on until the plane touches down though, or at the very soonest, as the flair just before touch done happens. One must keep the engine on (and at idle) prior to this point in case the need to make an emergency go-around arises.
Perfect pilot response. Couldn't have done it better.
I thought Ceesna didn't have retractable gear. What variation is this one?
an RG lol
c210
I'd suggest that if the landing had gone pear shaped that being able to do a go around is a good reason to leave the engine running.
@KINGDANIEL00000 Why would you feather and pull the mixture? Then you might as well just cut off the engine.
look at the elevators - the wheels must have hit a bump or similar which tossed the nose in. Was going great up till then and there's nothing the pilot could of done better
Great job, bu I think he could've done one thing more: As he was committed to the landing and already on the ground, wouldn't it have been a good move to shut down the engine before the prop strikes the ground? It was in idle anyway and wasn't producing thrust... Just a thought. Would've avoided having to tear down the engine too...no?
@trydreamin Shutting off the engine is not always a good idea, if you make a bad approach then you can't go around. even waiting till the last minute can be detrimental, you divide your attention from flying a crippled aircraft to shutting off the engine and setting the prop.
sir, there are several models with retractable gear on it like the R182. pause at 0:13 and look at the hole in the after-fuselage, there goes the main-gear-wheel!
@andreg00 It shouldhave been a go around. Landed deep - fast and then hqad to brake harder - but had more runway, so why so much brake and yeah - why ruin your engine and prop for a poor approach. Doh.
@marcs990 Tis better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. It's a Cessna 210, and yes it has retractable gear, and although I haven't flown one I have flown a 182 with retracts, which is basically the same configuration just smaller.
It's a Cessna 210. All 210s had retractable gear (that usually works!). other high-wing Cessnas with folding gear are 172RG, 182RG, 177RG, 337. Maybe others I forget.
@bullseatpizza
lol how is that 'fixed gear' if the nosewheel failed to come down?
@andreg00 too much loss of thrust vector, for most airplanes, a windmilling propeller would exist upon shut down, creating substantial drag as a blade with a very high angle of attack cuts excess air, even though the plane is in ground effect, it will still windmill, regardless of fuel flow to the engine, he could have done it, but he safely landed with idle power because that is how he learned soft fields, I don't blame him, if it was me tho I would have cut engines upon main gear touchdown...
he did a very good job but wouldn't it be best to land on the tail or would that just be more money in damage?
What do you mean it's doubtful it would have stopped windmilling? Anytime I've ever shut down the engine with the mixture it's taken 2 seconds max. If he had shut it off with the mags it would have been almost instant. Would have at least saved his engine, and even the prop, if it stopped horizontally. You've got to explain this one to me lol cause I have no idea where you're getting any of your ^^above^^ ideas from.
I really don't understand this, I am no airplane expert, but an airplane fan, seems the landing went fine, and there was a lot of runway left, but then they gave it all the breaks? What did I miss?
As the aircraft slowed down the control surfaces lost control authority because the airspeed was too low hence the nose dropped.
@davidsholem
and he also should have used full flaps to come as slow as possible, and the tail light is blinking so he should have turned off electrics master too..
I see the logic in shutting down the engine prior to landing, but the fact is if you need to go around then your screwed. On top of that, even if you shut the engine down and the prop stops, if a blade contacts the ground you're going to have to take the engine apart to inspect it. The impact could cause the crankshaft or any number of parts in the engine to deform. Unless you bump the starter to get the prop horizontal to the ground, and tear down of the engine should be done.
Still want that RG? No thanks, I'll stick with my fixed gear.
Love my fixed gear Caravan. Faster than this plane, too!
I used to taxi a 172 quite slowly on the mains with full flap and power - this was only because nobody would fix the shimmy damper. Power keeps elevator authority. Don't know if it would have helped this chap - good landing anyway. 182s seem so heavy compared to 172s though
@charlieechovictor none taken.. and i dont know, im just saying that since that didn't work maybe the longer landing might have. but i was just asking too, i wasn't saying it will deffinitly
im no expert but why didn't he drop the tail?
@youghostme
...they aren't all C-152's and Skyhawks. Who knew?
Good job man, did you consider pulling the mixture to kill the engine before landing? Whatever, your safety is priority.