Oh, Deer (Part 1)

As far as I knew when I woke up, October 26, 2016 would be an ordinary day for me. It was a Wednesday, and I was scheduled to fly our Company’s BE58 Baron on a charter from Wings Field (KLOM), a non-towered airport just north of Philadelphia, to Pittsburgh International Airport (KPIT) and spend the day there waiting for my 3 passengers to finish up their meetings. The plan was to fly them back to Wings that evening and then make the short hop back to home base at Lancaster, PA. (KLNS).

It was a flight that I had done countless times, and I was comfortable with the airports, the passengers, and the airplane. Everything went smoothly that morning and my short flight from Lancaster to Wings was uneventful. I even made it there in time to spill coffee all down the front of my pants before my passengers arrived. The weather was clear, calm and beautiful as we loaded into the Baron and the sun was just starting to come up as I taxied toward runway 24 for departure. I was departing VFR and had an IFR plan on file which I intended to pick up with Harrisburg Approach once we were airborne. According to my calculations, I was on schedule to be drinking my coffee at the Pittsburgh FBO right around 8:30.

At 7:05, I advanced the throttles for departure. A few moments later, I received a very unpleasant surprise. I was quickly approaching rotation speed when 2 deer ran onto the runway directly in front of the aircraft. It was still dark enough that I was relying on my landing/ taxi lights to illuminate the runway for take-off.  As a result, I was unable to see the animals before it was too late. I don’t remember making a conscious decision to pull back on the yoke, but it was that or plow directly into them at about 85 knots. I pulled up as quickly as I could and the airplane rotated immediately.  A fraction of a second later I heard and felt a sickening THUD.

There was no doubt that I had hit one of them, but, somewhat unbelievably, the airplane was climbing as though nothing had happened. I put the nose down to get the airspeed back up and began to try and piece together what damage the airplane had sustained. Based on the noise and the feeling of the impact, my suspicion was that I had hit the deer with the left main landing gear. A review of the instrumentation showed no abnormalities and the airplane was behaving normally, so I didn’t suspect any damage to the airframe/ flight controls. I couldn’t see anything out the windows that looked unusual, and somewhat unbelievably I still had 3 green lights.

After gaining a safe amount of speed and altitude, I turned around and told the passengers that we had hit a deer. It was obvious that we had hit something and I was sure that they wanted to know what was going on. Then, I checked all my indications again and satisfied with what I was seeing, tried to bring up the landing gear. No dice. When I pulled the gear lever to the up position, the master “GEAR UP” warning light came on and I got a horn. There was never any change in the 3-green indication and the gear motor never came to life at all.

At this point it was obvious that, minimally I was going to have to divert to Lancaster and have the maintenance guys look at the airplane to see if anything was broken. I figured that they would either give me the green light to continue or I would just jump into one of our PC12s and complete the trip while they worked on the Baron.

The landing gear’s refusal to come up was my first indication that there was substantial damage. I set course for Lancaster and called our Chief Pilot. After explaining the situation to him, we agreed that KLNS was the best option and that he would let the maintenance guys know that I was coming.

The logic was that proceeding to Lancaster would allow a visual check of the landing gear by maintenance people as well as the tower and result in the safest outcome if an emergency landing were required. Lancaster would likely have better services available in terms of emergency responders and, not to mention, I was fairly certain that there was a dead deer on the only runway at Wings that I didn’t feel like hitting for a second time. In addition, the relatively long runway at Lancaster combined with light traffic at that time of day made it the ideal option to divert to.

I again turned around to brief the passengers. I told them that we were going to have to make precautionary landing before continuing to our intended destination and that I would be performing a few low passes for the tower.

