Bounce, bounce, bounce... bang

genna

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
1,721
Display Name

Display name:
ТУ-104
Last edited:
Took me a minute to figure out what type is a "Piper Aero 3". :)

I also wonder why the state police and the FAA would be investigating rather than the NTSB.
 
Took me a minute to figure out what type is a "Piper Aero 3". :)

I also wonder why the state police and the FAA would be investigating rather than the NTSB.

State Police we’re probably the first on scene or tasked with taking over aircraft accidents from the local municipality.

FAA investigates stuff like this all the time. NTSB can choose whether to show up or not. They often base their reports on evidence gathered by the local FAA inspectors if they don’t travel to the scene.

They’ll note that in the preliminary and final report with wording like “NTSB did not travel in support of the investigation of this accident”.

At the accident I witnessed earlier this year, County Sheriff and VFD arrived first. Sheriff asked me for a written statement. I was able to write it with a note that I’m a CFI, which he said later was incredibly useful (more credibility than usual aircraft accident eyewitnesses).

I had to leave so I left contact information and stayed in touch with the Sheriff after saying goodbyes with the pilot and congratulating him on a successful off airport landing and commiserating with him a final time about the darn road sign screwing up a good thing. Told him to give me a call also if he or FAA needed anything. Forwarded him photos I took of wreckage locations before we pulled the wing and larger stuff off of the road.

FAA arrived a few hours later, according to the pilot later on, talked to the Sheriff, read all of the written statements including mine, asked the pilot very few questions, checked his credentials, and said that without significant property damage and no major injuries, and with statements from the pilot, myself, and everyone else that all matched materially, and the property owner unconcerned about the fence damage, the case would likely be closed fairly quickly.

No enforcement action or any problems for the pilot. They also make sure to help figure out who the private property owner is and make it clear that the pilot is liable for private property damage.

Mostly because it would be pretty difficult for the pilot to follow up, so the FAA facilitated that contact process with assistance from the local PD or Sheriff.

NTSB ROC requested the form called out in 49 CFR 830, the 6120.1 Form. Here:

https://www.ntsb.gov/Documents/6120_1web_Reader.pdf

They also asked the pilot to have a mechanic test certain things once the airplane was flatbed trucked to his hangar and provide them a copy of the report.

I don’t think he ever saw the NTSB person in the flesh. Just paperwork and the mechanic’s report since the pilot’s guess at what happened sounded reasonable to all of us.

But yes. To answer your question, both the Sheriff and the FAA did all the investigating at that event and NTSB wasn’t there at all that I’m aware of.

In fact without injuries or major property damage, neither FAA nor NTSB even wanted to look at the aircraft or impound the parts to see if the fuel pump really had failed themselves.

It met the accident definition in 49 CFR 830, but didn’t raise any concerns with NTSB that it required an in-person investigation apparently.

By the way...

Leaving it in the field overnight (negotiated with the property owner) got all my neighbors riled up on Nextdoor.com when they saw the wreck sitting there in the dark on their way home from work.

My wife saw it, and told me to get on there and explain what happened. :)

Everyone was happy the pilot walked away without a scratch on Nextdoor.
 
5100ft runway. Just hold and let it bleed the speed off or go around... He must have been distracted or something
 
Took me a minute to figure out what type is a "Piper Aero 3". :)

I also wonder why the state police and the FAA would be investigating rather than the NTSB.

I’ve seen the press spell Arrow as Aero a few times. While it is an easy mistake to make phonetically for someone who does not know airplanes, it demonstrates laziness on the part of the reporter. Research is an important part of the reporting process. Many reporters seem to have forgotten or never learned that.

If the only damage was a collapsed nose gear and other minor damage and if there were only minor injuries, it would be considered an incident, not an accident. FAA would then typically investigate but not the NTSB.
 
I’ve seen the press spell Arrow as Aero a few times. While it is an easy mistake to make phonetically for someone who does not know airplanes, it demonstrates laziness on the part of the reporter. Research is an important part of the reporting process. Many reporters seem to have forgotten or never learned that.

