Archer landed long

flykelley

flykelley

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
241
Location
Waterford MI
Display Name
Display name:
flykelley
Hi Guys
Had one of our club members land long and go off the end of the runway this weekend. ; ( Damage is a real bad bend in the stabilator, slight wrinkling of the right wing, slight damage to the leading edge of the right wing and the big a prop strike in the dirt when he went off the runway and tries to do a 180 because of a steep embankment about 200 ft past the end of the runway. He called me and wanted to fly the plane back sent me pictures of just the stabilator but I grounded the plane. I flew up there with our A&P yesterday only to find the rest of the damage. No one was hurt thank god, no damage to any airport property other than a couple of bush's. The big debate is do we have to report this damage? We read 830.2 in the FAR/Aim:

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.

Still not clear if we need to report this. Any thoughts other than what we should do to this guy? We have 14 really ****ed off members right now, not because he had a accident but how in the hell do you miss a prop strike like this?

Mike
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1183.JPG
    IMG_1183.JPG
    1.7 MB · Views: 287
  • IMG_1166.JPG
    IMG_1166.JPG
    485.7 KB · Views: 260
Seems to me it meets defn.

Re: the member .... Follow the bylaws. If the bylaws do not address such matters, you should consider changing the bylaws - for the next event.


IMHO, the PIC needs educ re the airworthiness regs, stabilized approaches, balked landings, ADM and (higher) density altitude ops.

What is the accident airport and runway?
 
Last edited:
I would report it. It says right in your definition "...dented skin...ground damage to rotor or propeller blades..."
 
rainsux said:
Seems to me it meets defn.

Re: the member .... Follow the bylaws. If the bylaws do not address such matters, you should consider changing the bylaws - for the next event.


IMHO, the PIC needs educ re the airworthiness regs, stabilized approaches, balked landings, ADM and (higher) density altitude ops.

What is the accident airport and runway?
Click to expand...
The accident happen at Y04 Sugarloaf up near KTVC. The bylaws are pretty clear execpt for the part where as of this point we want to make him go see a CFI for some more training. Pilot has about 10 hours in the last 60 days, has landed at that airport in the last 30 days, runway 3500 ft by 50 ft plenty of runway for a Archer with only two people on board. As far as the FAA thats a whole another ball game on what they will want him to do. Right now we are looking at a new prop, new stabilator, engine tear down and a used wing. Not sure at what point the insurance company will say its a total loss. No A&P on that field or even a building so the plane will have to be trucked out of there, we want it to come back to KPTK to get repaired but we have to talk to insurance company about that. Lots of questions at this point.

Mike
 
Mike, talk to the insurance company before you do anything with the plane.
 
rainsux said:
I believe that this accident requires reporting to both the FAA and NTSB.
Click to expand...
Thats what I read into the regs, looks like we have a pilot that is going to be spending some time talking to the FAA.:nono:
The good news is nobody was hurt, the bad news is as a Board member I have a lot of work ahead of me.

Mike
 
Here's a tip:

If you even contemplating not reporting an incident to the NTSB then don't post it and pics with dates and airports here or anywhere on the interwebernet.
 
Captain said:
Here's a tip:

If you even contemplating not reporting an incident to the NTSB then don't post it and pics with dates and airports here or anywhere on the interwebernet.
Click to expand...

I'm sure few people will appreciate your sarcasm, (which I do by the way. Good one!) this is a good point. I'm all for asking advice, but if I'm not sure about how to proceed with something so sensitive, perhaps sticking to hypotheticals is best. On the other hand, perhaps the OP was really looking for confirmation of what his gut was probably telling him to do. Either way, hope everything turns out ok and the club is back in the air soon!
 
rainsux said:
IMHO, the PIC needs educ re the airworthiness regs, stabilized approaches, balked landings, ADM and (higher) density altitude ops.
Click to expand...

How do you know he wasn't "stabilized"? Sorry, I get so tired of hearing this term parroted as if being slightly "unstabilized" (whatever that means) is some kiss of death. Most pilots I see fly fairly "stabilized"...but about 10KT too fast, too high, drag it in, never slip to lose altitude, and float for about 1000' before touching down. It's not the "stabilization" that's the problem.
 
