What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
The following addresses item (e) in block 32 above.
All FAA nine responsibilities are marked "no" in block 42 since the incident occurred because of failure of the nose gear to extend which was due to the nose gear linear actuator jamming in the retracted position. Again, this component failure is not associated with any of the FAA nine responsibilities.
The pilot /builder stated "at 17:43:15 I was aligned with rw 12R, IAS 100 KTS and visually checked the main gear over center lock was in place and reached under the panel and felt the nose gear over center lock in place, I thought, and from the corner of my eye thought I had the correct 2 green gear down indicators" (the main gear assembly is a single connected unit, so it gets one green gear down light and the nose gear down illuminates the second light). Hence, the reference to the "2 gear down indicators".
Once on the ramp with the nose lifted on the Velocity xl RG5 experimental kit built aircraft (engine is rear mounted-pusher prop), the pilot/builder made multiple attempts to extend the nose gear using both the electrical system and the manual extension method (neither of these systems were damaged in the incident). During all attempts, the nose gear linear actuator remained jammed in the retracted position.
This process illustrated it would not be possible to get the nose gear extended in flight. Consequently, the subsequent landing with the nose gear retracted was clearly unavoidable.
Malfunction report items below, provided by the pilot/builder:
The electric motor melted synthetic parts that flowed into the commutator. The jammed electric motor also jammed the manual override. Motor rated 13 amps on a 7.5 amp fuse, fuse not blown.
I speculate because the fuse did not blow the motor exceeded its duty cycle, ie, continued to draw current acting like a heating element rather than a stalled motor which would draw large current and blow the fuse.
As the FAA filed it
THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES ITEM (E) IN BLOCK 32 ABOVE.
ALL FAA NINE RESPONSIBILITIES ARE MARKED "NO" IN BLOCK 42 SINCE THE INCIDENT OCCURRED BECAUSE OF FAILURE OF THE NOSE GEAR TO EXTEND WHICH WAS DUE TO THE NOSE GEAR LINEAR ACTUATOR JAMMING IN THE RETRACTED POSITION. AGAIN, THIS COMPONENT FAILURE IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY OF THE FAA NINE RESPONSIBILITIES.
THE PILOT /BUILDER STATED "AT 17:43:15 I WAS ALIGNED WITH RW 12R, IAS 100 KTS AND VISUALLY CHECKED THE MAIN GEAR OVER CENTER LOCK WAS IN PLACE AND REACHED UNDER THE PANEL AND FELT THE NOSE GEAR OVER CENTER LOCK IN PLACE, I THOUGHT, AND FROM THE CORNER OF MY EYE THOUGHT I HAD THE CORRECT 2 GREEN GEAR DOWN INDICATORS" (THE MAIN GEAR ASSEMBLY IS A SINGLE CONNECTED UNIT, SO IT GETS ONE GREEN GEAR DOWN LIGHT AND THE NOSE GEAR DOWN ILLUMINATES THE SECOND LIGHT). HENCE, THE REFERENCE TO THE "2 GEAR DOWN INDICATORS".
ONCE ON THE RAMP WITH THE NOSE LIFTED ON THE VELOCITY XL RG5 EXPERIMENTAL KIT BUILT AIRCRAFT (ENGINE IS REAR MOUNTED-PUSHER PROP), THE PILOT/BUILDER MADE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO EXTEND THE NOSE GEAR USING BOTH THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM AND THE MANUAL EXTENSION METHOD (NEITHER OF THESE SYSTEMS WERE DAMAGED IN THE INCIDENT). DURING ALL ATTEMPTS, THE NOSE GEAR LINEAR ACTUATOR REMAINED JAMMED IN THE RETRACTED POSITION.
THIS PROCESS ILLUSTRATED IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO GET THE NOSE GEAR EXTENDED IN FLIGHT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE SUBSEQUENT LANDING WITH THE NOSE GEAR RETRACTED WAS CLEARLY UNAVOIDABLE.
MALFUNCTION REPORT ITEMS BELOW, PROVIDED BY THE PILOT/BUILDER:
THE ELECTRIC MOTOR MELTED SYNTHETIC PARTS THAT FLOWED INTO THE COMMUTATOR. THE JAMMED ELECTRIC MOTOR ALSO JAMMED THE MANUAL OVERRIDE. MOTOR RATED 13 AMPS ON A 7.5 AMP FUSE, FUSE NOT BLOWN.
I SPECULATE BECAUSE THE FUSE DID NOT BLOW THE MOTOR EXCEEDED ITS DUTY CYCLE, IE, CONTINUED TO DRAW CURRENT ACTING LIKE A HEATING ELEMENT RATHER THAN A STALLED MOTOR WHICH WOULD DRAW LARGE CURRENT AND BLOW THE FUSE.