20120309005009I

Incident · Minor damage

FAA incident report · Beech 95 · Fort Mohave, AZ · March 9, 2012

Date: March 9, 2012 · 12:30 local
Place: Fort Mohave, AZ
Airport: Sun Valley
Phase of flight: Landing: Approach
Operating rules: General operating rules (Part 91)
Damage: Minor damage
Aircraft: N128W
Reported as: Beech 95
Reported engine: Lycoming O&VO-360 series
People aboard: 2
Fatal injuries: 0
Other injuries: 0
Pilot’s certificates: Commercial pilot, flight instructor
Pilot’s flight hours: 2,050 total279 in this make and model200 in the last 90 days

From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

What happened

The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.

Instructor and student had been out on a training flight and were headed back to the flight school home base. As they entered the airport traffic pattern, they became distracted by strong winds. Due to this distraction, they neglected to lower the landing gear as part of the pre-landing checklist. They also neglected to double check "gear down" status on final approach to the runway. A "gear up" landing resulted. The student in this case was not yet rated in the aircraft, thus the instructor was pilot-in-command.

As the FAA filed it

INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT HAD BEEN OUT ON A TRAINING FLIGHT AND WERE HEADED BACK TO THE FLIGHT SCHOOL HOME BASE. AS THEY ENTERED THE AIRPORT TRAFFIC PATTERN, THEY BECAME DISTRACTED BY STRONG WINDS. DUE TO THIS DISTRACTION, THEY NEGLECTED TO LOWER THE LANDING GEAR AS PART OF THE PRE-LANDING CHECKLIST. THEY ALSO NEGLECTED TO DOUBLE CHECK "GEAR DOWN" STATUS ON FINAL APPROACH TO THE RUNWAY. A "GEAR UP" LANDING RESULTED. THE STUDENT IN THIS CASE WAS NOT YET RATED IN THE AIRCRAFT, THUS THE INSTRUCTOR WAS PILOT-IN-COMMAND.