20230928016059I

Incident · Minor damage

FAA incident report · Cessna 140 · Leesburg, VA · September 28, 2023

Date
September 28, 2023 · 14:40 local
Place
Leesburg, VA
Airport
Leesburg Executive
Phase of flight
Landing: Rollout
Operating rules
General operating rules (Part 91)
Damage
Minor damage
Aircraft
N4088N
Reported as
Cessna 140
Reported engine
Continental C85 series
People aboard
2
Fatal injuries
0
Other injuries
0
Pilot’s certificates
Commercial pilot, flight instructor
Pilot’s flight hours
4,000 total250 in this make and model100 in the last 90 days

From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

What happened

The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.

Investigation. I was notified by accident/incident initial report that on September 28, 2023, at 14:40L EDT (18:40Z), on a local VFR flight plan, airman was operating a Piper 140, when, during landing on rwy 35, exited the runway, struck a runway light, returned to the runway, and taxied to parking. No violation has been determined. The FAA learned of this incident on September 28, 2023.

Root cause analysis (rca). The flight was an instructional flight with airman acting as the instructor and PIC. The student is an experienced pilot who is working on their tailwheel endorsement. This was the second instructional flight with the student. The entire flight was conducted in the traffic pattern practicing take off and landings (touch and goes). The student completed approximately 8-10 three point landings and takeoffs successfully with little or no intervention by the instructor.

The instructor then demonstrated a wheel landing to the student. The student accomplished their first wheel landing reasonably well although the instructor had to assist with additional forward yoke pressure on touchdown. Instructor believes that the student did apply forward pressure but somewhat inadequate. The second landing was similar but after touchdown, the aircraft veered to the left for reasons the instructor is unable to determine. The veer was not viewed by the instructor as excessive but the student overcorrected using hard right rudder which instructor was unable to counteract in a timely manner.

The aircraft departed to the right with the left landing gear hitting the runway light. Instructor noted that upon hitting the light, it disintegrated with debris flying. Instructor recovered the aircraft back to the runway and noted that they were able to taxi uneventfully. Instructor reported to the tower controller that they had impacted the runway light, and they uneventfully continued taxi to parking.

Root cause was inadequate and untimely correction by the instructor to excessive application of controls by the student pilot conducting the landing. Wind was variable at 5 knots, therefore, wind was likely not a factor in this incident.

Root cause: category b human performance.

Subcategory: B3 mistake (inadequate and untimely correction of excessive control application by the student pilot).

Corrective action. It is difficult to suggest corrective action beyond the instructor intending to take control earlier in the landing sequence at the slightest indication of divergence from normal parameters. In this case the student was experienced, had demonstrated several satisfactory landings, and the divergence was not judged by the instructor to be excessive. However, the student's correction was sudden and excessive, which is very difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate and to take immediate corrective action without exercising excessive control during the student's landings which would normally tend to interfere with effective learning.

Instructor will continue to exercise caution with the intent of early and timely intervention in the future in the event of excessive control application by the student.

Comments and recommendations. There was no violation of 14 CFR or general safe operating practices. Instructor and student display a conscientious and compliant attitude. I am confident that both will continue to improve their skills in a safe and compliant manner and recommend no further action at this time.

As the FAA filed it

INVESTIGATION. I WAS NOTIFIED BY ACCIDENT/INCIDENT INITIAL REPORT THAT ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2023, AT 14:40L EDT (18:40Z), ON A LOCAL VFR FLIGHT PLAN, AIRMAN WAS OPERATING A PIPER 140, WHEN, DURING LANDING ON RWY 35, EXITED THE RUNWAY, STRUCK A RUNWAY LIGHT, RETURNED TO THE RUNWAY, AND TAXIED TO PARKING. NO VIOLATION HAS BEEN DETERMINED. THE FAA LEARNED OF THIS INCIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2023.

ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS (RCA). THE FLIGHT WAS AN INSTRUCTIONAL FLIGHT WITH AIRMAN ACTING AS THE INSTRUCTOR AND PIC. THE STUDENT IS AN EXPERIENCED PILOT WHO IS WORKING ON THEIR TAILWHEEL ENDORSEMENT. THIS WAS THE SECOND INSTRUCTIONAL FLIGHT WITH THE STUDENT. THE ENTIRE FLIGHT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE TRAFFIC PATTERN PRACTICING TAKE OFF AND LANDINGS (TOUCH AND GOES). THE STUDENT COMPLETED APPROXIMATELY 8-10 THREE POINT LANDINGS AND TAKEOFFS SUCCESSFULLY WITH LITTLE OR NO INTERVENTION BY THE INSTRUCTOR.