That wing seals the deal; it is by any measure "major" damage.

How can you overrun 3,500' in an Archer?
 
> ... but 10KT too fast, too high, drag it in, never slip to lose altitude, and
> float for about 1000' before touching down ...

For me, any or all of those, qualifies as "unstabilized." Seems you disagree;
and that's okay with me.

Unless there is a proven mechanical (throttle?) problem; I'm betting our hero
gets a 709 interview & ride.
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
Here's a tip:

If you even contemplating not reporting an incident to the NTSB then don't post it and pics with dates and airports here or anywhere on the interwebernet.
Click to expand...

When the OP asked the question whether or not to report it, my first thought was "you just did"

As far as keeping this pilot as a club member, the incident itself shows bad judgement, the decision to try and fly it home shows even worse judgement.
 
Dave Theisen said:
When the OP asked the question whether or not to report it, my first thought was "you just did"

As far as keeping this pilot as a club member, the incident itself shows bad judgement, the decision to try and fly it home shows even worse judgement.
Click to expand...

My thought exactly. Honestly, I wouldn't post personally identifiable details on the incident until the FAA/NTSB, and the insurance company are all squared away.

Sounds like that aircraft is going home, to a repair shop or a scrapyard in a truck.
 
rainsux said:
> ... but 10KT too fast, too high, drag it in, never slip to lose altitude, and
> float for about 1000' before touching down ...

For me, any or all of those, qualifies as "unstabilized." Seems you disagree;
and that's okay with me.
Click to expand...
But you can be flying a constant descent at a constant speed and be fully 'stabilized' and still have your head up your arse when it comes time to land the thing.

That is the problem that Roscoe is talking about....too many folks are all liquored up on the term alone and there are too many different understandings that it has gotten simply ridiculous. A buzz word and a term that didn't even exist before the military and airlines started flying jets. Now, while alot of folks understand the general concept, there are still plenty of pilots and CFIs as well that misuse that concept to fly a J3 like it was a 747.
 
> the decision to try and fly it home shows even worse judgement.

There are LOTS of them out there.

I was attending the Saturday morning chapter meeting of the PTK Flyers & Liars Club
~1 year ago. One of the regulars was telling of a similar incident the day before. I
was astonished at the number of folks that said, "duct tape it, and fly home." Most
of these guys are engineers of one sort of another ... and I was astonished at the
range of opinions. I've stopped hanging out with that group.

What I learned from a buddy's experience: Whenever I'm working hard
or the teensiest bit uncomfortable/uncertain; I ask myself, "Is this going
to look stupid on an incident/accident report?"
 
Last edited:
All I have to add is that I would really question the pilot's judgement and fitness to fly, as you said he wanted to fly it back, with obvious prop and control surface damage. That alone, regardless of the runway overrun, says the guy is in serious need of remedial training. Hopefully your club has the means to address this, even if the FSDO doesn't take any action. I certainly wouldn't blame the other members for being pi$$ed off, especially if that's the club's only airplane.
 
There was similar unfortunate proof that most GA airplanes do not make particularly good off-road vehicles back in my old flight club days (with one of our Archers)... it was never classified as an "accident" and never did show up on the NTSB accident/incident database. It sat for awhile until the insurance and other details were worked out and was eventaully trucked "home" and repaired. It was flying again, IIRC about 6 months after the accident. The pilot involved went through a 709 ride and afterwards was retained as a member of the club.
 
SCCutler said:
How can you overrun 3,500' in an Archer?
Click to expand...

