20160701010229A

Accident · Substantial damage

FAA accident report · Cessna 172RG · Manhattan, KS · July 1, 2016

Date
July 1, 2016 · 14:58 local
Place
Manhattan, KS
Phase of flight
Landing: Touchdown
Operating rules
General operating rules (Part 91)
Damage
Substantial damage
Aircraft
N5100V
NTSB investigation
NTSBGAA16CA364
Reported as
Cessna 172RG
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
400 total24 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 July 1, 2016, the airman was involved in an aircraft accident while landing a Cessna 172 rg at the Manhattan regional airport, Manhattan Kansas (kmhk). The Cessna 172RG landed with the landing gear in the retracted position.

The purpose of the instructional-based flight was to prepare the private pilot applicant for a complex aircraft checkout. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident with sustained easterly surface winds at ten knots. The aircraft took off and did a normal traffic pattern. The airman (CFI) was focused on how the student applicant was handling the airplane during the traffic pattern operation, and according to the airman, on final approach both pilots were on the controls. The first realization that the landing gear was not down was when the CFI heard metal on pavement. The aircraft was subsequently shut down and air traffic control was notified that the aircraft was on the runway. The aircraft landed with the landing gear retracted.

A post-accident inspection of the aircraft did not reveal any landing gear system anomaly or malfunction that would have prevented normal landing gear extension. Neither the CFI nor the private pilot applicant recalls verifying that the landing gear was properly extended or the presence of a gear unsafe indication. The CFI?s written and verbal statement indicated that the focus was on the pilot?s control of the aircraft. The aircraft did not present any mechanical anomalies or system failures, before or during the flight; aircraft sustained substantial damage. The two pilots were the only occupants on board and did not sustain any injuries.

As the FAA filed it

ON JULY 1, 2016, THE AIRMAN WAS INVOLVED IN AN AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT WHILE LANDING A CESSNA 172 RG AT THE MANHATTAN REGIONAL AIRPORT, MANHATTAN KANSAS (KMHK). THE CESSNA 172RG LANDED WITH THE LANDING GEAR IN THE RETRACTED POSITION.

THE PURPOSE OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL-BASED FLIGHT WAS TO PREPARE THE PRIVATE PILOT APPLICANT FOR A COMPLEX AIRCRAFT CHECKOUT. VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS PREVAILED AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT WITH SUSTAINED EASTERLY SURFACE WINDS AT TEN KNOTS. THE AIRCRAFT TOOK OFF AND DID A NORMAL TRAFFIC PATTERN. THE AIRMAN (CFI) WAS FOCUSED ON HOW THE STUDENT APPLICANT WAS HANDLING THE AIRPLANE DURING THE TRAFFIC PATTERN OPERATION, AND ACCORDING TO THE AIRMAN, ON FINAL APPROACH BOTH PILOTS WERE ON THE CONTROLS. THE FIRST REALIZATION THAT THE LANDING GEAR WAS NOT DOWN WAS WHEN THE CFI HEARD METAL ON PAVEMENT. THE AIRCRAFT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SHUT DOWN AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE AIRCRAFT WAS ON THE RUNWAY. THE AIRCRAFT LANDED WITH THE LANDING GEAR RETRACTED.

A POST-ACCIDENT INSPECTION OF THE AIRCRAFT DID NOT REVEAL ANY LANDING GEAR SYSTEM ANOMALY OR MALFUNCTION THAT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED NORMAL LANDING GEAR EXTENSION. NEITHER THE CFI NOR THE PRIVATE PILOT APPLICANT RECALLS VERIFYING THAT THE LANDING GEAR WAS PROPERLY EXTENDED OR THE PRESENCE OF A GEAR UNSAFE INDICATION. THE CFI?S WRITTEN AND VERBAL STATEMENT INDICATED THAT THE FOCUS WAS ON THE PILOT?S CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT. THE AIRCRAFT DID NOT PRESENT ANY MECHANICAL ANOMALIES OR SYSTEM FAILURES, BEFORE OR DURING THE FLIGHT; AIRCRAFT SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE. THE TWO PILOTS WERE THE ONLY OCCUPANTS ON BOARD AND DID NOT SUSTAIN ANY INJURIES.

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 N5100V · 2

Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.