What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
(.19) On June 3, 1999, at 0815 hours mountain standard time, a Cessna 182Q, N234TT, impacted terrain after landing short of runway 17 at a Private airstrip near st. David, Arizona. The aircraft, operated by gadbery shay schneider and partners architects llp under 14 CFR part 91, sustained substantial damage. The commercial pilot and one passenger sustained minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions existed for the business flight that had departed the scottsdale, Arizona, airport at an unknown time. The flight was scheduled to terminate at the accident airport. The pilot stated that he flew normal pattern at 1,000 feet AGL and that the approach was normal. He said that due to gusty wind conditions he carried an extra 5 knots during the final approach segment. At the end of the runway he reduced the power and pitched the aircraft nose up to settle on the runway. The pilot stated that the aircraft experienced a greater than normal sink rate and he attempted to arrest the sink rate with added pitch control. He stated that he added power and the aircraft touched down short of the runway. The pilot reported that the runway sits approximately 3 feet higher than the land surrounding it. When the aircraft touched down the nose wheel landing gear impacted that rise and was torn off. He stated that the nose wheel strut dug into the gravel runway and the aircraft came to rest inverted. A federal aviation administration (FAA) inspector interviewed the pilot. The pilot stated that no mechanical discrepancies were noted with the flight. An aircraft and engine inspection were conducted by representatives from Cessna and teledyne Continental motors, who are parties to the investigation, under the supervision of an FAA inspector. No discrepancies were noted with the airframe or engine. (-23)on short final aircraft began sinking below desired approach path. Pilot initially pitched up to slow descent rate but aircraft contacted ground short of runway before pilot could increase power. Aircraft struck an incline which broke off the nose wheel. When nose strut settled onto the ground the aircraft flipped onto it's back. (.4)a 20-degree left crosswind at 10 knots with gusts to 16 knots existed for the approach to the short gravel airstrip. The pilot indicated that the approach was normal and that he carried an extra 5 knots of airspeed to compensate for the gusty wind condition that existed. At the approach end of the runway he reduced power and pitched the nose up for landing. He stated that the airplane experienced a greater than normal sink rate, which he tried to arrest with additional pitch control. The sink rate continued and then he added power; however, the airplane touched down short of the runway's approach end. The runway sits on a 3-foot rise, and when the airplane landed the nose wheel struck this rise and was sheared off. The nose wheel strut then dug into the gravel runway and the airplane nosed over. The airframe and powerplant were examined with no discrepancies noted.
As the FAA filed it
(.19) ON JUNE 3, 1999, AT 0815 HOURS MOUNTAIN STANDARD TIME, A CESSNA 182Q, N234TT, IMPACTED TERRAIN AFTER LANDING SHORT OF RUNWAY 17 AT A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP NEAR ST. DAVID, ARIZONA. THE AIRCRAFT, OPERATED BY GADBERY SHAY SCHNEIDER AND PARTNERS ARCHITECTS LLP UNDER 14 CFR PART 91, SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE. THE COMMERCIAL PILOT AND ONE PASSENGER SUSTAINED MINOR INJURIES. VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS EXISTED FOR THE BUSINESS FLIGHT THAT HAD DEPARTED THE SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA, AIRPORT AT AN UNKNOWN TIME. THE FLIGHT WAS SCHEDULED TO TERMINATE AT THE ACCIDENT AIRPORT. THE PILOT STATED THAT HE FLEW NORMAL PATTERN AT 1,000 FEET AGL AND THAT THE APPROACH WAS NORMAL. HE SAID THAT DUE TO GUSTY WIND CONDITIONS HE CARRIED AN EXTRA 5 KNOTS DURING THE FINAL APPROACH SEGMENT. AT THE END OF THE RUNWAY HE REDUCED THE POWER AND PITCHED THE AIRCRAFT NOSE UP TO SETTLE ON THE RUNWAY. THE PILOT STATED THAT THE AIRCRAFT EXPERIENCED A GREATER THAN NORMAL SINK RATE AND HE ATTEMPTED TO ARREST THE SINK RATE WITH ADDED PITCH CONTROL. HE STATED THAT HE ADDED POWER AND THE AIRCRAFT TOUCHED DOWN SHORT OF THE RUNWAY. THE PILOT REPORTED THAT THE RUNWAY SITS APPROXIMATELY 3 FEET HIGHER THAN THE LAND SURROUNDING IT. WHEN THE AIRCRAFT TOUCHED DOWN THE NOSE WHEEL LANDING GEAR IMPACTED THAT RISE AND WAS TORN OFF. HE STATED THAT THE NOSE WHEEL STRUT DUG INTO THE GRAVEL RUNWAY AND THE AIRCRAFT CAME TO REST INVERTED. A FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) INSPECTOR INTERVIEWED THE PILOT. THE PILOT STATED THAT NO MECHANICAL DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTED WITH THE FLIGHT. AN AIRCRAFT AND ENGINE INSPECTION WERE CONDUCTED BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM CESSNA AND TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, WHO ARE PARTIES TO THE INVESTIGATION, UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF AN FAA INSPECTOR. NO DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTED WITH THE AIRFRAME OR ENGINE. (-23)ON SHORT FINAL AIRCRAFT BEGAN SINKING BELOW DESIRED APPROACH PATH. PILOT INITIALLY PITCHED UP TO SLOW DESCENT RATE BUT AIRCRAFT CONTACTED GROUND SHORT OF RUNWAY BEFORE PILOT COULD INCREASE POWER. AIRCRAFT STRUCK AN INCLINE WHICH BROKE OFF THE NOSE WHEEL. WHEN NOSE STRUT SETTLED ONTO THE GROUND THE AIRCRAFT FLIPPED ONTO IT'S BACK. (.4)A 20-DEGREE LEFT CROSSWIND AT 10 KNOTS WITH GUSTS TO 16 KNOTS EXISTED FOR THE APPROACH TO THE SHORT GRAVEL AIRSTRIP. THE PILOT INDICATED THAT THE APPROACH WAS NORMAL AND THAT HE CARRIED AN EXTRA 5 KNOTS OF AIRSPEED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE GUSTY WIND CONDITION THAT EXISTED. AT THE APPROACH END OF THE RUNWAY HE REDUCED POWER AND PITCHED THE NOSE UP FOR LANDING. HE STATED THAT THE AIRPLANE EXPERIENCED A GREATER THAN NORMAL SINK RATE, WHICH HE TRIED TO ARREST WITH ADDITIONAL PITCH CONTROL. THE SINK RATE CONTINUED AND THEN HE ADDED POWER; HOWEVER, THE AIRPLANE TOUCHED DOWN SHORT OF THE RUNWAY'S APPROACH END. THE RUNWAY SITS ON A 3-FOOT RISE, AND WHEN THE AIRPLANE LANDED THE NOSE WHEEL STRUCK THIS RISE AND WAS SHEARED OFF. THE NOSE WHEEL STRUT THEN DUG INTO THE GRAVEL RUNWAY AND THE AIRPLANE NOSED OVER. THE AIRFRAME AND POWERPLANT WERE EXAMINED WITH NO DISCREPANCIES NOTED.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.