What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
The pilot/operator of a Brim/machado velocity was performing touch and go maneuvers at the Melbourne airport when during landing rollout to a full stop on 27R; the nose gear collapsed striking the nose of the aircraft on the runway. The aircraft never left the runway and the pilot never lost control. The pilot stated that he previously performed three additional touch and go maneuvers prior to the incident. Upon further inspection they identified, the nose gear arm had broken causing the collapse. The kit manufacturer velocity in sebastian performed a courtesy inspection of the aircraft and determined the damage was superficial/cosmetic to the underside of the nose and no additional damage to the rest of the aircraft or major components such as the engine/propellers given its design. A ferry permit will not be required and the manufacturer traveled to kmlb to repair the minor composite damage. Further evaluation of the gear arm deemed previous issues therefore, the manufacturer incorporated a design change however, this aircraft was not equipped with the new improved part and there was no requirement for this to be removed and replaced as, the aircraft is experimental. The aircraft has since then been repaired and in a condition for safe flight.
As the FAA filed it
THE PILOT/OPERATOR OF A BRIM/MACHADO VELOCITY WAS PERFORMING TOUCH AND GO MANEUVERS AT THE MELBOURNE AIRPORT WHEN DURING LANDING ROLLOUT TO A FULL STOP ON 27R; THE NOSE GEAR COLLAPSED STRIKING THE NOSE OF THE AIRCRAFT ON THE RUNWAY. THE AIRCRAFT NEVER LEFT THE RUNWAY AND THE PILOT NEVER LOST CONTROL. THE PILOT STATED THAT HE PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED THREE ADDITIONAL TOUCH AND GO MANEUVERS PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT. UPON FURTHER INSPECTION THEY IDENTIFIED, THE NOSE GEAR ARM HAD BROKEN CAUSING THE COLLAPSE. THE KIT MANUFACTURER VELOCITY IN SEBASTIAN PERFORMED A COURTESY INSPECTION OF THE AIRCRAFT AND DETERMINED THE DAMAGE WAS SUPERFICIAL/COSMETIC TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE NOSE AND NO ADDITIONAL DAMAGE TO THE REST OF THE AIRCRAFT OR MAJOR COMPONENTS SUCH AS THE ENGINE/PROPELLERS GIVEN ITS DESIGN. A FERRY PERMIT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER TRAVELED TO KMLB TO REPAIR THE MINOR COMPOSITE DAMAGE. FURTHER EVALUATION OF THE GEAR ARM DEEMED PREVIOUS ISSUES THEREFORE, THE MANUFACTURER INCORPORATED A DESIGN CHANGE HOWEVER, THIS AIRCRAFT WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH THE NEW IMPROVED PART AND THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR THIS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED AS, THE AIRCRAFT IS EXPERIMENTAL. THE AIRCRAFT HAS SINCE THEN BEEN REPAIRED AND IN A CONDITION FOR SAFE FLIGHT.
Other reports on N87BR · 1
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.