Due to the drag from the landing gear, the flight to Lancaster seemed to take forever. The long cruise home, however, gave me time to try and reach someone on the ground at Wings in hope of having the runway inspected and cleaned off before other traffic tried to use it. After several attempts to raise anyone on the Unicom/ CTAF frequency, I called Philadelphia Approach for help instead. Philly answered right away and I explained to them what had happened. I requested that they call over to Wings on the phone or send someone out to check the runway. They told me that they would get it done and asked if there was any other way that they could assist me. I told them I was headed to Lancaster and that I appreciated their offer, but didn’t require any further assistance. I then switched over to Lancaster Tower and let them know that I was about 15-20 minutes out, but I would need to perform a couple of passes to have them check my gear. The tower cleared me for a low approach over runway 26.

I arrived at LNS at about 7:30. I performed my first low pass by the tower, not really expecting anything to appear out of place. I figured I had bent something or damaged the squat switch, but not much more. I climbed to pattern altitude and awaited the good word. Shortly after the fly-by, Tower reported that the left main gear didn’t appear to be down and locked. They suggested that I make another pass. The airport maintenance personnel chimed in, reporting the same. We had just started discussing whether cranking the gear a little by hand might help when Philly approach called the Lancaster tower on the phone.

Philly informed Lancaster that someone had inspected the runway at Wings and found the left main strut and wheel in the grass. I quickly concluded that cranking the gear down probably wouldn’t help!

This was found in the grass by the runway at Wings Field

To Be Continued…

(Read Part 2 Here)

Andrew Robinson is an airline pilot for Piedmont Airlines.  He is a former 135 Charter Pilot and flight instructor who lives with his wife and 2 daughters in Pennsylvania.  He instructs in Beechcraft Bonanzas.

Similar Posts

  • Contact Approaches

    Almost all IFR pilots are familiar with visual approaches and what the requirements are in order to fly a visual approach. As a refresher, the Instrument Procedures Handbook defines a Visual Approach as “an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is not an [Instrument Approach Procedure]” (page 4-56).

    For ATC to issue a Visual Approach, the pilot must have the airport or the traffic to follow in sight. Once the pilot reports the airport or the traffic in sight, ATC can clear the aircraft for a visual approach.

    A limiting factor for a visual approach is ATC’s Minimum Vectoring Altitude. “This altitude, based on terrain and obstruction clearance, provides controllers with minimum altitudes to vector aircraft in and around a particular location” (Instrument Procedures Handbook page 1-42). ATC has to restrict aircraft to these MVAs, which can sometimes be quite high due to terrain or obstacles in the vicinity of the airport.

    Every pilot has been in a situation with a high MVA that ATC can’t get them below, but it’s solidly MVFR or VFR at the destination airport. The MVA keeps the pilot in the clouds, so a visual approach isn’t possible since the pilot can’t see the airport or the traffic to follow. This can lead to extra time to go out and fly an approach.

    Enter a Contact Approach. A Contact Approach is different then a Visual Approach. “The main differences between a visual approach and a contact approach are: a pilot must request a contact approach, while a visual approach may be assigned by ATC or requested by the pilot; and a contact approach may be approved with 1sm visibility if the flight can remain clear of clouds, while a visual approach requires the pilot to have the airport in sight, or a preceding aircraft to be followed, and the ceiling must be at least 1,000 feet AGL with at least 3sm visibility” [Instrument Procedures Handbook page 4-57].

    Here’s the simplified explanation: A pilot does not have to have the airport in sight to request a contact approach. All that is required is for the airport to be reporting at least 1sm visibility and for the pilot to remain clear of clouds.

    When would this be helpful for an IFR pilot? Good question. Here’s a scenario.

    Pilot Smalls is about 20 minutes from his destination, which is an uncontrolled airport with only one approach to runway 17. He is approaching from the south and the initial approach fix for the approach to 17 is about 15 miles north of the airport. The airport is under Center control. When he has arrived at this destination in the past, Center usually could only vector him down to 4,000 AGL. He is very familiar with this airport and the surrounding area as he comes to this destination at least 2-3 times a month for business.

    Pilot Smalls listens to the AWOS, which is reporting a 2500 foot scattered layer and 10 miles visibility. He knows it is right traffic for 17 since there is a 2,000 foot antenna on the east side of the field. There is some hilly terrain around, but all the terrain is well below pattern altitude and doesn’t cause a safety issue.

