ERA15LA314

The commercial pilot reported that, following an agricultural application flight in the tailwheel-equipped airplane, he chose to land toward the northwest on a private landing area. He reported that he made this decision based on power lines on the approach end and that landing in that direction precluded the option of a balked landing; however, photographs taken at the accident scene revealed that no power line crossed the extended runway centerline. The pilot made a three-point landing and applied the brakes; however, he noted no braking action. The pilot then released and reapplied the brakes, and the airplane subsequently nosed over and came to rest inverted. A witness reported that, as the airplane was landing, he saw smoke coming from the tires. Postaccident examination of the brakes revealed no mechanical malfunctions or abnormalities that would have precluded normal operation. A review of recorded wind information from nearby airports indicated that the airplane likely landed with up to a 9-knot tailwind. Although numerous tire skid marks were noted on the paved landing area, it could not be determined which, if any, of those marks were caused by the accident airplane. However, given the witness statement indicating that he saw smoke coming from the tires after landing and the airplane's subsequent nose-over, it is likely that the pilot applied excessive braking action. Therefore, it is likely that the airplane was landing with excessive speed due to the tailwind and that the pilot subsequently applied excessive braking to slow the airplane before reaching the end of the runway, which resulted in the airplane nosing over and coming to rest inverted.

On August 13, 2015, about 1052 eastern daylight time, a Grumman G-164A, N5277, nosed over during landing at a private, unregistered airstrip near Trenton, North Carolina. The commercial pilot was not injured. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, the empennage, and the fuselage. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the local, aerial application flight. The airplane was owned and operated by Eastern Flying Service, Inc. under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 137. According to the pilot, the landing area was oriented in a west-northwest direction and landing in the east-southeast direction was not an option due to powerlines on the approach end and trees and a river on the east side. He further stated that, due to the short length of the landing surface, a balked landing was not an option. As the airplane approached the landing area from the east, after clearing the bordering 100-foot-tall trees, the pilot lowered the nose, and made a three-point landing in the turf portion of the landing area, just prior to the paved surface, as he had done for at least eight previous landings. He applied the brakes and reported that the pedal "pressure felt normal;" however, there was no braking action noted. While applying back pressure to the control stick, he subsequently released and reapplied the brakes and the airplane nosed-over, coming to rest inverted. According to an eyewitness, the airplane had landed and that "no smoke" was emanating from the tires as they had observed on previous landings. The airplane continued forward and then "smoke" was observed coming from the tires, prior to the nose striking the pavement and the airplane nosing over. According to another witness, they heard a "chirp" followed shortly by a "thud" sound. That witness described the "chirp" sound similar to "tires briefly sliding on pavement." However, the witness did not visually observe the accident. According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, the airplane came to rest inverted at the edge of a paved landing area. Numerous tire skid marks were noted on the paved portion of the landing area; however, it could not be conclusively determined which, if any, skid marks were from the accident flight. A divot was also noted in the paved surface, in the vicinity of the airplane, similar in dimensions as the propeller attach nut. One of the FAA inspectors that responded to the accident location examined the airplane's brakes and spun the wheels by hand. Another FAA inspector applied hand pressure to the brake pedals and no abnormalities or malfunctions were noted that would have precluded normal operation of the brake system. The landing area was privately owned at the time of the accident. It consisted of a paved surface about 1,200 feet long and 15 feet wide and a turf area about 485 feet long on the east, or approach end, in relation to the accident flight. The landing area hadtrees located on the east side and a road that ran perpendicular to the runway on the west side, located about 30 feet beyond the paved surface. Photographs taken at the accident location revealed a powerline parallel to the road way; however, the powerline did not extend into the extended centerline of the landing area. A review of surrounding airports, located within 20 miles of, and in various directions from, the accident location, revealed that the wind varied in direction between the northeast and east and the wind velocity varied between 3 and 10 knots. The recorded wind at an airport about 15 miles to the southwest, taken about 3 minutes after the accident, revealed the wind was from 090 degrees and 9 knots. The wind sampling included two hours prior and two hours following the accident.