What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
Investigation. Pilot arrived at airport at approximately 08:45L EDT to perform preflight inspection prior to conducting the flight. He found no anomalies. He verified fuel in inboard tanks was approximately 10 gals with approximately 1-2 gals outboard, which was sufficient fuel for the planned flight. The aircraft documentation was current. The operator was flying the airplane in test phase 1 of operation under provisions of its experimental amateur-built operating limitations.
Upon completion of preflight, the pilot moved the aircraft to a taxiway for engine starting which he accomplished with the aid of a checklist. Pilot taxied from hangar taxiway to runup area short of runway where the engine and systems were checked and found to be satisfactory and operational.
Pilot announced intentions on CTAF (non-tower airport) to conduct a takeoff for normal traffic patterns during which he intended to continue to conduct testing within the operating limitations specified for the experimental amateur-built aircraft. He successfully completed two standard traffic patterns.
On the third traffic pattern, on final, he determined that he was tracking above the visual PAPI glide path so he attempted to correct (recover) the approach while maintaining a standard approach airspeed of 60 miles per hour. He subsequently allowed the airplane to develop a high sink rate without adequately correcting. This resulted in the airplane touching down with an excessive rate of descent, collapsing the nose gear, causing a prop strike, and impacting the ground, while skidding approximately 50 feet.
Once the airplane stopped moving, the pilot shut off the fuel selector and electrical power and exited the airplane to wait for assistance. Emergency airport equipment and rescue personnel arrived quickly. There was no ensuing fire, and the pilot was not injured.
The airplane was inspected and photographed post-incident by an FAA airworthiness inspector. It was determined to have sustained substantial structural damage.
As the FAA filed it
INVESTIGATION. PILOT ARRIVED AT AIRPORT AT APPROXIMATELY 08:45L EDT TO PERFORM PREFLIGHT INSPECTION PRIOR TO CONDUCTING THE FLIGHT. HE FOUND NO ANOMALIES. HE VERIFIED FUEL IN INBOARD TANKS WAS APPROXIMATELY 10 GALS WITH APPROXIMATELY 1-2 GALS OUTBOARD, WHICH WAS SUFFICIENT FUEL FOR THE PLANNED FLIGHT. THE AIRCRAFT DOCUMENTATION WAS CURRENT. THE OPERATOR WAS FLYING THE AIRPLANE IN TEST PHASE 1 OF OPERATION UNDER PROVISIONS OF ITS EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR-BUILT OPERATING LIMITATIONS.
UPON COMPLETION OF PREFLIGHT, THE PILOT MOVED THE AIRCRAFT TO A TAXIWAY FOR ENGINE STARTING WHICH HE ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE AID OF A CHECKLIST. PILOT TAXIED FROM HANGAR TAXIWAY TO RUNUP AREA SHORT OF RUNWAY WHERE THE ENGINE AND SYSTEMS WERE CHECKED AND FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY AND OPERATIONAL.
PILOT ANNOUNCED INTENTIONS ON CTAF (NON-TOWER AIRPORT) TO CONDUCT A TAKEOFF FOR NORMAL TRAFFIC PATTERNS DURING WHICH HE INTENDED TO CONTINUE TO CONDUCT TESTING WITHIN THE OPERATING LIMITATIONS SPECIFIED FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT. HE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED TWO STANDARD TRAFFIC PATTERNS.
ON THE THIRD TRAFFIC PATTERN, ON FINAL, HE DETERMINED THAT HE WAS TRACKING ABOVE THE VISUAL PAPI GLIDE PATH SO HE ATTEMPTED TO CORRECT (RECOVER) THE APPROACH WHILE MAINTAINING A STANDARD APPROACH AIRSPEED OF 60 MILES PER HOUR. HE SUBSEQUENTLY ALLOWED THE AIRPLANE TO DEVELOP A HIGH SINK RATE WITHOUT ADEQUATELY CORRECTING. THIS RESULTED IN THE AIRPLANE TOUCHING DOWN WITH AN EXCESSIVE RATE OF DESCENT, COLLAPSING THE NOSE GEAR, CAUSING A PROP STRIKE, AND IMPACTING THE GROUND, WHILE SKIDDING APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET.
ONCE THE AIRPLANE STOPPED MOVING, THE PILOT SHUT OFF THE FUEL SELECTOR AND ELECTRICAL POWER AND EXITED THE AIRPLANE TO WAIT FOR ASSISTANCE. EMERGENCY AIRPORT EQUIPMENT AND RESCUE PERSONNEL ARRIVED QUICKLY. THERE WAS NO ENSUING FIRE, AND THE PILOT WAS NOT INJURED.
THE AIRPLANE WAS INSPECTED AND PHOTOGRAPHED POST-INCIDENT BY AN FAA AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTOR. IT WAS DETERMINED TO HAVE SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.