What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
Pilot stated he attempted to the land the aircraft while both the altitude and airspeed for the approach were higher than anticipated.
He initially touched down just prior to mid-field but the aircraft bounced and became airborne again. On the second landing he bounced the aircraft again. The third landing he was able to keep the aircraft on the runway but he realized he did not have enough runway length available to stop the aircraft. The pilot felt that had he elected to continue straight on the runway he would have gone over a steep drop-off, roughly 30 feet down, over a road and in to a sewer run-off area which was full at the time. The pilot elected to steer the aircraft off of the right side of the runway, down a slight hill, through wooden barriers, across a paved road, and in to a ravine. Although substantial damage was encountered and possibly economically not salvageable, structural damage was not readily apparent and no injuries were encountered.
Recommend remedial training with an instructor and 709 ride with an ASI with emphasis on:
-Aeronautical decision making
-Traffic patterns
-Approaches and landings
-Go arounds
privacy data omitted Is citing job demands and pending travel which is precluding him from providing requested information concerning:
Flying time in type aircraft
Flying time last 90 days
Hours in make and model
Exact date of biennial review
Cfi's name
privacy data omitted Has taken a defensive position regarding requested information and is questioning the reasoning for our request.
If privacy data omitted provides the requested information this document will be amended.
The incident investigation is concluded at this time.
As the FAA filed it
PILOT STATED HE ATTEMPTED TO THE LAND THE AIRCRAFT WHILE BOTH THE ALTITUDE AND AIRSPEED FOR THE APPROACH WERE HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED.
HE INITIALLY TOUCHED DOWN JUST PRIOR TO MID-FIELD BUT THE AIRCRAFT BOUNCED AND BECAME AIRBORNE AGAIN. ON THE SECOND LANDING HE BOUNCED THE AIRCRAFT AGAIN. THE THIRD LANDING HE WAS ABLE TO KEEP THE AIRCRAFT ON THE RUNWAY BUT HE REALIZED HE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH RUNWAY LENGTH AVAILABLE TO STOP THE AIRCRAFT. THE PILOT FELT THAT HAD HE ELECTED TO CONTINUE STRAIGHT ON THE RUNWAY HE WOULD HAVE GONE OVER A STEEP DROP-OFF, ROUGHLY 30 FEET DOWN, OVER A ROAD AND IN TO A SEWER RUN-OFF AREA WHICH WAS FULL AT THE TIME. THE PILOT ELECTED TO STEER THE AIRCRAFT OFF OF THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE RUNWAY, DOWN A SLIGHT HILL, THROUGH WOODEN BARRIERS, ACROSS A PAVED ROAD, AND IN TO A RAVINE. ALTHOUGH SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AND POSSIBLY ECONOMICALLY NOT SALVAGEABLE, STRUCTURAL DAMAGE WAS NOT READILY APPARENT AND NO INJURIES WERE ENCOUNTERED.
RECOMMEND REMEDIAL TRAINING WITH AN INSTRUCTOR AND 709 RIDE WITH AN ASI WITH EMPHASIS ON:
-AERONAUTICAL DECISION MAKING
-TRAFFIC PATTERNS
-APPROACHES AND LANDINGS
-GO AROUNDS
^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ IS CITING JOB DEMANDS AND PENDING TRAVEL WHICH IS PRECLUDING HIM FROM PROVIDING REQUESTED INFORMATION CONCERNING:
FLYING TIME IN TYPE AIRCRAFT
FLYING TIME LAST 90 DAYS
HOURS IN MAKE AND MODEL
EXACT DATE OF BIENNIAL REVIEW
CFI'S NAME
^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ HAS TAKEN A DEFENSIVE POSITION REGARDING REQUESTED INFORMATION AND IS QUESTIONING THE REASONING FOR OUR REQUEST.
IF ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ PROVIDES THE REQUESTED INFORMATION THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE AMENDED.
THE INCIDENT INVESTIGATION IS CONCLUDED AT THIS TIME.