What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
On October 25 2015 at approximately 13:30 local time an instructor and student were performing approaches in a PA-34-200 Piper seneca N43690. The weather was VFR.
During final approach to land at kcgz Casa Grande Arizona, both the aircraft propellers struck the runway during the flare for landing due to the landing gear not being extended.
The pilot (instructor) elected to continue flying and returned to glendale Arizona airport kgeu. The aircraft landed without incident at kgeu.
The instructor pilot stated that during the approach at cgz he noticed the HSI appeared to not indicate correctly relative to the aircrafts known position and he was distracted during this portion of the approach. The student pilot was the pilot flying a simulated instrument approach using a visual limiting device (hood). The approach to land was otherwise normal.
The instructor pilot stated that as they reached the approach minimums the student reduced power to land. The instructor noticed at that point that the student was not making the proper crosswind correction inputs to maintain directional control for a left quartering tailwind. At that moment the instructor pilot took control of the aircraft in the flare. As he did the instructor pilot heard a clicking sound and thought the propeller on the left side may have struck the ground.
The instructor pilot then applied full power to arrest the decent and initiate a climb and also realized at that time that the gear handle was not down. The instructor stated that he did not think that any great damage had been done, and the engines were running smoothly with normal indications with no other noticeable vibrations. The instructor pilot decided to return to kgeu and landed without incident. The distance between kgeu and kcgz is approximately 45 NM.
After landing the instructor pilot performed a post flight inspection of the aircraft and discovered the damage was much worse than he anticipated.
In fact both propellers sustained damage and were removed to be overhauled.
Both engines were also removed for inspection in accordance with manufactures requirements.
The Casa Grande Airport manager performed a runway surface inspection immediately after the pilot reported the incident. The manager stated he did not find any surface marks or debris typical of a propeller strike on the ILS approach end of the runway.
During the interview with the instructor pilot he expressed regret for deciding to continue the flight and not land at kcgz. He attributes this poor decision making to his fatigue. During the interview the instructor pilot stated that he typically works 12 -14 hours each day and work habits and schedule in the days prior to the incident flight were no different. In fact the instructor had logged approximately 10 hours of flight instruction in the three days prior to the incident date. The incident flight was the first flight of the day at approximately 1300 local time.
The student pilot/passenger was unavailable for comment as of the date of the report
Aircraft engine specialists ndt inspection for both engines found no cracks and no other damage as a result of the prop strikes, other than normal wear .
As the FAA filed it
ON OCTOBER 25 2015 AT APPROXIMATELY 13:30 LOCAL TIME AN INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT WERE PERFORMING APPROACHES IN A PA-34-200 PIPER SENECA N43690. THE WEATHER WAS VFR.
DURING FINAL APPROACH TO LAND AT KCGZ CASA GRANDE ARIZONA, BOTH THE AIRCRAFT PROPELLERS STRUCK THE RUNWAY DURING THE FLARE FOR LANDING DUE TO THE LANDING GEAR NOT BEING EXTENDED.
THE PILOT (INSTRUCTOR) ELECTED TO CONTINUE FLYING AND RETURNED TO GLENDALE ARIZONA AIRPORT KGEU. THE AIRCRAFT LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT AT KGEU.
THE INSTRUCTOR PILOT STATED THAT DURING THE APPROACH AT CGZ HE NOTICED THE HSI APPEARED TO NOT INDICATE CORRECTLY RELATIVE TO THE AIRCRAFTS KNOWN POSITION AND HE WAS DISTRACTED DURING THIS PORTION OF THE APPROACH. THE STUDENT PILOT WAS THE PILOT FLYING A SIMULATED INSTRUMENT APPROACH USING A VISUAL LIMITING DEVICE (HOOD). THE APPROACH TO LAND WAS OTHERWISE NORMAL.
THE INSTRUCTOR PILOT STATED THAT AS THEY REACHED THE APPROACH MINIMUMS THE STUDENT REDUCED POWER TO LAND. THE INSTRUCTOR NOTICED AT THAT POINT THAT THE STUDENT WAS NOT MAKING THE PROPER CROSSWIND CORRECTION INPUTS TO MAINTAIN DIRECTIONAL CONTROL FOR A LEFT QUARTERING TAILWIND. AT THAT MOMENT THE INSTRUCTOR PILOT TOOK CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT IN THE FLARE. AS HE DID THE INSTRUCTOR PILOT HEARD A CLICKING SOUND AND THOUGHT THE PROPELLER ON THE LEFT SIDE MAY HAVE STRUCK THE GROUND.
THE INSTRUCTOR PILOT THEN APPLIED FULL POWER TO ARREST THE DECENT AND INITIATE A CLIMB AND ALSO REALIZED AT THAT TIME THAT THE GEAR HANDLE WAS NOT DOWN. THE INSTRUCTOR STATED THAT HE DID NOT THINK THAT ANY GREAT DAMAGE HAD BEEN DONE, AND THE ENGINES WERE RUNNING SMOOTHLY WITH NORMAL INDICATIONS WITH NO OTHER NOTICEABLE VIBRATIONS. THE INSTRUCTOR PILOT DECIDED TO RETURN TO KGEU AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN KGEU AND KCGZ IS APPROXIMATELY 45 NM.
AFTER LANDING THE INSTRUCTOR PILOT PERFORMED A POST FLIGHT INSPECTION OF THE AIRCRAFT AND DISCOVERED THE DAMAGE WAS MUCH WORSE THAN HE ANTICIPATED.
IN FACT BOTH PROPELLERS SUSTAINED DAMAGE AND WERE REMOVED TO BE OVERHAULED.
BOTH ENGINES WERE ALSO REMOVED FOR INSPECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURES REQUIREMENTS.
THE CASA GRANDE AIRPORT MANAGER PERFORMED A RUNWAY SURFACE INSPECTION IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PILOT REPORTED THE INCIDENT. THE MANAGER STATED HE DID NOT FIND ANY SURFACE MARKS OR DEBRIS TYPICAL OF A PROPELLER STRIKE ON THE ILS APPROACH END OF THE RUNWAY.
DURING THE INTERVIEW WITH THE INSTRUCTOR PILOT HE EXPRESSED REGRET FOR DECIDING TO CONTINUE THE FLIGHT AND NOT LAND AT KCGZ. HE ATTRIBUTES THIS POOR DECISION MAKING TO HIS FATIGUE. DURING THE INTERVIEW THE INSTRUCTOR PILOT STATED THAT HE TYPICALLY WORKS 12 -14 HOURS EACH DAY AND WORK HABITS AND SCHEDULE IN THE DAYS PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT FLIGHT WERE NO DIFFERENT. IN FACT THE INSTRUCTOR HAD LOGGED APPROXIMATELY 10 HOURS OF FLIGHT INSTRUCTION IN THE THREE DAYS PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT DATE. THE INCIDENT FLIGHT WAS THE FIRST FLIGHT OF THE DAY AT APPROXIMATELY 1300 LOCAL TIME.
THE STUDENT PILOT/PASSENGER WAS UNAVAILABLE FOR COMMENT AS OF THE DATE OF THE REPORT
AIRCRAFT ENGINE SPECIALISTS NDT INSPECTION FOR BOTH ENGINES FOUND NO CRACKS AND NO OTHER DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF THE PROP STRIKES, OTHER THAN NORMAL WEAR .