    Looking out at the clouds, Pilot Smalls observes that the cloud layer is scattered to broken, but more scattered on the west side of the airport, with several large openings that he can see the ground through. Center asks for his approach request and Pilot Smalls requests a visual approach. Center gives him a descent to 4,000 AGL, their MVA for the area. They tell him to report the airport in sight for the visual approach.

    At 4,000 AGL, Pilot Smalls is going through the scattered layer of clouds, but can see the ground in between the clouds and deems he has room to maneuver safely between the clouds and stay clear of them. He can’t see the airport, so a visual approach seems unlikely. He can’t cancel IFR because then he would have to keep the VFR cloud clearance and visibility requirements in Class E airspace (1,000 feet above, 500 below and 2sm horizontally), which isn’t possible in this case.

    5 miles from the airport, ATC states, “N12345, I’m going to have to send you out for the approach since you don’t have the airport in sight.” Pilot Smalls then requests a Contact Approach. ATC clears him for the Contact Approach to his destination, so Pilot Smalls descends through a break in the clouds, remaining clear of clouds, until he gets below the base of the ceiling. He maneuvers onto the right downwind, lands and cancels IFR.

    Contact approaches can be useful at controlled and uncontrolled airports. The first time you request one, do so with a higher ceiling and some room to maneuver to keep your safety margins. After you’ve done a few, you can determine what your personal minimums are for a Contact Approach.

    I would not recommend doing a Contact Approach at an airport you are unfamiliar with. It’s vital to know what obstacles are around since on a Contact Approach, the pilot is now responsible for traffic avoidance and terrain avoidance, whereas on a visual approach, ATC resumes that responsibility.

    For more reading on Contact Approaches and another good scenario, check out Bold Method’s article on Contact Approaches.

    Almost all IFR pilots are familiar with visual approaches and what the requirements are in order to fly a visual approach. As a refresher, the Instrument Procedures Handbook defines a Visual Approach as “an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is…

  • Have You Got Your FAA WINGS?

    The FAA started their Pilot Proficiency Award Program (commonly known as FAA WINGS) in 1996.  It is run by the FAA Safety Team, or the FAASTeam.  The intent of the program was, and is, to “improve the nation’s accident rate by conveying safety principles and practices through training, outreach, and education” (taken from faasafety.gov).  The FAA WINGS program, free of charge, encourages pilots to pursue recurrent training to enhance their overall knowledge of all the aspects of aviation.

    FAASTeam Logo FAA WINGS

    The FAA WINGS program has evolved over the years, but with the current structure, pilot’s accomplish tasks, both knowledge and flying, for credit that adds up to the equivalent of a flight review.  Pilot’s must accrue three knowledge credits and three flight credits to complete a phase, and each phase acts as a flight review.

    FAA WINGS has three levels, the basic, advanced, and master level.  Under each level, you accomplish different phases.  The basic level is “designed for pilot’s [desiring] a higher level of proficiency than … a normal flight review” (faasafety.gov).  The flying tasks in the basic phase are based on the private or commercial pilot PTS, depending on the airman’s certificate level.  The knowledge courses revolve around many different areas, all of which can be viewed on the FAASafety Team’s website.    Most are free, but there are some courses that have a cost associated with them.  In the advanced and master phases of the FAA WINGS program, the tasks have higher standards, challenging pilots to hold themselves to those higher standards.

    One unique aspect of the FAA WINGS program is the opportunity to attend a safety seminar for credit. Throughout the year, there are many different safety seminars that take place in the different FSDO areas. The FAA WINGS seminars range from a study of accidents, to GPS usage and anything in between.  You can even get FAA WINGS credit for attending the Bonanza BPPP or the Cirrus CPPP programs.

    As an instructor, I highly recommend to all my customers to enroll in the FAA WINGS program and use it. This keeps pilot proficiency at a high level, which in turn keeps safety at a high level as well.  Plus, you get to learn a lot too!

    If you’d like to enroll in the FAA WINGS program, visit faasafety.gov to create an account.  Then, find a good instructor and start working on those phases!

