
Jetstar pilots forgot to lower the landing gear - ademarre
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/jetstar-pilots-forgot-lower-landing-gear/
======
starpilot
Other times this has happened:

Qantas [https://forums.jetphotos.com/forum/general-discussion-
forums...](https://forums.jetphotos.com/forum/general-discussion-
forums/aviation-safety-discussion-forum/50064-qantas-pilots-forget-to-lower-
landing-gear)

El Al [https://www.timesofisrael.com/el-al-pilots-nearly-try-
landin...](https://www.timesofisrael.com/el-al-pilots-nearly-try-landing-with-
wheels-up/)

IAF [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/chandigarh/when-
an-a...](https://indianexpress.com/article/india/chandigarh/when-an-an-32-did-
a-belly-landing-because-pilots-forgot-to-lower-landing-gear-5780076/)

Jetstar, 2012 (!)
[http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323319](http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323319)

Once this 737 MAX stuff dies down, we'll probably stop seeing every pilot fart
or hiccup reaching the front page. Pilots make mistakes, they always have and
always will, we just haven't seen them reported as much. Commercial aircraft
are still as safe as they ever were.

~~~
t0mas88
It's not a very big deal. In pilot training the common saying is "there are
those that have forgotten the gear, and those that will", nobody is immune,
you will forget it once at some point. Luckily it beeps at you loudly when you
do :-)

~~~
FabHK
Here, two experienced pilots land gear up (in a small single engine machine)
even though it beeps loudly...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5McECUtM8fw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5McECUtM8fw)

~~~
tr352
Ha! I know that pilot. Indeed a very experienced man. In case anyone wonders:
that airplane was fixed and flies again.

~~~
credit_guy
This comment makes it to my Top 3 "I know what I'm talking about" list on
Hacker News. Number 1 and 2 being the guy who won the Putnam, and the guy who
burned the wood from a boat.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10803552](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10803552)

------
ademarre
This story could make a good anecdote to remember when considering human
factors, user interface, and checklist design.

> _Investigators said that because the pilots flew the second circuit at
> 1500ft, the Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) had not reset on
> the second approach and it did not display a landing memo at 950ft.

“The absence of the landing memo should have prompted the flight crew to
perform the items of the landing checklist as a ‘read-and-do’ checklist,” it
said._

Like the lock icon in a browser’s address bar, it is not effective to rely on
the user to notice the absence of an indicator.

~~~
eps
This part looked odd indeed.

I'd expect that the aviation industry be very much aware that relying on
people noticing that something is NOT there is error-prone. But they did have
_several_ backup options, so even if the crew inadvertently managed to work
around the first one, the second one (700ft warning) worked as expected.

~~~
t0mas88
Procedures are designed to do things always at the same time, triggered by
something else. The human brain is great at making those connections.

For example, on takeoff the pilot monitoring watches the instruments and
reports "positive rate" (means "we're climbing from the runway in a stable
manner"), as pilot flying you always command "gear up" at that point. It is
quite common in simulator practice to get an engine failure right after
takeoff, and the most made mistake is forgetting to command gear up, because
you're handling the emergency right at the moment you would normally do it.

Luckily (as described in the article) you would normally run a checklist after
any of these events, and usually that makes you catch the mistake.

------
upofadown
This was a situation where the automation normally prompted the pilots to
check the gear. The automation failed to do this in a timely manner so that
they had to go around.

The distraction argument didn't really make any sense at all to me. They were
not distracted, they were flying the aircraft.

The UX moral here is that if you have a system that always prompts the user
then you have to live with the fact that failing to prompt will almost always
result in failure to act.

~~~
erokar
While not abnormal, performing a go-around with a visual circuit landing
shortly following is a high stress situation. The argument is likely that the
pilots were distracted/overloaded by the tasks they had to perform in short
order, while maintaining situational awareness.

~~~
aeternum
It's still not a good excuse. While a go-around might be higher stress, ATPs
should have performed thousands of them as part of their training.

------
sillysaurusx
The history of flight is so interesting. Did you know that early flights were
mostly postal runs? The mortality rate was something absurd. You pretty much
got into the profession because you loved being a bird more than being alive.

One of the earliest telemetry systems was a beacon where you can only tell how
far away you are from it. Like, you know you're X miles away, and you can see
X increase or decrease. But you had no indication what direction it was in, or
any of the miracles we take for granted today. So they would set up a path of
these beacons, and you would fly from one to the next, and that's how you'd
know where you were going. I want to say "at night", but honestly I am
probably misremembering some of the fascinating details. But the point was,
you were often navigating using primitive instruments that gave you very
little data about how not to die within the next N minutes.

From the title, I thought the plane had accidentally landed with the gear up.
But no, a master warning kicked in and the worst that happened was... they
pulled up and went around. Woo.

but it really _is_ woo. It's so fucking cool that humanity as a whole went
from no flight to safe flight in _one_ human lifespan. One old guy's worth of
life! Modern civilization is only a few thousand generations old, and we're
going from ground to air to air-but-safe in the blink of a slice of a
microsecond of human evolution, relatively speaking.

