WPR12LA252

The pilot/owner of the experimental amateur-built aerobatic airplane was participating in an aerobatics practice and coaching event. On the morning of the event, he departed the airport, conducted aerobatics practice, and returned for a landing. During touchdown, the airplane bounced. Witness accounts of the severity of the touchdown and bounce varied. The airplane subsequently struck a runway sign off the left side of the runway during the rollout, and incurred substantial damage. After the accident, the pilot reported that the brakes had failed. In a followup statement, he reported no mechanical failures or malfunctions with the aircraft and added that a possible explanation of brake failure might have been as a result of the bounced landing. The accident was not reported to any aviation authorities until nearly a month after it occurred. Due to the late report, the airplane could not be examined to determine the integrity or functionality of the brake system or other possible reasons for the loss of control after landing.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT On May 12, 2012, about 1030 Pacific daylight time, an experimental amateur-built Staudacher Hydroplanes S300X, N336JS, was substantially damaged when it struck a runway sign after landing at Ephrata Municipal Airport (EPH), Ephrata, Washington. The pilot/owner was not injured. The personal flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) flight plan was filed for the flight. According to the pilot, he was participating in an aerobatics practice and coaching event at EPH. He departed about 1000, conducted aerobatics practice, and returned for a landing on runway 3. He conducted a 3-point landing, but the airplane bounced. The airplane touched down again, and during the subsequent rollout, the pilot determined that the airplane brakes were inoperative. The airplane veered off the right side of the runway, and struck the 1,000-foot distance remaining sign. The airplane was secured and moved to a hangar by event and airport personnel. The pilot did not notify either the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) or the FAA of the event until about 1 month after the accident, when he was prompted to do so by his insurance company. PERSONNEL INFORMATION Information provided by the pilot indicated that he had a total flight experience of about 390 hours, including about 14 hours in the accident airplane make and model. The pilot held a flight instructor certificate with an airplane single-engine land rating. His most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued in February 2009, and his most recent FAA-required flight review was completed in June 2012. AIRCRAFT INFORMATION FAA information indicated that the airplane was manufactured in 2009, and was equipped with a Lycoming GO-435 series engine. The pilot was not the builder; he purchased the airplane about 2 months prior to the accident. METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION The EPH 0953 automated weather observation included winds from 340 degrees at 3 knots, visibility 10 miles, clear skies, temperature 16 degrees C, dew point -3 degrees C, altimeter setting of 30.30 inches of mercury. AIRPORT INFORMATION The airport was located at an elevation of 1,276 feet above mean sea level, and was equipped with three paved runways. The accident runway, designated 3/21, measured 5,500 feet by 75 feet. Runway 3 was equipped with non-precision markings and a 3-degree PAPI (precision path approach indicator) light system. WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION The propeller and landing gear were both damaged by the collision with the runway sign. The airplane incurred substantial damage to the steel-tube fuselage in the region of the wing-fuselage juncture. Portions of the wood and composite wing also sustained substantial damage. According to one of the coaches at the event, the pilot's landing was hard enough to elicit a verbal exchange between that coach and anothercolleague. In his written statement to the NTSB, the pilot reported that the airplane "settled on the runway with a slight bounce," but then subsequently stated that the bounced landing "could have caused the [brake] failure." The insurance company did not make any determinations regarding the brake system functionality. Because the event was not reported to the NTSB or FAA until a month after the accident, the airplane was not available for examination by representatives of either of those agencies, and no assessment of brake system integrity or functionality could be made.