CEN25LA059

The pilot of the AA-5 “jump started” his airplane before departure and experienced a total electrical failure shortly after departure, resulting in his inability to communicate over the radio or extend the airplane’s flaps. While approaching the airport, the pilot of the AA-5 saw the 182T on final approach and followed it to the runway. As the 182T exited the runway, the AA-5 veered toward it and impacted the left side of the 182T, resulting in substantial damage to both airplanes. Video evidence showed the AA-5’s engine was operating normally during the approach and landing. The pilot of the AA-5 made no attempt to increase spacing between his airplane and the 182T or conduct a go-around. The pilot of the AA-5 stated that when he was faced with the failure of the airplane’s electrical system, he believed he had to get the airplane on the ground as soon as possible and “at all costs.”

On December 11, 2024, about 1412 central standard time, a Cessna 182T, N127SL, and a Grumman American AA-5, N5450L, were substantially damaged when they were involved in an accident at Pearland Regional Airport (LVJ), Pearland, Texas. The pilot of the 182T and the pilot and two passengers of the AA-5 were not injured. The 182T was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 aerial observation flight and the AA-5 was operated as a Part 91 personal flight. According to the pilot of the 182T, he was landing on runway 32 after completing aerial observation work. A pilot holding short of the runway alerted him over the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) that another airplane was following close behind him. The pilot of the 182T attempted to expedite his exit from the runway at taxiway A3, but the AA-5 impacted the 182T. According to the pilot of the AA-5, the airplane had to be “jump started” before departing from Scholes International Airport (GLS), Galveston, Texas. About five minutes after departure from GLS, the airplane lost all electrical power. As a result of the electrical failure, the pilot could not communicate over the CTAF or extend the airplane’s flaps. The pilot reported that he was able to navigate to LVJ using an iPad with ForeFlight software connected to a portable ADS-B receiver, all powered by batteries independent from the airplane’s electrical system. While approaching LVJ, the pilot made visual contact with the 182T and followed it to runway 32. The pilot estimated that he was about 1/4 to 1/2 mile behind the 182T while in the traffic pattern. The pilot reported that as he crossed the runway threshold, the 182T was slowing more than he had expected; with the closure rate, he did not feel like he could safely complete a go-around. The pilot attempted to avoid colliding with the 182T by veering toward taxiway A3, which was the same taxiway the 182T used to exit the runway. The AA-5 impacted the left side of the 182T, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage of the AA-5. The 182T sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and horizontal stabilizer. A pilot who was holding short of runway 32 stated that he observed the AA-5 following about 100 yards behind the 182T. The witness made a radio call over the CTAF to alert the pilot of the 182T about the AA-5’s proximity. He stated that the pilot of the AA-5 flew an unstable final approach, the airplane bounced on the runway after touchdown, and it veered left of the runway centerline before it impacted the 182T. In addition, he stated that the pilot of the AA-5 did not appear to make an attempt to perform a go-around or avoid the 182T while rolling on the runway. Video recorded from inside the AA-5’s cockpit revealed the AA-5’s engine was operating normally during the approach and landing. It did not show any evidence of the pilot of the AA-5 attempting to either increase spacing between his airplane and the 182T or conduct a go-around. Postaccidentvisual examination of the AA-5’s electrical system components revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot of the AA-5 stated that he allowed the failure of the airplane’s electrical system to influence his decision to land the airplane as soon as possible and “at all costs.” He stated that he should have executed a 360° turn while on final approach to add spacing between his airplane and the 182T.