What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
Aircraft inspected 10/23/2024. Aircraft sustained structeral damage to fuselage due to hard landing. Reviewed aircraft records and found no issues.
Started atqa.
Pilot statement:
The final appeared quite normal to me, but as I got closer to the airport, it looked like I would need to close the airbrakes to stay on a glide path that would intercept my aim point (second stripe after the "28" numbers). Ideally, I would want to reopen my airbrakes to about half open so that I arrive at my aim point at pattern airspeed with the airbrakes about half open, but only if I could make my aim point (or, as a minimum, make the runway threshold). In this case, I felt that I needed to keep the airbrake mostly shut (about a quarter or less open), so that is what I did. This meant that I was landing with a relatively shallow slope (which is not my preferred/ideal approach) compared to the slope when using half airbrakes. My goal, as always, was to flare such that, at the end of the flare, during the hold-off phase, the glider would be about 1 to 2 feet above the runway, where I would keep glider in the landing pitch attitude until the speed bleeds off so that I can have a low-energy touchdown. However, in this case, the glider bounced (probably due to the mostly shut airbrakes). Although I tried to keep the glider at the landing pitch attitude, the glider got into a pilot-induced oscillation (pio). I know that you are not supposed to move the stick back and forth, because that will make the pio worse, but, in this case, the bounce was such that the momentum moved my arms (and the stick) back, making the glider be in a higher pitch attitude that I wanted. So, although I knew what I wanted to do, I was not able to execute it the way I wanted. And, when you are in a pio, things can happen very quickly.
As the FAA filed it
AIRCRAFT INSPECTED 10/23/2024. AIRCRAFT SUSTAINED STRUCTERAL DAMAGE TO FUSELAGE DUE TO HARD LANDING. REVIEWED AIRCRAFT RECORDS AND FOUND NO ISSUES.
STARTED ATQA.
PILOT STATEMENT:
THE FINAL APPEARED QUITE NORMAL TO ME, BUT AS I GOT CLOSER TO THE AIRPORT, IT LOOKED LIKE I WOULD NEED TO CLOSE THE AIRBRAKES TO STAY ON A GLIDE PATH THAT WOULD INTERCEPT MY AIM POINT (SECOND STRIPE AFTER THE "28" NUMBERS). IDEALLY, I WOULD WANT TO REOPEN MY AIRBRAKES TO ABOUT HALF OPEN SO THAT I ARRIVE AT MY AIM POINT AT PATTERN AIRSPEED WITH THE AIRBRAKES ABOUT HALF OPEN, BUT ONLY IF I COULD MAKE MY AIM POINT (OR, AS A MINIMUM, MAKE THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD). IN THIS CASE, I FELT THAT I NEEDED TO KEEP THE AIRBRAKE MOSTLY SHUT (ABOUT A QUARTER OR LESS OPEN), SO THAT IS WHAT I DID. THIS MEANT THAT I WAS LANDING WITH A RELATIVELY SHALLOW SLOPE (WHICH IS NOT MY PREFERRED/IDEAL APPROACH) COMPARED TO THE SLOPE WHEN USING HALF AIRBRAKES. MY GOAL, AS ALWAYS, WAS TO FLARE SUCH THAT, AT THE END OF THE FLARE, DURING THE HOLD-OFF PHASE, THE GLIDER WOULD BE ABOUT 1 TO 2 FEET ABOVE THE RUNWAY, WHERE I WOULD KEEP GLIDER IN THE LANDING PITCH ATTITUDE UNTIL THE SPEED BLEEDS OFF SO THAT I CAN HAVE A LOW-ENERGY TOUCHDOWN. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, THE GLIDER BOUNCED (PROBABLY DUE TO THE MOSTLY SHUT AIRBRAKES). ALTHOUGH I TRIED TO KEEP THE GLIDER AT THE LANDING PITCH ATTITUDE, THE GLIDER GOT INTO A PILOT-INDUCED OSCILLATION (PIO). I KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO MOVE THE STICK BACK AND FORTH, BECAUSE THAT WILL MAKE THE PIO WORSE, BUT, IN THIS CASE, THE BOUNCE WAS SUCH THAT THE MOMENTUM MOVED MY ARMS (AND THE STICK) BACK, MAKING THE GLIDER BE IN A HIGHER PITCH ATTITUDE THAT I WANTED. SO, ALTHOUGH I KNEW WHAT I WANTED TO DO, I WAS NOT ABLE TO EXECUTE IT THE WAY I WANTED. AND, WHEN YOU ARE IN A PIO, THINGS CAN HAPPEN VERY QUICKLY.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.