ERA14LA005

The pilot/owner reported that he conducted a "normal" three-point landing on the runway centerline with a normal roll in the tailwheel-equipped airplane. While decelerating through 50 mph, the airplane "began to jerk to the right," and the pilot corrected with a left rudder input. The airplane responded "somewhat," but it continued to veer right. The pilot applied full power and full-aft control stick input to abort the landing, but the airplane departed the runway to the right and nosed over, which resulted in substantial damage to the engine compartment, cockpit, and vertical fin structures. The pilot was concerned that the airplane had sustained a structural failure in the area that surrounded the attachment point for the right main landing gear because it had been repaired and modified after the airplane experienced a similar loss of directional control event about 1 year previously. Therefore, he requested a detailed examination of the modifications, welding, and landing gear installation conducted during the previous repair. The examination of the welds revealed that they were intact, and no anomalies were noted. All of the damage to the landing gear system was due to overstress. In a written statement following the previous event, the pilot stated that the loss of directional control resulted from the length of his legs, the geometry of his size-13 shoe and the rudder pedals, and the confined space that enclosed them. He attempted to alleviate the issue by changing his footwear, but his alternate choice of footwear only aggravated the rudder control problem. He stated that the application of left rudder resulted in the inadvertent application of right brake and the subsequent loss of directional control.

On October 19, 2013, at 1157 eastern daylight time, an Aerotek Pitts S-1T, N53CG, was substantially damaged during a runway excursion and nose-over event while landing at Punta Gorda Airport (PGD), Punta Gorda, Florida. The airline transport pilot/owner was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the local personal flight, which was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. According to the pilot, he conducted a "normal" three-point landing on the runway centerline with a "normal" rollout. While decelerating through 50 mph, the airplane "began to jerk to the right" and the pilot corrected with left rudder input. The airplane responded "somewhat," but continued to the right. The pilot stated that he applied full power and a full aft control stick to abort the landing. The airplane departed the runway to the right, "refused to respond" to the control inputs, and eventually "plowed" into the grass and nosed over. An air traffic controller witnessed the accident from the airport tower, and was interviewed by telephone. She stated the airplane was cleared to land, and she watched as it approached the runway. According to the controller, "It was not a normal landing. It went side to side. It went down on one wheel, then over to the other, then [the airplane] went off the right side of the runway. It went off to the right, and that's where it flipped over." The controller stated that she had watched the pilot perform numerous landings in the past. She said he flies another airplane and "greases" the landings. She went on to say that the landings she witnessed by the pilot in the Pitts got her attention because they were unsteady and inconsistent, and unlike the landings he performed in his other airplane. The pilot/owner held an airline transport pilot certificate with a rating for airplane multi-engine land, and a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single engine land and instrument airplane. His most recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) third-class medical certificate was issued on March 5, 2013. He reported 25,000 total hours of flight experience, of which, 10 hours were in the accident airplane make and model. According to FAA records, the airplane was manufactured in 1982, and its most recent airworthiness certificate was issued to the pilot/owner March 11, 2013. The airplane's most recent annual inspection was completed February 8, 2013, at 1,050 aircraft hours. The wreckage and the accident site were examined by an FAA aviation safety inspector (airworthiness). According to the inspector, the marks on the left tire assembly, the runway, and the left main landing gear were consistent with a left side-load at touchdown, and overstress of the landing gear. Examination of photographs revealed substantial damage to the engine compartment, cockpit, and vertical fin structures. At 0914, the weather conditions reported at PGD included fewclouds at 3,000 feet, a broken ceiling at 10,000 feet, winds from 190 at 4 knots, and 10 miles visibility. The temperature was 31 degrees C, dew point 22 degrees C, and the altimeter setting was 29.97 inches of mercury. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The pilot expressed his concern that the airplane had suffered a structural failure in the area which surrounded the attach point for the right main landing gear, and requested a second inspection of his airplane. This area had been repaired and modified after the pilot experienced a similar event in the accident airplane approximately 1 year previously. Therefore, a detailed examination of the airplane was performed by an airframe and powerplant mechanic under the supervision of the FAA aviation safety inspector. During the previous repair, the original 48-inch-wide main landing gear system was replaced with a new 62-inch-wide system. Welding of structural tubes was required to affect the installation, but inspection of the welds revealed they were intact, with no anomalies noted. All damage to the landing gear system was due to overstress. In a written statement following the previous event, the pilot stated the loss of directional control resulted from the length of his legs, the geometry of his size-13 shoe, the rudder pedals, and the confined space that enclosed them. He attempted to alleviate the issue with a change of footwear, but his choice of footwear only aggravated the rudder control problem. He stated that application of left rudder resulted in the inadvertent application of right brake, and the subsequent loss of directional control.