Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:45:05 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-3730576@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.130.116.53; envelope-from=hwasti@lm50.com
From: Hamid Wasti <hwasti@lm50.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [LML] Evolution Gear-Up
References: <list-3700500@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-3700500@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tom McNerney wrote:
> So, if only the tail and tail cone were damaged..  Wouldn't that mean he saved the airplane in the last possible second, bouncing the tail on the runway and then going around?  
I doubt that that is what happened. I heard about the gear up 3rd hand 
before I saw the press release and there was no mention of a go-around 
and there was a mention of needing a new prop. You should keep in mind 
that the press release and the AvWeb article said that the tail was 
damaged -- they did not say that that was the only thing that was 
damaged.  Even if it was, on many aircraft you can land gear up, or gear 
partially down, with virtually no damage to the airframe. Older Mooney 
aircraft have an after-market single piece belly that also incorporates 
skid plates that prevent damage to the airframe in the event of a gear 
up landing.

Addressing you hypothetical scenario:
> I mean, sucks the gear wasn't down to start with, but saving the airplane that late is worth something.  
>   
A very large percentage of pilots that die in airplane accidents do so 
because they tried to save the airplane. Pulling up the nose hard while 
adding power close to ground in a panic situation, what could possibly 
go wrong?  The hypothetical pilot in your hypothetical scenario  needs 
to be rebuked, not commended.

Regards,

Hamid