Looks like de Havilland is off the hook for this one. I spoke to a guy on the ramp whose girlfriend works in the tower, and it turns out the gear didn't collapse at all. They just forgot to put it down. The airplane in the picture is partly supported by a now-mangled radar dome on its belly. He also confirmed that no one was injured.
I taxied by it today but didn't get a good shot, as clearance delivery called me back with my transponder code right at that moment. The props, as you could see if I had a cleaner side window, are pretty chewed up, but the fuselage appears to have been somewhat "protected" by the ridiculously expensive radar dome, the wreckage of which must have been removed. I couldn't see wing damage from my vantage point.
Poor pilots. I was thinking as I watched it being swarmed by firetrucks yesterday that that was going to entail a painful amount of paperwork. According the the controller's boyfriend, the tower shares responsibility for the gear up landing. The controllers are supposed to identify extended landing gear and have standard calls to make if they can't see it. I'm not sure I believe him. Long ago Canadian controllers made a "check gear" call to retractable types, and the pilot would acknowledge with "down and locked" or "three green," or the like. The standard joke when the controller accidentally issued that challenge to a fixed gear pilot was "gear down and welded." They stopped doing it officially years ago, but some controllers continued until quite recently, when I believe it was actually banned. Nav Canada, the new tower agency was concerned about liability issues if a pilot thought he could rely on that reminder. I've never heard a "check gear" challenge from a US controller.
I can understand that a controller might feel responsible if an airplane landed gear up on his watch. "I should have seen it!" he might think. But will the FAA controller in question seriously be found at fault for not reminding the pilot to move the wheel-shaped switch to the down position before the flare?
In other news, the airplane I fly is now bigger than a commercial jet, assuming the commercial jet is the one pictured below, a Dayjet Eclipse 500. It has a greater range than I do, but a smaller cabin, smaller payload and smaller engines. (Okay, maybe I'm cheating a bit on the engines. They are physically smaller, though). Hey I wonder if it has a toilet.
I can imagine the passengers squealing, "oh my god, it's so small." Passengers say that about anything. I once overheard someone emphasizing the tininess of a B737 with, "It only has one aisle!" Meh, whatever. My hotel room is huge. It's a suite. I think if you took out the dividing walls you could park my airplane in here. The Eclipse 500, easliy.