PC-12
Flight Crew Commercial
Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Police / Security Involved
Aircraft
Upon the execution of normal gear extension; flight crew observed the nose gear indication displayed on the aircraft systems page; the nose gear was not down and locked. PIC communicated to the ZZZ Tower that the nose gear indication was not down and locked. PIC asked for a low approach and for the Tower to visually check if the nose gear appeared to be down. Tower Controller confirmed the gear was not down. Flight crew executed QRH procedure associated with gear up/unsafe condition multiple times noting the hand gear pump would not move and there was no hydraulics CAS message. Flight crew then requested an additional low approach and ZZZ Tower indicated that the nose gear still appeared to be retracted; but that the nose gear doors were open. PIC executed missed approach and departed traffic pattern to complete speed turns in attempt to lower the nose gear. Procedure proved to be unsuccessful. Another low approach was conducted and ZZZ Tower said the nose gear still appeared to be up; with the gear doors open. PIC requested priority handling; then gave passengers onboard an additional briefing. Flight crew briefed the landing procedure multiple times and then entered an approximately 15 mile final for Runway XXL at ZZZ. Flight crew fully configured aircraft for landing (with the exception of three gear indicators in down and locked state) at 10 mile final and briefed landing procedure again. PIC landed disabled aircraft on Runway XXL at ZZZ in accordance with procedure for nose-gear unsafe state. Flight crew and passengers evacuated aircraft after it came to a stop on Runway XXL ZZZ. While ground personnel and local responders worked to remove the aircraft from the runway; a police officer came into the FBO with an (estimated 9-10' long) chrome socket/ratchet extender in his hand; and informed the flight crew that he had removed that item from the retracted nose gear. Police officer stated he removed the tool from the location where the aircraft tow pin/head is supposed to be installed for towing and that it was almost as wide as the nose gear door opening on the aircraft.I suggest an additional line item be added to the aircraft's certified Pre-Flight Inspection Checklist and Before Start Checklist that includes wording/verbiage to identify and confirm that a certified tow head; tow pin; or otherwise foreign or unapproved object is not in the nose strut of the aircraft. I also suggest the identification of a clear nose strut tow-pin location be added to the PIC's final before flight walk-around. I suggest additional training and oversight of FBO line personnel that includes a mandate of using certified; tagged and visually identifiable; approved tow pins for the aircraft they are moving and the importance of removing them immediately after ground movement/towing is completed.
Upon initial extension of the landing gear; the nose gear did not extend.  The flight crew performed QRH procedure.  QRH procedure was unsuccessful in extending the nose gear.  The flight crew executed a landing on Runway XXL at ZZZ.
PC12 flight crew reported that during approach to land; the nose gear indication did not display down and locked during initial extension prompting multiple go-arounds to have Tower visually inspect and verify.  Tower confirmed nose gear was not down.  The crew ran all the appropriate QRH procedures with no success and decided to successfully land the aircraft with the gear not down and locked indications. Reportedly; a maintenance tool left in the nose gear was the culprit.