If the only damage was a collapsed nose gear and other minor damage and if there were only minor injuries, it would be considered an incident, not an accident. FAA would then typically investigate but not the NTSB.

Prop strike too, I would think. Maybe even some wing damage as he was not very straight when he was bouncing. I wouldn't be surprised if a wing struck ground and that was what sent it off the runway

https://kevindayhoffwestgov-net.blogspot.com/2018/04/maryland-state-police-are-investigating.html

Interestingly, in the first(OP) article it is claimed(presumably by the pilot) that they were doing TnGs and the engine failed. That is not what we saw. They definitely didn't touch properly and then didn't go properly. I guess in that "go" part that could have been due to some engine problem(or low RPM setting or something), but full power was definitely not applied and they still screwed up the T part of TnG. The thing about it, I just checked out in an Arrow III(different one). It's one of the easiest planes to land that i have flown. You can really screw up the landing and still plant it on the ground. About the only thing I like about them

This was a school's airplane from another airport. Last year an Arrow from that same school landed on the belly at our field too. They need to stop killing Arrows. Even if these Arrows are almost no longer needed
 
Watched this happen earlier today. Botched landing. Porpoises, adds some power. Not enough to climb, too much to land. Bounces 2-3 more times and goes off the runway with collapsed nose gear as a result.

I was getting ready to fly. Luckily, didn’t start the engine yet.

Everyone is ok.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/carroll/cc-airport-incident-20180426-story.html

You said botched landing, pilot indicated botched takeoff (if we can believe the article.). I wonder if that was for insurance reasons?
 
You said botched landing, pilot indicated botched takeoff (if we can believe the article.). I wonder if that was for insurance reasons?

When I do TnGs I 1)complete landing, 2)continue to roll on the ground for a few seconds while 3)cleaning up the plane for take off and then 4)apply full power. Arguably he did #1(he touched the ground a few times) and sort of #4. To me, it's a botched landing and a botched attempt to go around. Not a completed landing and failed take off. See post #10

Yeah, i'm sure they are trying to deflect the blame.
 
3 bounces and your out. Why people are afraid to go around amazes me.
 
3 bounces and your out. Why people are afraid to go around amazes me.
I don't think it's fear, at all... they literally freeze up and don't think about it... have to beat it into people that NO landing is assured until the wheels are stopped and every landing is a go-around until proven otherwise... :)
 
3 bounces and your out.
I have a lower tolerance. One bounce just means that you have witnesses. Perfect landings only occur when no one is looking. If I bounce it a second time, the throttle goes all the way forward. It's not going to get any better after that, you may as well take a breath, set it up again and see if you can't do better on the next try. There's no reason to make the tires and gear legs pay for my mistakes.
 
There will be those that disagree with me on this, but this is what I was taught and learned and taught others. Too many people try to ride out a bounce. I mean they are passengers as the plane bounces down the runway.

After the first bounce, just pull back on the yoke. Don't let the nose wheel hit. Add power to get the plane back into ground effect and then just do it over and land smoother. Then the inevitable witnesses will think you are a real pilot for over coming the bounce and landing smoothly. It is not a save the landing thought. The first bounce means the first landing is already screwed. Back into ground effect and do the second landing better.

Believe me, I have bounced a few, and I am sure I will again. It is not an emergency unless you fold the gear up on the first hit, or it is really high bounce and the airplane changes direction.

If the Piper Warrior in the you tube above would have not tried to force the plane onto the ground this would not have happened. But since he did force it and porpoises, all he needed to do was add back pressure on the yoke, add a little power and he might not have crunched the nose gear. But he was just a passenger after that first bounce.

I am not a fan of being that close to the ground, bouncing, below flying speed, then full power and trying to fly with full flaps. I have seen a few crunch a go around because they were at full flaps then pulled the flaps up losing lift and cruncho.

Or as DaleB suggest, don't let anyone watch you land and it will be perfect everytime... :lol::lol:
 
Back
Top