What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
The pilot flying (PIC), privacy data omitted was an applicant for a multiengine rating in the process of completing a private multiengine land (amel)practical test with designated pilot examiner (DPE) privacy data omitted in the right seat. The practical test was being conducted during the early evening hours in limited lighting conditions. The applicant remained at the scene however the DPE had elected to depart prior to the arrival of the FAA iic.
During an interview conducted by the FAA iic with the applicant, at the scene, the applicant made the following description of the actions leading to the incident. During the flight portion of the practical test, according to the applicant, the DPE found him unsatisfactory on a required task and instructed him to return to the Alliance Airport. On approach to the airport, the applicant was asked, by the DPE, to perform a short field landing. According to the applicant, a go-around manuever was performed on his first attempt to land. He stated that he returned and attempted the landing again. On the second attempt the aircraft was landed resulting in a gear-up landing. The applicant believed that he had placed the landing gear in the down position prior to landing. According to the applicant, the DPE made no indication of an issue with the landing gear prior to landing. The DPE left the scene and was therefore not available at the scene for a statement or comments.
During the initial post incident inspection, the landing gear handle was found in the down position and the landing gear circuit breaker was found open or out indicating a possible overload condition which may have caused the circuit breaker to open. Damage to the exterior of the aircraft supported by photographic evidence indicates the landing gear, both main gear and nose gear, were up and the nose landing gear doors closed upon impact with the runway. There were an absence of skid marks on the main landing gear doors and tires along with skid marks on the aft portion of the nose gear doors. The findings are consistent with the landing gear in the up position during the landing. The marks on the runway pavement indicate that both left and right aircraft propellers impacted the ground approximately 100 feet prior to the aircraft fuselage. After the fuselage impacted the runway the aircraft skidded approximately 150 feet along the runway centerline. According to the applicant, no injuries were sustained by either occupant.
During recovery, as observed by operations and airworthiness safety inspectors from the ntx FSDO, the aircraft was lifted and the landing gear circuit breaker reset and the landing gear operated. The landing gear was operated twice and performed normally with no indication of a fault. The circuit breaker remained closed throughout this test.
As the FAA filed it
THE PILOT FLYING (PIC), ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ WAS AN APPLICANT FOR A MULTIENGINE RATING IN THE PROCESS OF COMPLETING A PRIVATE MULTIENGINE LAND (AMEL)PRACTICAL TEST WITH DESIGNATED PILOT EXAMINER (DPE) ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ IN THE RIGHT SEAT. THE PRACTICAL TEST WAS BEING CONDUCTED DURING THE EARLY EVENING HOURS IN LIMITED LIGHTING CONDITIONS. THE APPLICANT REMAINED AT THE SCENE HOWEVER THE DPE HAD ELECTED TO DEPART PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF THE FAA IIC.
DURING AN INTERVIEW CONDUCTED BY THE FAA IIC WITH THE APPLICANT, AT THE SCENE, THE APPLICANT MADE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIONS LEADING TO THE INCIDENT. DURING THE FLIGHT PORTION OF THE PRACTICAL TEST, ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE DPE FOUND HIM UNSATISFACTORY ON A REQUIRED TASK AND INSTRUCTED HIM TO RETURN TO THE ALLIANCE AIRPORT. ON APPROACH TO THE AIRPORT, THE APPLICANT WAS ASKED, BY THE DPE, TO PERFORM A SHORT FIELD LANDING. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, A GO-AROUND MANUEVER WAS PERFORMED ON HIS FIRST ATTEMPT TO LAND. HE STATED THAT HE RETURNED AND ATTEMPTED THE LANDING AGAIN. ON THE SECOND ATTEMPT THE AIRCRAFT WAS LANDED RESULTING IN A GEAR-UP LANDING. THE APPLICANT BELIEVED THAT HE HAD PLACED THE LANDING GEAR IN THE DOWN POSITION PRIOR TO LANDING. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE DPE MADE NO INDICATION OF AN ISSUE WITH THE LANDING GEAR PRIOR TO LANDING. THE DPE LEFT THE SCENE AND WAS THEREFORE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE SCENE FOR A STATEMENT OR COMMENTS.
DURING THE INITIAL POST INCIDENT INSPECTION, THE LANDING GEAR HANDLE WAS FOUND IN THE DOWN POSITION AND THE LANDING GEAR CIRCUIT BREAKER WAS FOUND OPEN OR OUT INDICATING A POSSIBLE OVERLOAD CONDITION WHICH MAY HAVE CAUSED THE CIRCUIT BREAKER TO OPEN. DAMAGE TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE AIRCRAFT SUPPORTED BY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE INDICATES THE LANDING GEAR, BOTH MAIN GEAR AND NOSE GEAR, WERE UP AND THE NOSE LANDING GEAR DOORS CLOSED UPON IMPACT WITH THE RUNWAY. THERE WERE AN ABSENCE OF SKID MARKS ON THE MAIN LANDING GEAR DOORS AND TIRES ALONG WITH SKID MARKS ON THE AFT PORTION OF THE NOSE GEAR DOORS. THE FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE LANDING GEAR IN THE UP POSITION DURING THE LANDING. THE MARKS ON THE RUNWAY PAVEMENT INDICATE THAT BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT AIRCRAFT PROPELLERS IMPACTED THE GROUND APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET PRIOR TO THE AIRCRAFT FUSELAGE. AFTER THE FUSELAGE IMPACTED THE RUNWAY THE AIRCRAFT SKIDDED APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET ALONG THE RUNWAY CENTERLINE. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, NO INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED BY EITHER OCCUPANT.
DURING RECOVERY, AS OBSERVED BY OPERATIONS AND AIRWORTHINESS SAFETY INSPECTORS FROM THE NTX FSDO, THE AIRCRAFT WAS LIFTED AND THE LANDING GEAR CIRCUIT BREAKER RESET AND THE LANDING GEAR OPERATED. THE LANDING GEAR WAS OPERATED TWICE AND PERFORMED NORMALLY WITH NO INDICATION OF A FAULT. THE CIRCUIT BREAKER REMAINED CLOSED THROUGHOUT THIS TEST.