I wish I'll be around to see it happen for space travel. SpaceX is coming
tantalizingly close, yet space-but-safe is a different matter entirely. I
think it will take a few generations for us to work out those problems.

~~~
_s
Most aircraft still rely on NDB/ADF and VOR/CDI for navigation - GNSS (GPS) is
still relatively new.

A lot of my navigation training involved a stop watch, map and a compass just
a year or so ago!

\--- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
directional_beacon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-directional_beacon)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_direction_finder#Automat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_direction_finder#Automatic_direction_finder_\(ADF\))
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_deviation_indicator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_deviation_indicator)

~~~
heelix
I helped ferry an open cockpit biplane from Colorado to the Chicago area with
more or less basic VFR equipment - compass and maps. (We did have a handheld
GPS... which did not seem to stay connected) Eight hours of hand flying was a
wild change of pace from the normal equipment we were use to. Started
'chasing' the compass when my co-pilot wanted a course modification... and I
had missed our heading while already in turn. Embarrassing. It had been a long
time since I actually tried navigating with an actual compass, and had to pay
attention to mentally adjusting for compass errors in acceleration and turns.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
Honest question, hopefully not _too_ ridiculous:

With a plane and engine like you were flying, if you were getting low on fuel
and flying over a highway with little traffic, could you have successfully
refueled at a roadside reststop?

~~~
kbaker
In this video from Alaska they land at a roadside gas station and refuel in a
fuel emergency. In an in-flight emergency you can deviate from any rule...
still poor planning by the pilot.

[https://youtu.be/oE8edtEa46o?t=251](https://youtu.be/oE8edtEa46o?t=251)

Many small piston engines are certified to use mogas (standard automobile
gasoline) as well as 100LL.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Automotive_gasoline](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Automotive_gasoline)

------
WalterBright
This is why there are checklists for everything. Even the best pilots omit
things when checklists are not used.

~~~
_s
Commercial aircraft likely have quite the list of checks to do when on base /
final approaches; but we learn BOUMFISH / PUFLR:

B - Brakes: Checked / Working O - Oil: Temps/Pressures Green U -
Undercarriage: Down / Green M - Mixture, Master, Mags: Rich, On, Both F - Fuel
Pump: On I - Instruments: Baro, DG, Radio's set S - Switches: All in H -
Harnesses: Secure \-- P - Pitch: Full fine U - Undercarriage: Down / Green F -
Flaps: Set L - Landing Clearance: Received R - Runway: Clear

Most pilots in the US learn a GUMPS check:

G – Gas (Fuel on the proper tank, fuel pump on as required, positive fuel
pressure) U – Undercarriage (landing gear down) M – Mixture (fuel mixture set)
P – Propeller (prop set) S – Seat belts and Switches

Between flying the aircraft, communicating with ATC, and ensuring all the
procedures are correctly followed (including monitoring each other) - there is
a lot of stuff going on in the cockpit; and things are happening really
quickly; you can sometimes get "behind" the aircraft - especially when
unexpected things crop up, kudos to the pilots for recognising an unstable
approach, going around, and then responding appropriately to the alarms in the
cockpit and not being afraid to go around again.

I'd say it takes around 3-5 seconds for each checklist item; calling out,
verifying it's in the required state, and continuing to the next one - you're
looking at about 30 seconds on average; which is less time than what the
pilots would have between going around and coming back for another attempt.
Not to mention they're already likely following a missed approach procedure
etc etc, so already pretty distracted, and then given "unexpected" (to them)
directions by ATC (different circuit direction).

\---
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BUMMMFITCHH](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BUMMMFITCHH)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUMPS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUMPS)

~~~
skellera
How do you check your brakes in the air? Is there an indicator?

~~~
t0mas88
Two things to check, 1: Is the parkingbrake off (just look at the switch) and
2: Press the brakes and feel that there is pressure.

If there is a hydraulic leak in a small plane you'll feel that there is no
pressure behind the pedals. They work the same as a car.

~~~
chopin
Curious: What do you do in such an event?

~~~
t0mas88
Divert to an airport with as long a runway as possible and fly a "short field"
approach. That uses maximum flaps and aims at minimum touchdown speed. You can
land and stop most small planes in under 200m that way (if the brakes work)

Most commercial airports have runways of well over 2000m, So you just land
there and let it roll out.

Large planes typically have multiple hydraulic systems, and within those
systems there are "fuses" and accumulators to protect the vital parts (flight
controls, brakes) in case there is a leak in another part.

------
supernova87a
It is a major accomplishment of modern commercial aviation that now, a gear-
down error + missed approach qualifies as a noteworthy safety catch. Aviation
safety has come so far in 50 years.

I have read that the frequency of major safety incidents is so rare now that
detection and diagnosis of errors has had to go farther and farther "upstream"
towards monitoring and detecting the potential contributors to eventual safety
problems. There just are almost no more accidents to study each year. A non-
stabilized approaches is itself now cause for study. Truly admirable.

