What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
On training flight in the pattern of kbmq while turning base to final aircraft on third landing iteration. CFI stated that aircraft were experiencing electrical load demand issues. The CFI and student pilot smelled fumes and stated that the landing gears indication lights were verified during the landing checks, indicating three green and zero red; the CFI verified that no circuit brakers were popped, on short final the smell of fumes/burning intensified. Upon landing the pilot on the controls , co-pilot/student, heard a screech from props hitting runway surface; a separate aircraft awaiting takeoff, taxied to incident aircraft on the runway to check on its status and informed the incident aircraft’s crew; they conveyed to the incident aircraft crew that they didn’t see the gears down on the incident aircraft as it crossed the runway threshold; believing that the incident aircraft was performing a low approach, is why they didn’t inform incident aircraft via radio that the gear were not extended; post maintenance activities showed that the landing gear handle was in the down position; landing gear circuit breaker was extended, the landing landing gear motor had evidence of overheating and hydraulic power pack was fully serviced; that landing gear could be lowered and could be locked via extended using the emergency landing gear extension procedures and that all indicating lights were operational. No mechanical damage was noted to landing gear. Based on the statements of the crew and post maintenance activities, it is determination that the cause of this incident is inconclusive; if additional information is gained that will assist in the determination of the cause, this report will be amended.
As the FAA filed it
ON TRAINING FLIGHT IN THE PATTERN OF KBMQ WHILE TURNING BASE TO FINAL AIRCRAFT ON THIRD LANDING ITERATION. CFI STATED THAT AIRCRAFT WERE EXPERIENCING ELECTRICAL LOAD DEMAND ISSUES. THE CFI AND STUDENT PILOT SMELLED FUMES AND STATED THAT THE LANDING GEARS INDICATION LIGHTS WERE VERIFIED DURING THE LANDING CHECKS, INDICATING THREE GREEN AND ZERO RED; THE CFI VERIFIED THAT NO CIRCUIT BRAKERS WERE POPPED, ON SHORT FINAL THE SMELL OF FUMES/BURNING INTENSIFIED. UPON LANDING THE PILOT ON THE CONTROLS , CO-PILOT/STUDENT, HEARD A SCREECH FROM PROPS HITTING RUNWAY SURFACE; A SEPARATE AIRCRAFT AWAITING TAKEOFF, TAXIED TO INCIDENT AIRCRAFT ON THE RUNWAY TO CHECK ON ITS STATUS AND INFORMED THE INCIDENT AIRCRAFT’S CREW; THEY CONVEYED TO THE INCIDENT AIRCRAFT CREW THAT THEY DIDN’T SEE THE GEARS DOWN ON THE INCIDENT AIRCRAFT AS IT CROSSED THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD; BELIEVING THAT THE INCIDENT AIRCRAFT WAS PERFORMING A LOW APPROACH, IS WHY THEY DIDN’T INFORM INCIDENT AIRCRAFT VIA RADIO THAT THE GEAR WERE NOT EXTENDED; POST MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES SHOWED THAT THE LANDING GEAR HANDLE WAS IN THE DOWN POSITION; LANDING GEAR CIRCUIT BREAKER WAS EXTENDED, THE LANDING LANDING GEAR MOTOR HAD EVIDENCE OF OVERHEATING AND HYDRAULIC POWER PACK WAS FULLY SERVICED; THAT LANDING GEAR COULD BE LOWERED AND COULD BE LOCKED VIA EXTENDED USING THE EMERGENCY LANDING GEAR EXTENSION PROCEDURES AND THAT ALL INDICATING LIGHTS WERE OPERATIONAL. NO MECHANICAL DAMAGE WAS NOTED TO LANDING GEAR. BASED ON THE STATEMENTS OF THE CREW AND POST MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES, IT IS DETERMINATION THAT THE CAUSE OF THIS INCIDENT IS INCONCLUSIVE; IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS GAINED THAT WILL ASSIST IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE CAUSE, THIS REPORT WILL BE AMENDED.
Other reports on N3733G · 2
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.