    The FAA started their Pilot Proficiency Award Program (commonly known as FAA WINGS) in 1996.  It is run by the FAA Safety Team, or the FAASTeam.  The intent of the program was, and is, to “improve the nation’s accident rate by conveying safety principles and practices through training, outreach, and education” (taken from faasafety.gov).  The FAA…

  • Pilatus Jet Nears Certification

    The Pilatus Jet, the PC-24 Super Versatile Jet, is nearing certification.  Pilatus expects the Pilatus Jet to receive European and US certification by December.  The first delivery may even take place before the end of the year.

    In developing the PC-24 Pilatus Jet, Pilatus, based in Switzerland, has taken the same approach as they did with the PC-12, their insanely successful single engine turboprop.  Versatility is the key, with their mindset being to make the PC-24 Pilatus Jet the first flying Suburban jet.  Pilatus emphasized STOL  and unimproved strip operation in their design.

    The huge cargo door so familiar on the PC-12 has been crafted into the PC-24 Pilatus Jet giving access to a massive cargo area.  According to Pilatus’ website, the jet has a takeoff distance of only 2,690 feet, which is unheard of for a a business jet.  There is seating for 11 + a pilot (yep, it’s a single pilot airplane!), so the whole family can come along.  With a max cruise of 425 knots and a range of almost 2,000 miles, it’s a get somewhere airplane.

    The price tag for a new PC-24 Pilatus Jet will be $8.9 million, which is just under what a new Phenom 300 costs.  There is a 90 order wait list, so if you get on it now, you can get one faster than a Cirrus Vision Jet!

    The Pilatus Jet, the PC-24 Super Versatile Jet, is nearing certification.  Pilatus expects the Pilatus Jet to receive European and US certification by December.  The first delivery may even take place before the end of the year. In developing the PC-24 Pilatus Jet, Pilatus, based in Switzerland, has taken the same approach as they did…

  • Oh, Deer (Part 3)

    Read Part 1 & Part 2

    Throughout the whole event, I learned quite a few things both about flying and about myself. Here are some of the lessons which I have taken away from the accident:

    1. No flight is routine: When I took off that morning I was about as relaxed as I could have been while going to fly. I was flying an airplane that I knew well, in beautiful weather, to familiar airports and even carrying passengers which I had taken on this exact trip more than a dozen times. The accident brought into startling clarity that anything can happen at any time. I had done everything right that morning (preflight, weather briefing, planning, etc) , and none of that did anything to stop the deer from jumping out onto the runway. All we can do is ensure the items we do have control over are covered and try to be prepared to deal with anything else that arises. This ties directly into my next point:
    2. Making sure everything is correct: When you do go fly, make sure that you have all your paperwork and personal details taken care of. I can think of a few times over the course of my flying career where something wasn’t quite right with the paperwork, or perhaps I had forgotten my wallet and I was tempted to go fly anyway. “It’s 8pm on Sunday, I’m not going to get ramp checked.” Well, I can assure you that the paperwork and questionnaires which were required to be submitted to the FAA, NTSB, and Insurance companies would have uncovered any discrepancies in my logbooks, currency, or legality. It isn’t worth the risk of flying without having everything in place just in case something happens. It isn’t just a random ramp check which can get a pilot into trouble.
    3. Ask for help: The story of my collision with a deer would have had a very different outcome if it weren’t for the help that I received from countless the people on the ground. If you’re ever in a situation where you could use a hand, don’t be afraid to ask for help. If I had simply turned around and landed back at Wings, I wouldn’t even have had any idea that my landing gear was missing! The people in the control tower, the maintenance guys, the approach controllers in Philly, the emergency responders, and many more people all played their part in orchestrating a successful outcome.

