What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
(.19) On August 1, 2002, about 1645 Alaska daylight time, a wheel-equipped Helio H-295 airplane, N50718, sustained substantial damage during landing at a remote, unimproved airstrip, about 124 miles northwest of fort yukon, Alaska, along your creek. The airplane was being operated by circle air of Central, Alaska, as a visual flight rules (VFR) business flight under title 14, CFR part 91, at the time of the accident. The solo commercial pilot was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and company VFR flight following procedures were in effect. The flight originated at another remote airstrip along your creek, about 40 miles north of the accident site. During a telephone conversation with the national transportation safety board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge (iic) on August 2, the pilot said as the airplane touched down, the right main wheel/tire separated from the landing gear. The right main landing gear leg then dug into the ground, and bent rearward. He said the fuselage structure and skin were damaged at the right main landing gear attachment point. He further stated that when he retrieved the wheel/tire, he noted that the axle was broken. The pilot said priorto the accident there were no known mechanical anomalies with the airplane.(-23) privacy data omitted upon landing the pilot heard a noise and then observed the right gear wheel rolling out in front of the aircraft. The pilot felt the aircraft go down on the right side and come to an abrupt stop.
As the FAA filed it
(.19) ON AUGUST 1, 2002, ABOUT 1645 ALASKA DAYLIGHT TIME, A WHEEL-EQUIPPED HELIO H-295 AIRPLANE, N50718, SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE DURING LANDING AT A REMOTE, UNIMPROVED AIRSTRIP, ABOUT 124 MILES NORTHWEST OF FORT YUKON, ALASKA, ALONG YOUR CREEK. THE AIRPLANE WAS BEING OPERATED BY CIRCLE AIR OF CENTRAL, ALASKA, AS A VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) BUSINESS FLIGHT UNDER TITLE 14, CFR PART 91, AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT. THE SOLO COMMERCIAL PILOT WAS NOT INJURED. VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS PREVAILED, AND COMPANY VFR FLIGHT FOLLOWING PROCEDURES WERE IN EFFECT. THE FLIGHT ORIGINATED AT ANOTHER REMOTE AIRSTRIP ALONG YOUR CREEK, ABOUT 40 MILES NORTH OF THE ACCIDENT SITE. DURING A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD (NTSB) INVESTIGATOR-IN-CHARGE (IIC) ON AUGUST 2, THE PILOT SAID AS THE AIRPLANE TOUCHED DOWN, THE RIGHT MAIN WHEEL/TIRE SEPARATED FROM THE LANDING GEAR. THE RIGHT MAIN LANDING GEAR LEG THEN DUG INTO THE GROUND, AND BENT REARWARD. HE SAID THE FUSELAGE STRUCTURE AND SKIN WERE DAMAGED AT THE RIGHT MAIN LANDING GEAR ATTACHMENT POINT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT WHEN HE RETRIEVED THE WHEEL/TIRE, HE NOTED THAT THE AXLE WAS BROKEN. THE PILOT SAID PRIORTO THE ACCIDENT THERE WERE NO KNOWN MECHANICAL ANOMALIES WITH THE AIRPLANE.(-23) ^PRIVACY DATA OMITT^ UPON LANDING THE PILOT HEARD A NOISE AND THEN OBSERVED THE RIGHT GEAR WHEEL ROLLING OUT IN FRONT OF THE AIRCRAFT. THE PILOT FELT THE AIRCRAFT GO DOWN ON THE RIGHT SIDE AND COME TO AN ABRUPT STOP.
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 N50718 · 1
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.