What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
The incident flight was on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan during instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) performing an instrument landing system (ILS) approach to Addison Airport (ADS) runway 33 in Addison, Texas.
Flightaware flight tracking indicates the approach decent appeared to vary between 90 feet per minute (fpm) and 909 fpm, while the airspeed appeared to vary between 179 and 101 knots upon descending from 3,900 feet. This is consistent with the pilot reporting that his approach was not stable and, ?I just got too low and slow, I stalled and recovered then landed short of the runway.?
The aircraft landed 185 feet short of the runway on the engineered material arresting system (emas) installed on the approach end of runway 33. As the aircraft wings unloaded their lift, the aircraft sank onto the fiberglass encased arresting material. The arresting material, coupled with the resistance of the breaking fiberglass cover, caused the aircraft?s nose gear assembly to collapse and break away from the aircraft fuselage. The aircraft propeller struck the runway with two of its three blades and came to rest, damaging the lower nose cowling, nose landing gear doors and exhaust stack. The pilot and his passenger were not injured. Airport property damage was limited to the emas.
The probable cause of this incident is the pilots non-stabilized approach to landing.
As the FAA filed it
THE INCIDENT FLIGHT WAS ON AN INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) FLIGHT PLAN DURING INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS (IMC) PERFORMING AN INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS) APPROACH TO ADDISON AIRPORT (ADS) RUNWAY 33 IN ADDISON, TEXAS.
FLIGHTAWARE FLIGHT TRACKING INDICATES THE APPROACH DECENT APPEARED TO VARY BETWEEN 90 FEET PER MINUTE (FPM) AND 909 FPM, WHILE THE AIRSPEED APPEARED TO VARY BETWEEN 179 AND 101 KNOTS UPON DESCENDING FROM 3,900 FEET. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PILOT REPORTING THAT HIS APPROACH WAS NOT STABLE AND, ?I JUST GOT TOO LOW AND SLOW, I STALLED AND RECOVERED THEN LANDED SHORT OF THE RUNWAY.?
THE AIRCRAFT LANDED 185 FEET SHORT OF THE RUNWAY ON THE ENGINEERED MATERIAL ARRESTING SYSTEM (EMAS) INSTALLED ON THE APPROACH END OF RUNWAY 33. AS THE AIRCRAFT WINGS UNLOADED THEIR LIFT, THE AIRCRAFT SANK ONTO THE FIBERGLASS ENCASED ARRESTING MATERIAL. THE ARRESTING MATERIAL, COUPLED WITH THE RESISTANCE OF THE BREAKING FIBERGLASS COVER, CAUSED THE AIRCRAFT?S NOSE GEAR ASSEMBLY TO COLLAPSE AND BREAK AWAY FROM THE AIRCRAFT FUSELAGE. THE AIRCRAFT PROPELLER STRUCK THE RUNWAY WITH TWO OF ITS THREE BLADES AND CAME TO REST, DAMAGING THE LOWER NOSE COWLING, NOSE LANDING GEAR DOORS AND EXHAUST STACK. THE PILOT AND HIS PASSENGER WERE NOT INJURED. AIRPORT PROPERTY DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE EMAS.
THE PROBABLE CAUSE OF THIS INCIDENT IS THE PILOTS NON-STABILIZED APPROACH TO LANDING.