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.