What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
Hard landing. (-23) the aircraft was on short final to runway 31 at lake Hood strip. The engine might have been surging a little bit. The student was a little high on the flare to land, when the student rapidly retarded the power lever losing airspeed and the aircraft dropped about eight feet onto the right float causing substantial damage to the fuselage under carriage. The instructor stated "it may have contributed, but the main cause was the reduction of the power levers." (.4) the pilot-in-command, a certificated flight instructor, was providing turbine transition instruction to the second pilot. The accident airplane had been modified by the installation of a pratt & whitney PT6 turbine engine. The instructor pilot stated that the propeller governor control was causing 'the engine to surge.' He added that just prior to touchdown on runway 31, while the second pilot was manipulating the controls, the engine again surged, and the airplane landed hard. In the pilot-in-command's written report, and during a later telephone conversation, he reported that during the previous landings, the second pilot failed to 'carry power so as not to land hard again.' The first pilot said that he then instructed the second pilot as to the differences of a turbine engine vs. a piston engine. He wrote: 'I watched very closely until we were over the runway, and once again, quick as a cat, we stalled and hit hard.' The airplane's fuselage sustained substantial damage.
As the FAA filed it
HARD LANDING. (-23) THE AIRCRAFT WAS ON SHORT FINAL TO RUNWAY 31 AT LAKE HOOD STRIP. THE ENGINE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SURGING A LITTLE BIT. THE STUDENT WAS A LITTLE HIGH ON THE FLARE TO LAND, WHEN THE STUDENT RAPIDLY RETARDED THE POWER LEVER LOSING AIRSPEED AND THE AIRCRAFT DROPPED ABOUT EIGHT FEET ONTO THE RIGHT FLOAT CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO THE FUSELAGE UNDER CARRIAGE. THE INSTRUCTOR STATED "IT MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED, BUT THE MAIN CAUSE WAS THE REDUCTION OF THE POWER LEVERS." (.4) THE PILOT-IN-COMMAND, A CERTIFICATED FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR, WAS PROVIDING TURBINE TRANSITION INSTRUCTION TO THE SECOND PILOT. THE ACCIDENT AIRPLANE HAD BEEN MODIFIED BY THE INSTALLATION OF A PRATT & WHITNEY PT6 TURBINE ENGINE. THE INSTRUCTOR PILOT STATED THAT THE PROPELLER GOVERNOR CONTROL WAS CAUSING 'THE ENGINE TO SURGE.' HE ADDED THAT JUST PRIOR TO TOUCHDOWN ON RUNWAY 31, WHILE THE SECOND PILOT WAS MANIPULATING THE CONTROLS, THE ENGINE AGAIN SURGED, AND THE AIRPLANE LANDED HARD. IN THE PILOT-IN-COMMAND'S WRITTEN REPORT, AND DURING A LATER TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, HE REPORTED THAT DURING THE PREVIOUS LANDINGS, THE SECOND PILOT FAILED TO 'CARRY POWER SO AS NOT TO LAND HARD AGAIN.' THE FIRST PILOT SAID THAT HE THEN INSTRUCTED THE SECOND PILOT AS TO THE DIFFERENCES OF A TURBINE ENGINE VS. A PISTON ENGINE. HE WROTE: 'I WATCHED VERY CLOSELY UNTIL WE WERE OVER THE RUNWAY, AND ONCE AGAIN, QUICK AS A CAT, WE STALLED AND HIT HARD.' THE AIRPLANE'S FUSELAGE SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.
Other reports on N30CC · 1
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.