20151025020569I

Incident · Minor damage

FAA incident report · Piper PA-34-200 · Casa Grande, AZ · October 25, 2015

Date
October 25, 2015 · 13:30 local
Place
Casa Grande, AZ
Airport
Casa Grande
Phase of flight
Landing: Touchdown
Operating rules
General operating rules (Part 91)
Damage
Minor damage
Aircraft
N43690
Reported as
Piper PA-34-200
Reported engine
Lycoming I0360 series
People aboard
2
Fatal injuries
0
Other injuries
0
Pilot’s certificates
Airline transport, flight instructor
Pilot’s flight hours
7,600 total1,000 in this make and model60 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.

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 .