What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
On June 13, 2020, N783TH, an experimental amateur built pipistrel sinus 912 self-propelled/motorglider, operated by the builder (construction completed 2019) as pilot-in-command was approaching for a landing at NH16, Brookline Airport (private) at 1630 local time. The approach was being conducted to runway 19 (1930?X40?) When control was lost at low altitude. The pilot stated that he had received local weather information from the fit and ash ASOS as well as an amateur weather machine atop a tower adjacent to his property (located at the field with a private taxiway). The pilot estimated winds at the time to be 5-8 KTS from the nw at the time of the event but had been calm upon takeoff 30-45 min prior. He stated that the pilots using this field are used to landing with a quartering tailwind as there are high trees on the south end of the runway (approach for runway 1). This was a local flight operation to execute the provisions of flight testing under phase 1 of the experimental aircraft, gain proficiency, and practice landings. No flight plan was filed. The pilot stated that he has 20-22 hours in this make/model, 10 of which are in this particular aircraft. The experimental, phase 1 allotment for this aircraft is 40 hours and 10 landing, per the operating certificate information. The pilot stated that he had been high and fast on the previous approach and elected to go-around for another attempt.
He stated that he ended up being high and fast on the subsequent approach but elected to continue the approach to landing, using full airbrakes and flaps. The pilot stated that his approach speed was approximately 42 KTS and that the stall speed in that configuration is 34 KTS. He stated that perhaps he caught a gusty tailwind, putting the aircraft closer to the effective stall speed, and that the aircraft seemed to have fallen the last 10-15' onto the surface. He was not sure if this first impact was on the runway surface. The pilot stated that this initial drop seemed to have broken the right gear leg and that he subsequently recalled hitting the VASI lights with the right wing. The pilot stated that he should have gone around on this second landing attempt as well and that he was out of control of the aircraft upon initial impact.
He also stated that his loss of control was due to the fact that there is a typical area of "sink" that the pilots know to expect during final approach to runway 19 but that this aircraft, likely due to its larger wingspan and glide ratio, did not experience a similar sink rate on final. The pilot believed that a minimal amount of training in the make/model combined with the inability to receive local training in this particular aircraft was the primary causal factor in the occurrence.
As the FAA filed it
ON JUNE 13, 2020, N783TH, AN EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR BUILT PIPISTREL SINUS 912 SELF-PROPELLED/MOTORGLIDER, OPERATED BY THE BUILDER (CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED 2019) AS PILOT-IN-COMMAND WAS APPROACHING FOR A LANDING AT NH16, BROOKLINE AIRPORT (PRIVATE) AT 1630 LOCAL TIME. THE APPROACH WAS BEING CONDUCTED TO RUNWAY 19 (1930?X40?) WHEN CONTROL WAS LOST AT LOW ALTITUDE. THE PILOT STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED LOCAL WEATHER INFORMATION FROM THE FIT AND ASH ASOS AS WELL AS AN AMATEUR WEATHER MACHINE ATOP A TOWER ADJACENT TO HIS PROPERTY (LOCATED AT THE FIELD WITH A PRIVATE TAXIWAY). THE PILOT ESTIMATED WINDS AT THE TIME TO BE 5-8 KTS FROM THE NW AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT BUT HAD BEEN CALM UPON TAKEOFF 30-45 MIN PRIOR. HE STATED THAT THE PILOTS USING THIS FIELD ARE USED TO LANDING WITH A QUARTERING TAILWIND AS THERE ARE HIGH TREES ON THE SOUTH END OF THE RUNWAY (APPROACH FOR RUNWAY 1). THIS WAS A LOCAL FLIGHT OPERATION TO EXECUTE THE PROVISIONS OF FLIGHT TESTING UNDER PHASE 1 OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT, GAIN PROFICIENCY, AND PRACTICE LANDINGS. NO FLIGHT PLAN WAS FILED. THE PILOT STATED THAT HE HAS 20-22 HOURS IN THIS MAKE/MODEL, 10 OF WHICH ARE IN THIS PARTICULAR AIRCRAFT. THE EXPERIMENTAL, PHASE 1 ALLOTMENT FOR THIS AIRCRAFT IS 40 HOURS AND 10 LANDING, PER THE OPERATING CERTIFICATE INFORMATION. THE PILOT STATED THAT HE HAD BEEN HIGH AND FAST ON THE PREVIOUS APPROACH AND ELECTED TO GO-AROUND FOR ANOTHER ATTEMPT.
HE STATED THAT HE ENDED UP BEING HIGH AND FAST ON THE SUBSEQUENT APPROACH BUT ELECTED TO CONTINUE THE APPROACH TO LANDING, USING FULL AIRBRAKES AND FLAPS. THE PILOT STATED THAT HIS APPROACH SPEED WAS APPROXIMATELY 42 KTS AND THAT THE STALL SPEED IN THAT CONFIGURATION IS 34 KTS. HE STATED THAT PERHAPS HE CAUGHT A GUSTY TAILWIND, PUTTING THE AIRCRAFT CLOSER TO THE EFFECTIVE STALL SPEED, AND THAT THE AIRCRAFT SEEMED TO HAVE FALLEN THE LAST 10-15' ONTO THE SURFACE. HE WAS NOT SURE IF THIS FIRST IMPACT WAS ON THE RUNWAY SURFACE. THE PILOT STATED THAT THIS INITIAL DROP SEEMED TO HAVE BROKEN THE RIGHT GEAR LEG AND THAT HE SUBSEQUENTLY RECALLED HITTING THE VASI LIGHTS WITH THE RIGHT WING. THE PILOT STATED THAT HE SHOULD HAVE GONE AROUND ON THIS SECOND LANDING ATTEMPT AS WELL AND THAT HE WAS OUT OF CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT UPON INITIAL IMPACT.
HE ALSO STATED THAT HIS LOSS OF CONTROL WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A TYPICAL AREA OF "SINK" THAT THE PILOTS KNOW TO EXPECT DURING FINAL APPROACH TO RUNWAY 19 BUT THAT THIS AIRCRAFT, LIKELY DUE TO ITS LARGER WINGSPAN AND GLIDE RATIO, DID NOT EXPERIENCE A SIMILAR SINK RATE ON FINAL. THE PILOT BELIEVED THAT A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF TRAINING IN THE MAKE/MODEL COMBINED WITH THE INABILITY TO RECEIVE LOCAL TRAINING IN THIS PARTICULAR AIRCRAFT WAS THE PRIMARY CAUSAL FACTOR IN THE OCCURRENCE.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.