20240426005369I

ON APRIL 26, 2024, A COMMERCIAL-INSTRUCTOR PILOT OPERATED A TAILWHEEL AIRPLANE AS PILOT-IN-COMMAND WHILE CONDUCTING FLIGHT INSTRUCTION AT OLYMPIA AIRPORT IN OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON. THE PURPOSE OF THIS FLIGHT WAS TO TRAIN A NEW STUDENT PILOT ON FLYING AND HANDLING A TAILWHEEL AIRPLANE. THE PILOT RECEIVED A WIND CHECK FROM THE OLYMPIA CONTROL TOWER AND VERIFIED IT USING THE WINDSOCK, WHICH APPEARED LIMP AND DID NOT INDICATE THE WIND DIRECTION OR MOVEMENT REPORTED BY THE TOWER. DESPITE THE DISCREPANCY, THE INSTRUCTOR ALLOWED THE STUDENT TO PROCEED WITH THE LANDING.

UPON TOUCHDOWN, THE AIRCRAFT CONTINUED STRAIGHT DOWN THE RUNWAY, AND THE INSTRUCTOR PRAISED THE STUDENT FOR THE NEAR-PERFECT LANDING. HOWEVER, A SUDDEN GUST OF WIND CAUSED THE TAIL TO SWING TO THE RIGHT, INITIATING A GROUND LOOP. THE INSTRUCTOR MANAGED TO KEEP THE AIRCRAFT ON THE RUNWAY, EXCEPT FOR THE LEFT WHEEL, BUT THE LEFT WINGTIP TOUCHED THE GROUND, CAUSING MINOR WINGTIP DAMAGE. THE AIRCRAFT CAME TO A STOP 180 DEGREES FROM ITS ORIGINAL DIRECTION.

THE INSTRUCTOR INFORMED THE OLYMPIA TOWER THAT A TUG TRUCK WAS NEEDED, BUT AFTER INSPECTING THE AIRCRAFT, REALIZED THE DAMAGE WAS MINIMAL AND TAXIED THE PLANE BACK TO THE HANGAR WITHOUT ASSISTANCE. THE FAA LEARNED OF THE INCIDENT ON APRIL 26, 2024, AS REPORTED BY THE AIRPORT MANAGER. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE INSTRUCTOR'S DECISION TO LAND DESPITE CONFLICTING WIND INFORMATION FROM THE TOWER AND THE WINDSOCK, AND THE FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE CROSSWIND COMPONENT.

THE INSTRUCTOR ACKNOWLEDGED THAT INITIALLY, THERE WERE NO WIND GUSTS, AND PREVIOUS LANDINGS HAD BEEN UNEVENTFUL. HOWEVER, ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS REVEALS DECISIONS TO CONTINUE LANDINGS WITH A POSSIBLE HIGH CROSS WIND COMPONENT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER MITIGATED. THE PILOT ADMITTED THAT IN HINDSIGHT, OPTING FOR A DIFFERENT RUNWAY OR PERFORMING A GO-AROUND WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER. THE INSTRUCTOR COMMITTED TO ESTABLISHING A WIND SPEED CUT-OFF FOR FUTURE TRAINING FLIGHTS TO AVOID SIMILAR INCIDENTS.

THE FAA INSPECTOR REVIEWED THE INCIDENT AND AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE PILOT AND HEARING WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED DIFFERENTLY, POSSIBLE FAVORABLE OUTCOMES VERSUS NEGATIVE OUTCOMES AND THE KEY LESSONS LEARNED IN THIS EVENT, PILOT HAS LEARNED FROM THIS INCIDENT. BASED ON THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, A COMPLIANCE ACTION IS REQUIRED AND APPROPRIATE. THE FAA INSPECTOR WAS ABLE TO BRING THE PILOT BACK INTO COMPLIANCE. ITEMS DISCUSSED INCLUDED AERONAUTICAL DECISION-MAKING SKILLS AND SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. THE PILOT UNDERSTANDS THESE ITEMS WERE DISCUSSED TO REGAIN COMPLIANCE PER THE COMPLIANCE PROGRAM. THE FAA INSPECTOR EVALUATED THE PILOTS ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND CONCURS THAT THEY APPEAR ADEQUATE TO PREVENT SIMILAR EVENTS FROM OCCURRING IN THE FUTURE. THE LESSONS LEARNED BECAUSE OF THE EXPERIENCE AND COUNSELING HAS REESTABLISHED CONFIDENCE IN THE PILOTS’ ABILITY TO OPERATE IN COMPLIANCE AND SAFELY WITHIN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM. NO FURTHER ACTION OR NO FOLLOW-UP IS REQUIRED OR PLANNED.

FINALLY, THE FAA AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTOR FOUND THAT THE ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ AIRCRAFT WAS NOT AIRWORTHY BECAUSE OF TWO MISSING PLACARDS WHICH ARE REQUIRED PER THE AIRCRAFT TYPE DESIGN AS OPERATING LIMITATIONS. THE FAA INSPECTOR COUNSELED THE ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ ON THE REQUIRED PLACARDS AND PUT A FAA CONDITION NOTICE ON THE AIRCRAFT AND INSTRUCTED THE ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ TO MAIL THE FORM BACK TO HIM WHEN THE ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ HAD CORRECTED THE REGULATORY VIOLATION. THIS EVENT IS ELIGIBLE FOR A COMPLIANCE ACTION. THE ROOT CAUSE WAS THE ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ WAS UNAWARE OF THE REQUIRED PLACARDS NEEDED FOR HIS AIRCRAFT. THIS EVENT HAS BEEN CLOSED. NO FURTHER CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDED.