What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
On July 15, 2025, at approximately 1615 CST and during a part 141 training flight, a 2005 Piper seminole (PA-44-180) was substantially damaged during a gear-up landing on runway 21 at the melborne municipal airport (42A). The instructor pilot (ip) and student pilot (sp) were uninjured. The accident occurred during the fifth landing attempt of a remedial training session focused on short field procedures and simulated single-engine operations.//
FAA FSDO management was notified immediately after the gear-up landing and authorized aircraft removal from the active runway. Recovery personnel found the aircraft on the runway with the gear handle in the up/retracted position. Recovery personnel used a crane to lift the aircraft and lowered the gear using the gear handle. The gear extended normally and returned three green gear down lights on the instrument panel. The aircraft was towed to a hangar and secured for FAA inspection.//
FAA investigators dispatched to the scene on July 17, 2025. The gear up landing resulted in prop strikes to both left and right engines, damage to the flap mounting tab, and grinding of the entry step, and the "hat rails" on the belly of the aircraft.//
Piper engineering identifies the “hat rails” as primary structural components. In accordance with the definitions in 49 CFR 830.2, the extent of damage from the gear-up landing is considered "substantial," and the event is classified as an aircraft accident.//
The FAA investigators interviewed the instructor pilot (ip) regarding the incident. The ip stated that the sp had difficulty maintaining a stabilized descent and completing checklist items during the first four landings. As a result, the ip was heavily focused on monitoring the descent rate, airspeed, and power management. During the fifth and final approach, the ip was further distracted by a slower aircraft in the traffic pattern. To accommodate their training, the ip requested that the other aircraft extend its final approach, allowing their aircraft to complete a touch-and-go first.//
The investigation identified that, during training and at the time of the accident, the crew followed the "cgumps" mnemonic for landing but did not utilize a written landing checklist. Review of the training program and interviews indicated that standardization of written checklist use was not enforced, contrary to airman certification standards and the approved syllabus. Additionally, required training materials specified in the syllabus were not used as intended. These findings constitute noncompliance with applicable federal regulations governing pilot schools.//
On this fifth approach, the aircraft was higher than usual, but the ip assessed there was enough runway available to proceed with the landing. The ip recalled hearing the gear warning horn but failed to extend the landing gear.
As the FAA filed it
ON JULY 15, 2025, AT APPROXIMATELY 1615 CST AND DURING A PART 141 TRAINING FLIGHT, A 2005 PIPER SEMINOLE (PA-44-180) WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED DURING A GEAR-UP LANDING ON RUNWAY 21 AT THE MELBORNE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (42A). THE INSTRUCTOR PILOT (IP) AND STUDENT PILOT (SP) WERE UNINJURED. THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED DURING THE FIFTH LANDING ATTEMPT OF A REMEDIAL TRAINING SESSION FOCUSED ON SHORT FIELD PROCEDURES AND SIMULATED SINGLE-ENGINE OPERATIONS.//
FAA FSDO MANAGEMENT WAS NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE GEAR-UP LANDING AND AUTHORIZED AIRCRAFT REMOVAL FROM THE ACTIVE RUNWAY. RECOVERY PERSONNEL FOUND THE AIRCRAFT ON THE RUNWAY WITH THE GEAR HANDLE IN THE UP/RETRACTED POSITION. RECOVERY PERSONNEL USED A CRANE TO LIFT THE AIRCRAFT AND LOWERED THE GEAR USING THE GEAR HANDLE. THE GEAR EXTENDED NORMALLY AND RETURNED THREE GREEN GEAR DOWN LIGHTS ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE AIRCRAFT WAS TOWED TO A HANGAR AND SECURED FOR FAA INSPECTION.//
FAA INVESTIGATORS DISPATCHED TO THE SCENE ON JULY 17, 2025. THE GEAR UP LANDING RESULTED IN PROP STRIKES TO BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT ENGINES, DAMAGE TO THE FLAP MOUNTING TAB, AND GRINDING OF THE ENTRY STEP, AND THE "HAT RAILS" ON THE BELLY OF THE AIRCRAFT.//
PIPER ENGINEERING IDENTIFIES THE “HAT RAILS” AS PRIMARY STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEFINITIONS IN 49 CFR 830.2, THE EXTENT OF DAMAGE FROM THE GEAR-UP LANDING IS CONSIDERED "SUBSTANTIAL," AND THE EVENT IS CLASSIFIED AS AN AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT.//
THE FAA INVESTIGATORS INTERVIEWED THE INSTRUCTOR PILOT (IP) REGARDING THE INCIDENT. THE IP STATED THAT THE SP HAD DIFFICULTY MAINTAINING A STABILIZED DESCENT AND COMPLETING CHECKLIST ITEMS DURING THE FIRST FOUR LANDINGS. AS A RESULT, THE IP WAS HEAVILY FOCUSED ON MONITORING THE DESCENT RATE, AIRSPEED, AND POWER MANAGEMENT. DURING THE FIFTH AND FINAL APPROACH, THE IP WAS FURTHER DISTRACTED BY A SLOWER AIRCRAFT IN THE TRAFFIC PATTERN. TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR TRAINING, THE IP REQUESTED THAT THE OTHER AIRCRAFT EXTEND ITS FINAL APPROACH, ALLOWING THEIR AIRCRAFT TO COMPLETE A TOUCH-AND-GO FIRST.//
THE INVESTIGATION IDENTIFIED THAT, DURING TRAINING AND AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE CREW FOLLOWED THE "CGUMPS" MNEMONIC FOR LANDING BUT DID NOT UTILIZE A WRITTEN LANDING CHECKLIST. REVIEW OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM AND INTERVIEWS INDICATED THAT STANDARDIZATION OF WRITTEN CHECKLIST USE WAS NOT ENFORCED, CONTRARY TO AIRMAN CERTIFICATION STANDARDS AND THE APPROVED SYLLABUS. ADDITIONALLY, REQUIRED TRAINING MATERIALS SPECIFIED IN THE SYLLABUS WERE NOT USED AS INTENDED. THESE FINDINGS CONSTITUTE NONCOMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL REGULATIONS GOVERNING PILOT SCHOOLS.//
ON THIS FIFTH APPROACH, THE AIRCRAFT WAS HIGHER THAN USUAL, BUT THE IP ASSESSED THERE WAS ENOUGH RUNWAY AVAILABLE TO PROCEED WITH THE LANDING. THE IP RECALLED HEARING THE GEAR WARNING HORN BUT FAILED TO EXTEND THE LANDING GEAR.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.