Gear Up Now or Later?

I went flying for the first time with my new instructor, Frank. I know Frank from the flight school in Sarnia, but he is now working here in London. It just so happens that I need a freelance instructor to train me for my IFR, and it just so happens that Frank has his IFR and is willing to do that.

It was a beautifully clear day, free of any turbulence whatsoever, and we decided just to do some circuits to give me a break from the intensive engine-out training I have been doing, and to give Frank a chance to familiarize himself with the airplane. Everything went well, but he mentioned something about the retraction of the landing gear on take-off that we had learned differently. The take-off procedure I had been following based on the recommended procedures in the POH and according to what I had been taught were roughly as follows: Rotate at 80 mph, accelerate in ground effect until Vy (112 mph), climb out at Vy, retract gear when there is no longer enough runway to land, set climb power. Frank, who learned in the Seminoles at Empire Aviation, mentioned that I should retract the gear to get cleaned up as soon as we verify a positive rate of climb.

These two different techniques have two different underlying philosophies behind them. The technique I have been using, where we retract the gear as soon as we run out of runway, uses the philosophy that if we have an engine failure, and we still have a chance to get back onto the ground and stop, do it, even if we're already airborne. Once we've retracted the gear then we're committed to going flying. The philosophy behind Frank's technique, is that as soon as we start the climbout, we've committed to being airborne, so we want to ger cleaned up as quickly as possible to minimize the chances of an engine failing while we still have junk hanging out under the airplane.

Thinking about these two different ideas I realize there's pros and cons to both techniques. My technique reduces the chances of us having to successfully fly an entire circuit on only one engine, which historically, has proven difficult for many pilots. The con would be that it requires very good judgement on just exactly how much runway we need to sink back down, land, and stop - especially if we've climbed a fair amount above the runway. That can definitely be difficult. Underestimate the airplane's required distance to stop and we end up in the weeds past the runway. The other technique makes the decision making easier: Positive rate of climb, retract the gear, ok we're going flying no matter what. But it makes the assumption that the pilot will be able to maintain control of the airplane and make it climb in the current conditions. Light twins are notoriously bad in the single engine climb performance. The single engine climb performance of the Seminole at gross weight and sea level is listed as 212 fpm. That is not much to work with. The Twin Comanche is only marginally better at 260 fpm (with only two of us onboard during training I've seen up to 600 fpm). That is assuming proper pilot technique - climb at Vyse (aka Blue Line), with gear and flaps retracted. The second technique also just ignores any runway left over, which in reality isn't the safest action. If you have enough runway its safer to land then to try and climbout, fly the circuit, and return for a landing.

I guess the risk-reward is different too, at least if the engine fails at the initial stages of take-off. The technique I have been taught carries a lower risk, lower reward. If I misjudge the distance needed to land and stop, I may end up over-running the runway. The airplane may be wrecked, but chances are I'll be ok, since we're just rolling off the runway. The other technique carries a higher reward, higher risk. If done properly, the airplane as well as everybody onboard will be just fine, but it may require a higher degree of skill to acomplish. Any mistake, and the results could be ugly.

Of course if we're operating from a shorter runway where there's not much left-over after we become airborne, the two techniques essentially become the same, and there's no argument. With long runways like at London however, I like the technique I have been taught and I think I'll stick with it.