CEN12LA379

The pilot reported that, in addition to listening to the weather broadcast for a nearby airport, he ascertained the wind condition at the intended destination by observing the windsock and trees near the runway. Based on these observations, he determined the wind condition favored a landing to the southwest with a left crosswind of about 4 knots. He reported that no appreciable crosswind correction was required throughout his landing approach, and he concluded that the wind was calm. The airplane bounced after a hard landing and then began to yaw to the left. The pilot reported that his inputs of right rudder and aileron were unsuccessful in realigning the airplane with the runway heading. He elected not to abort the landing because there were nearby trees that would interfere with his climb out. The airplane departed the left side of the runway and impacted several trees before sliding down an embankment. The pilot surmised that the airplane encountered wind shear during the landing flare, which resulted in a significant tailwind condition and his loss of control. However, a postaccident review of available weather data was not consistent with the airplane having encountered a variable or gusty wind condition. Postaccident examination did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.

On June 17, 2012, at 1500 central daylight time, a Consolidated Aeronautics, Inc. model Lake LA-4-200 amphibious airplane, N3094P, was substantially damaged while landing at Gastons Airport (3M0), Lakeview, Arkansas. The private pilot was not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot, under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the personal flight, which was operated without a flight plan. The cross-country flight departed Stockton Lake, Missouri, at 1330 with the intended destination of 3M0. The pilot reported that as the flight approached the intended destination, he ascertained the local weather conditions by listening to the weather broadcast for the nearby Baxter County Airport, which indicated the local wind was from the south at 5 knots. He stated that he subsequently observed the airport windsock and nearby trees as he overflew the destination airport, and based on these observations, he determined the wind condition favored runway 24 (3,200 feet by 55 feet, turf/grass) with a left crosswind of approximately 4 knots. He reported that no appreciable crosswind correction was required throughout his landing approach, concluding that the wind was calm. The pilot stated that the airplane initially bounced in response to a hard landing, which was immediately followed by a left yaw. His application of right rudder had no affect on realigning the airplane with the runway heading. He reported that he maintained airplane pitch to avoid porpoising on the nose landing gear as he continued to apply full right rudder and aileron input in an attempt to correct for the left veer. He elected not to abort the landing because there were nearby trees that would interfere with his climb out. The airplane ultimately departed off the left side of the runway, impacting several trees before sliding down an embankment. The left wing and fuselage were substantially damaged during the runway excursion. The pilot surmised that the airplane encountered wind shear during landing flare, which resulted in a significant tailwind condition and his loss of directional control. The closest weather observing station was at the Baxter County Airport (KBPK), located about 4 miles northeast of the accident site. At 1453, the KBPK automated surface observing system reported the following weather conditions: wind 200 degrees at 10 knots; visibility 10 miles; few clouds at 6,000 feet above ground level (agl); temperature 33 degrees Celsius; dew point 16 degrees Celsius; altimeter setting 29.93 inches of mercury. A postaccident examination of the airplane was completed by an inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration. The examination confirmed flight control continuity from the cockpit controls to the respective control surfaces. The airplane was not equipped with nose wheel steering, and as such, directional control was achieved by differential braking during ground operations.No mechanical anomalies were noted during a functional test of the brake system. The postaccident examination did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.