      Airplane sitting on the runway after the firefighters had checked it out
      Photo credit: www.lancasteronline.com
    4. Dealing with the Paperwork: I have had dealings with the FAA before, but never for an accident. I was afraid that the investigation would be a witch hunt and I would have to defend myself while someone poured over all my planning and paperwork looking for potential errors. But, my fears were totally unfounded. Although I did have to answer many phone calls, write many reports, and fill out much paperwork, the FAA, NTSB, and Insurance companies were very patient in waiting for my responses and even complimentary in how the situation played out. I really enjoyed working with all of them and appreciated their encouragement and help.
    5. Emotional Response: After the dust had settled and the smoke had cleared, I was left standing on the side of the runway with the passengers and my boss. I offered to fly them back to Philadelphia or continue to Pittsburgh and assured our Chief Pilot that I was feeling fine and ready to fly again. Fortunately, there wasn’t a need. Over the next week or two, I noticed a change in myself. I wasn’t fine. I have never had headaches, but shortly after I landed I developed a headache that didn’t go away for days. I had trouble focusing on anything and I had trouble finding motivation to do much but sit and stare at a wall. I wasn’t sharp and I caught myself making silly mistakes in my normally routine activities. I wasn’t depressed, or sad, it was just an unwanted mental and physiological response to the stress and shock of what happened that morning in the Baron. I didn’t feel like myself for quite some time and I even found myself a little on edge whenever I lined up for takeoff on subsequent charters for while afterward. Eventually I started to feel normal again, but it was a slow process.
    6. Feather the Props: I can’t tell you what a difference it makes when those props go from wind milling to feathered. It became clear to me that feathering a prop could make a huge difference in deciding the outcome of an emergency situation.
    7. Good training and checklists usage: This one is pretty straight forward, but it’s worth mentioning. Good training and proficiency make all the difference when the odds are against you. Make sure that you use all your resources when your back is against the wall, and that includes the checklists. Under the stress of the flight I had forgotten to close the cowl flaps and would likely have landed with them open without the aid of the Emergency Procedures Checklist. This would have resulted in unnecessary damage to the airframe.
    8. No need to rush: There is no denying that I had things stacked in my favor that day. I had nice weather, extra gas, daylight hours, and even the luxury of landing at my home airport. But, regardless of all those variables, there is no need to rush into anything. Ask questions, find answers and come up with a plan. Obviously not all emergencies present the pilot with the luxury of time, but use all time and resources you have to your advantage.
    9. Polish up those procedures: The deer accident really made me want to go out and brush up on all the emergency procedures which I hadn’t performed since my last checkride. The realization that I could need any of them at any time was really hit home after I hit that deer. Additionally, make sure you know who to call if something ever does happen.
    10. Know the systems: Familiarity with the systems on the airplane makes it easier to troubleshoot and solve issues on the fly and makes it easier to spot a problem in the first place. Knowing how systems work and what their normal indications should be helps make decisions regarding when to divert and where to land easier.

    The irony isn’t lost on me that the last article that I wrote for this newsletter dealt with how to avoid making gear up landings and the high cost required to repair one. I never would have imagined when I wrote that article last fall that I would be writing one only a few months later detailing my own gear up landing.

    The bottom line is that there is nothing a person can do to prepare for every situation which might arise throughout the course of a flight, and it’s also impossible to know which emergency you may have to deal with if a situation arises. All we can do is stack odds in our favor by making sure that we address the things within our control such as aircraft maintenance, careful flight planning, checking weather, and having personal minimums set in place to keep us from flying outside of our skill sets and comfort zones.

    Additionally, ensuring that you are knowledgeable and proficient in your aircraft’s procedures will give you the best chance for success. When things start going wrong, keep calm, and ask for help. Work the problem instead of guessing or rushing into a less than desirable solution. No one wants to be caught in an emergency like a deer in a landing light!

    Andrew Robinson is an airline pilot for Piedmont Airlines.  He is a former 135 Charter Pilot and flight instructor who lives with his wife and 2 daughters in Pennsylvania.  He instructs in Beechcraft Bonanzas.