THE INSTRUCTOR THEN DEMONSTRATED A WHEEL LANDING TO THE STUDENT. THE STUDENT ACCOMPLISHED THEIR FIRST WHEEL LANDING REASONABLY WELL ALTHOUGH THE INSTRUCTOR HAD TO ASSIST WITH ADDITIONAL FORWARD YOKE PRESSURE ON TOUCHDOWN. INSTRUCTOR BELIEVES THAT THE STUDENT DID APPLY FORWARD PRESSURE BUT SOMEWHAT INADEQUATE. THE SECOND LANDING WAS SIMILAR BUT AFTER TOUCHDOWN, THE AIRCRAFT VEERED TO THE LEFT FOR REASONS THE INSTRUCTOR IS UNABLE TO DETERMINE. THE VEER WAS NOT VIEWED BY THE INSTRUCTOR AS EXCESSIVE BUT THE STUDENT OVERCORRECTED USING HARD RIGHT RUDDER WHICH INSTRUCTOR WAS UNABLE TO COUNTERACT IN A TIMELY MANNER.

THE AIRCRAFT DEPARTED TO THE RIGHT WITH THE LEFT LANDING GEAR HITTING THE RUNWAY LIGHT. INSTRUCTOR NOTED THAT UPON HITTING THE LIGHT, IT DISINTEGRATED WITH DEBRIS FLYING. INSTRUCTOR RECOVERED THE AIRCRAFT BACK TO THE RUNWAY AND NOTED THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO TAXI UNEVENTFULLY. INSTRUCTOR REPORTED TO THE TOWER CONTROLLER THAT THEY HAD IMPACTED THE RUNWAY LIGHT, AND THEY UNEVENTFULLY CONTINUED TAXI TO PARKING.

ROOT CAUSE WAS INADEQUATE AND UNTIMELY CORRECTION BY THE INSTRUCTOR TO EXCESSIVE APPLICATION OF CONTROLS BY THE STUDENT PILOT CONDUCTING THE LANDING. WIND WAS VARIABLE AT 5 KNOTS, THEREFORE, WIND WAS LIKELY NOT A FACTOR IN THIS INCIDENT.

ROOT CAUSE: CATEGORY B HUMAN PERFORMANCE.

SUBCATEGORY: B3 MISTAKE (INADEQUATE AND UNTIMELY CORRECTION OF EXCESSIVE CONTROL APPLICATION BY THE STUDENT PILOT).

CORRECTIVE ACTION. IT IS DIFFICULT TO SUGGEST CORRECTIVE ACTION BEYOND THE INSTRUCTOR INTENDING TO TAKE CONTROL EARLIER IN THE LANDING SEQUENCE AT THE SLIGHTEST INDICATION OF DIVERGENCE FROM NORMAL PARAMETERS. IN THIS CASE THE STUDENT WAS EXPERIENCED, HAD DEMONSTRATED SEVERAL SATISFACTORY LANDINGS, AND THE DIVERGENCE WAS NOT JUDGED BY THE INSTRUCTOR TO BE EXCESSIVE. HOWEVER, THE STUDENT'S CORRECTION WAS SUDDEN AND EXCESSIVE, WHICH IS VERY DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO ANTICIPATE AND TO TAKE IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION WITHOUT EXERCISING EXCESSIVE CONTROL DURING THE STUDENT'S LANDINGS WHICH WOULD NORMALLY TEND TO INTERFERE WITH EFFECTIVE LEARNING.

INSTRUCTOR WILL CONTINUE TO EXERCISE CAUTION WITH THE INTENT OF EARLY AND TIMELY INTERVENTION IN THE FUTURE IN THE EVENT OF EXCESSIVE CONTROL APPLICATION BY THE STUDENT.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF 14 CFR OR GENERAL SAFE OPERATING PRACTICES. INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT DISPLAY A CONSCIENTIOUS AND COMPLIANT ATTITUDE. I AM CONFIDENT THAT BOTH WILL CONTINUE TO IMPROVE THEIR SKILLS IN A SAFE AND COMPLIANT MANNER AND RECOMMEND NO FURTHER ACTION AT THIS TIME.