What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
Veered off runway during a touch and go landing. A shock cord had broken. (-23) veered on landing roll. Unable to get opposite rudder response. Exited rwy. Believed right gear bungee broke. (.4) the pilot stated that the purpose of the flight was to conduct touch-and-go landings. On the fourth touch-and-go landing the airplane veered to the right and the pilot attempted an unsuccessful go-around. Examination of the aircraft revealed a broken shock cord on the right main landing gear. Examination of aircraft records revealed that the aircraft had recently been through an annual inspection and the airframe had accrued 125 hours, without replacement of the shock cords. The shock cord was inspected, and found to exhibit internal ultra violet aging due to the abraded outside fabric lacing. According to the manufacturer, the shock cords are designed to be the weakest link in the landing gear system, and will fail at some point. He further stated that the shock cords should be replaced at the annual inspection. As a result of the accident, it was found that no provisions were made in the annual inspection checklist for replacement of the shock cords during the annual inspection . In the manufacturer's newsletter, under maintenance items, there was a reminder to replace the shock cords annually. The pilot stated that he was not aware that the shock cords needed to be replaced on an annual basis, as this was not mentioned in the annual inspection checklist. The manufacturer has since amended the annual inspection checklist to require replacement of the shock cord on an annual basis.
As the FAA filed it
VEERED OFF RUNWAY DURING A TOUCH AND GO LANDING. A SHOCK CORD HAD BROKEN. (-23) VEERED ON LANDING ROLL. UNABLE TO GET OPPOSITE RUDDER RESPONSE. EXITED RWY. BELIEVED RIGHT GEAR BUNGEE BROKE. (.4) THE PILOT STATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE FLIGHT WAS TO CONDUCT TOUCH-AND-GO LANDINGS. ON THE FOURTH TOUCH-AND-GO LANDING THE AIRPLANE VEERED TO THE RIGHT AND THE PILOT ATTEMPTED AN UNSUCCESSFUL GO-AROUND. EXAMINATION OF THE AIRCRAFT REVEALED A BROKEN SHOCK CORD ON THE RIGHT MAIN LANDING GEAR. EXAMINATION OF AIRCRAFT RECORDS REVEALED THAT THE AIRCRAFT HAD RECENTLY BEEN THROUGH AN ANNUAL INSPECTION AND THE AIRFRAME HAD ACCRUED 125 HOURS, WITHOUT REPLACEMENT OF THE SHOCK CORDS. THE SHOCK CORD WAS INSPECTED, AND FOUND TO EXHIBIT INTERNAL ULTRA VIOLET AGING DUE TO THE ABRADED OUTSIDE FABRIC LACING. ACCORDING TO THE MANUFACTURER, THE SHOCK CORDS ARE DESIGNED TO BE THE WEAKEST LINK IN THE LANDING GEAR SYSTEM, AND WILL FAIL AT SOME POINT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE SHOCK CORDS SHOULD BE REPLACED AT THE ANNUAL INSPECTION. AS A RESULT OF THE ACCIDENT, IT WAS FOUND THAT NO PROVISIONS WERE MADE IN THE ANNUAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE SHOCK CORDS DURING THE ANNUAL INSPECTION . IN THE MANUFACTURER'S NEWSLETTER, UNDER MAINTENANCE ITEMS, THERE WAS A REMINDER TO REPLACE THE SHOCK CORDS ANNUALLY. THE PILOT STATED THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE SHOCK CORDS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, AS THIS WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE ANNUAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST. THE MANUFACTURER HAS SINCE AMENDED THE ANNUAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST TO REQUIRE REPLACEMENT OF THE SHOCK CORD ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.