    Read Part 1 & Part 2 Throughout the whole event, I learned quite a few things both about flying and about myself. Here are some of the lessons which I have taken away from the accident: No flight is routine: When I took off that morning I was about as relaxed as I could have…

  • Flying WAAS GPS Approaches

    When flying a WAAS GPS approach, there are several different levels of WAAS signal that a GPS receiver can get. The most precise is an LPV signal. LPV stands for Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance. An LPV approach has the lowest minimums of all the WAAS GPS approaches, typically in the range of 200-300 feet AGL. A GPS glide path (GP) is guaranteed with an LPV approach and the minimum altitude is a decision altitude (DA).

    Just like a localizer, an LPV course width get’s tighter and the CDI becomes more sensitive the closer the plane get’s to the runway. Even though the LPV approach minimums are so low and the approach is down to a DA, they still aren’t considered precision approaches by the FAA (which leads to some extra planning when selecting an airport as an alternate that only has GPS approaches, since the AIM specifies only the LNAV minimum are to be considered if an alternate airport only has GPS approaches, bringing the 800 foot ceiling requirement to bear)

    An LNAV/VNAV approach is still a WAAS approach that has a GPS glidepath, but is slightly different than an LPV approach. An LNAV/VNAV final approach course does not get more sensitive the closer the plane gets to the runway. The smallest course width on an LNAV/VNAV approach is 0.3 miles either side of center. LNAV/VNAV approaches will, most of the time, have higher minimums than LPV approaches and can have minimums no lower than 250′ AGL.

    The third type of WAAS approach is strictly a non-precision approach with a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA). These are designated LP approaches, which stands for Localizer Performance. These are like old school Localizer only approaches that, similar to the lateral portion of an LPV approach, the course width tightens the closer to the runway that a pilot is. There is no glide path by definition of an LP approach, though there is a caveat.

    Now, by looking at an approach plate that is a WAAS approach, but only has LP minimums listed, a pilot would assume there would be no glide path. Depending on what type of GPS unit the airplane has, that pilot could be wrong. Garmin Perspective units (Cirrus G1000), all GTN 750s and GTN 650s, All G1000 NXi units, most Garmin 430W and 530W, and all Avidyne IFD 550/540 and 440 units will display an advisory glide path on an LP approach, designated LP+V.

    What does LP+V indicate? An advisory glide path is just advisory, but it is totally legal to follow down on a non-precision LP approach. The kicker is obstacle clearance is not guaranteed and the pilot needs to keep an eye on minimum altitudes at the different waypoints on the approach. The big thing I tell people is, when you arrive at the MDA and the runway is in sight, following the advisory glide path below the MDA could get you in trouble with obstacles. Don’t just hone in on your instruments when you break out of the clouds. Look out the windscreen and make sure you won’t hit anything.

    If you arrive at the MDA on the advisory glide path and the runway isn’t in sight, DON’T GO BELOW THE MDA! Most autopilots won’t level off at the MDA, even if that altitude is set in the altitude pre-select, so this will involve turning off the autopilot before the MDA and manually leveling off, or engaging the altitude mode of your autopilot at the MDA.

    One other type of GPS approach that you will encounter is an LNAV approach. This is a non-WAAS approach down to an MDA, but your GPS unit may still give you a +V. Most modern ones will.

    When flying a WAAS GPS approach, there are several different levels of WAAS signal that a GPS receiver can get. The most precise is an LPV signal. LPV stands for Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance. An LPV approach has the lowest minimums of all the WAAS GPS approaches, typically in the range of 200-300 feet…

  • MMOPA Vision Video

    The Malibu & M-Class Owner’s and Pilot’s Association recently released their MMOPA Vision Video. It is a great video detailing the history of the Piper PA46 & the history of MMOPA. The PA46 would have ceased to exist without the founding of the original Malibu Coalition.

    Checkout the video above (and Texas Top Aviation’s Hank Gibson even gets a cameo!).

    The Malibu & M-Class Owner’s and Pilot’s Association recently released their MMOPA Vision Video. It is a great video detailing the history of the Piper PA46 & the history of MMOPA. The PA46 would have ceased to exist without the founding of the original Malibu Coalition. Checkout the video above (and Texas Top Aviation’s Hank…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *