20231219019299I

Incident investigation narrative

On December 19, 2023, at approximately 16:48 LCL, a Nanchang CJ-6 was returning from avi suquilla airport (P20) to its home airport, lake havavu city airport (khii). The PIC had a passenger on board who was also a pilot and had more experience than the PIC in that particular make & model of aircraft.

The PIC decided to practice some landings as he had approximately 25 hours of flight time in this aircraft. He decided to perform an overhead break over runway 32 and enter the downwind. A Cessna 172 was also in the traffic pattern practicing landings. The CJ-6’S approach was “interrupted” by the CE-172 being ahead and the PIC extended downwind for aircraft separation. The first and second touch-and-go were uneventful. On the third pattern (prior to the incident), the CJ-6 had caught up to the CE-172 on downwind and was going to extend downwind again to create further separation between both aircraft.

The CE-172 advised the CJ-6 to “go in front of me” and the CE-172 extended downwind. The CJ-6 turned to final in front of the CE-172, extending its flaps, but not its gear. The CJ-6 contacted the runway with its gear up and slid. The PIC took the decision to veer right off the runway to avoid blocking the runway (no damage to airport property occurred). The aircraft came to rest on the right side of the runway in the dirt. The aircraft was shutdown. No injuries occurred.

Causal/contributing factors:

The PIC was interviewed. He stated that during the last pattern, he had multiple distractions. His passenger, who was a pilot with more experience with the CJ-6, was verbally giving some “tips” to the PIC as the PIC started his approach and was “trying to be perfect”. The PIC had his hand on the gear lever at one point, but his passenger discussed the flaps, and the PIC transferred his hand to the flap lever without extending the gear.

The PIC was also distracted by the CE-172 as he was not anticipating the CE-172 to give way and let the CJ-6 turn early to the runway. As well, on final, the CE-172 asked over the radio, “do you have me in sight'”. The PIC diverted his attention to making visual contact with the CE-172 (and was unable to do so).

The PIC was relying on his experienced friend to advise of any abnormality but neither caught the gear being retracted. The PIC did do a memory aid as a landing check (commonly known as a “gumps” check). However, he stated he failed to verify the gear indicator lights prior to landing. No other checklist was used. In these “military-style” aircraft, such practice of using such memory aids is common.

Recommendations for systemic corrective action to reduce risk of future occurrence:

• The investigating ASI performed the compliance action of counseling and discussed root cause analysis and mitigating strategies to prevent reoccurrence. This included the use of checklist. The ASI also discussed aviation trends related to distractions in the cockpit.

• The ASI recommended wings courses to the PIC relevant to this event. The PIC completed these courses. The PIC stated he is adapting his memory aids and thinking about placarding a checklist to the instrument panel (if there is room to do so).

• The ASI advised the PIC that his program letter (as the aircraft is an experimental exhibition aircraft) needs to be updated to comply with FAA order 8130.2J.