------
aussiegeek
ATSB investigation
[https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2...](https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2018/aair/ao-2018-042/)

Which points out that the incorrect configuration was on their second go
around

------
bobnamob
As a somewhat related aside, Jetstar pilots are currently pursuing industrial
action with relation to poor working conditions.

------
sbuttgereit
Sounds like it's the sort of thing being discussed in this video...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iigjodCiK0g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iigjodCiK0g)

Early, setting the thesis of the video, "...these [loss of control] accidents
always follow a pattern. The pattern is: an event occurs, the event causes
distraction, distraction causes loss of control."

While not exactly loss of control, it certainly sounds similar and seems to
follow that central thesis.

------
gumby
> The captain elected to remain at Flaps 3, which investigators described as
> permissible and safe but not Jetstar’s standard configuration for a visual
> circuit.

This surprised me (I’m a naive non-pilot). I guess I assumed that things like
this would be decided by manufacturers and regulatory agencies, with (as
happened here) pilots making on the spot decisions. I had not realized
different companies might make different safety protocols. Is that common?

~~~
t0mas88
Yes, so common that every airline has it. They're called SOPs, Standard
Operating Procedures, which is how the company wants you to fly the aircraft.
They're based on manufacturer recommendations / procedures, but do differ per
airline.

SOPs are very detailed, down to the level of the things each pilot says and
how the other responds. As an example: "80 knots" is said by the pilot flying
when reaching that speed on takeoff, the other pilot verifies and says
"checked", or "abort" if the speed on their side is not the same. You don't
say "hey Bob, mine is different", you say exactly what the SOP prescribes.

It makes it possible to fly with every other pilot from the same company.
Usually pilots don't know each other before the start of the trip. It's safe
because everyone does everything in exactly the same way.

------
notoriousjpg
Interesting timing that this gets released 2 days before they are due to take
industrial action/strike... [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-11/jetstar-
flights-cance...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-11/jetstar-flights-
cancelled-amid-pilot-pay-dispute-strike/11788670)

------
tyingq
Could they do something like an obnoxious alert if the flaps are out but the
wheels aren't down?

~~~
t0mas88
There is, but it's smarter than that, because you normally start to use the
first states of flaps (and slats, at the front of the wing) before putting the
gear down.

The terrain warning system is aware of where airports are and will also call
"too low, gear" if you're approaching an airport without the gear down.

~~~
tyingq
Interesting. So it's likely there was some kind of warning/alert to the pilots
for this incident?

~~~
t0mas88
Yes it says in the article they got a master warning. That's a big red light
in the center of their view accompanied by an alarm sound.

The terrain warning system comes on after that if you still continue and will
keep making the "too low, gear" announcement continuously on a loop unless
there is a higher priority problem (engine on fire)

------
turowicz
The world is full of airplane incidents. Check this out:
[https://avherald.com/](https://avherald.com/)

------
tpmx
[http://avherald.com/h?article=4b8fda93&opt=0](http://avherald.com/h?article=4b8fda93&opt=0)

------
yitchelle
Shouldn't some of the landing procedure, such as lowering of wheels, be
instigated automatically?

~~~
rcthompson
No, I'm pretty sure lowering the landing gear can change the aerodynamic
properties of an aircraft pretty significantly. You wouldn't ever want that to
happen unexpectedly.

~~~
burfog
It would be interesting to deploy the nose gear only when the main gear is in
contact with the ground. You'd get better aerodynamic properties that way,
because you'd never fly with the nose gear down.

~~~
freehunter
But in that case if the nose gear fails to deploy you're likely past the point
where you can throttle up and try again. If you try to lower the gear while
you're still in the air and the gear doesn't go down, you can circle back and
try again.

~~~
burfog
It's not supposed to fail. Anything could fail, and yeah that sucks. If it
fails on the first try, it will probably fail on the second try.

Landing with gear up happens sometimes, and pilots are supposed to do a decent
job with it. Large passenger jets have done this and been put back into
service after repairs.

Failure can be detected. Throttle up, and any other needed adjustments, can be
done immediately by the computer. Getting up off the runway again can be
automatic.

~~~
freehunter
Not exactly true. Many airplanes have manual gear release systems if the
mechanical systems fail [1]. These systems don't always work, true, and they
may still have to land gear-up true, but there is a manual fail-over system
and it does have to be used occasionally. If the rear wheels are already down,
though, it's too late to try this.

Aviation is not the type of industry where "failures can be handled
automatically by the computer" is an acceptable answer. There's almost always
manual systems in place for when the computers fail, which they do.

[1] [https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16913/if-the-
la...](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16913/if-the-landing-gear-
is-stuck-in-an-airliner-can-the-crew-go-down-and-manually-o)

------
Jemm
Time to remove meat bags from control of aircraft

~~~
JshWright
Yeah, computers have never flown an airplane into the ground... /s