Oh, look, I'm coming in a little hot...
... let me drop the nose a bit...
... oh, wait, no that doesn't work...
... oops, I overshot the numbers a little bit...
... plenty of room, I don't need a go around...
... plane is slowing down, still plenty of room, just land in the middle...
... oops, I'm porpoising a bit, don't wanna collapse the nose gear...
... OK, it's settling down, I'll just land two thirds up, it's still enough room...
... slowing, slowing, slowing...
... touchdown!
... where did the runway go?!!!
 
onwards said:
Oh, look, I'm coming in a little hot...
... let me drop the nose a bit...
... oh, wait, no that doesn't work...
... oops, I overshot the numbers a little bit...
... plenty of room, I don't need a go around...
... plane is slowing down, still plenty of room, just land in the middle...
... oops, I'm porpoising a bit, don't wanna collapse the nose gear...
... OK, it's settling down, I'll just land two thirds up, it's still enough room...
... slowing, slowing, slowing...
... touchdown!
... where did the runway go?!!!
Click to expand...

Tailwind would help to.
 
I have a grand total of 3.0 hours logged, and that was five years ago, and I would never have even considered asking if I should fly it home. IMO the judgement shown here would tell me that I do not want to be associated with this person in the operation of an aircraft.
 
rainsux said:
For me, any or all of those, qualifies as "unstabilized." Seems you disagree; and that's okay with me.
Click to expand...

Well since modern flight training DOES teach "dragging it in", does NOT teach slips as normal operation, and ALLOWS too much airspeed on final, then you must think nobody does "stabilized approaches" these days. The opposite of all this would be a power-off slipping 180 turn, touching down right on the numbers. If this is your idea of a "stabilized approach", then you're my man! But it's not what's taught, and 99% of pilots do not fly this way. I prefer to, but nobody at the local flight school would call my approaches "stabilized".
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
Well since modern flight training DOES teach "dragging it in", does NOT teach slips as normal operation, and ALLOWS too much airspeed on final, then you must think nobody does "stabilized approaches" these days. The opposite of all this would be a power-off slipping 180 turn, touching down right on the numbers. If this is your idea of a "stabilized approach", then you're my man! But it's not what's taught, and 99% of pilots do not fly this way. I prefer to, but nobody at the local flight school would call my approaches "stabilized".
Click to expand...

I think that it must depend on the flight school whether they teach this "modern" stuff as normal. I finished up training last year and was taught slips as normal, and that's what our DPEs like to see. Only for short field ops was "dragging it in" suggested as an option.
 
some one will be getting a 709 ride - and rightfully so.
 
HerrGruyere said:
I would report it. It says right in your definition "...dented skin...ground damage to rotor or propeller blades..."
Click to expand...

I would definitely report it too, but the part you quoted is actually a list of things that are *not* substantial damage. However, I do not consider a prop strike into the ground as "ground damage" anyway, which would be more like someone bumping into it with a ladder or tug.
 
Hi Guys
We will be reporting this accident to the FAA and the NTSB. The drama will be on going for a while. For sure a 709 ride and of course the club will be making him go to a CFI for more training.

Mike
 
dukeblue219 said:
I would definitely report it too, but the part you quoted is actually a list of things that are *not* substantial damage. However, I do not consider a prop strike into the ground as "ground damage" anyway, which would be more like someone bumping into it with a ladder or tug.
Click to expand...

I read it in reverse! I didn't have my coffee at the time of my posting...
 
dukeblue219 said:
I would definitely report it too, but the part you quoted is actually a list of things that are *not* substantial damage. However, I do not consider a prop strike into the ground as "ground damage" anyway, which would be more like someone bumping into it with a ladder or tug.
Click to expand...
830.2:
Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.

This damage is a crack spar in the stabilator, wrinkled skin and damage to leading edge of wing. The way I read the above this would be substanial damage. Maybe Im not reading this right.

Mike
 
flykelley said:
Hi Guys
We will be reporting this accident to the FAA and the NTSB. The drama will be on going for a while. For sure a 709 ride and of course the club will be making him go to a CFI for more training.

Mike
Click to expand...
Yup. That's how it goes. Make the report promptly, per 830.5.

Sounds like he might benefit from a 709 ride, too. Lots of runway for an Archer. Even if obstructed.
 
flykelley said:
Hi Guys
We will be reporting this accident to the FAA and the NTSB. The drama will be on going for a while. For sure a 709 ride and of course the club will be making him go to a CFI for more training.

Mike
Click to expand...


Hopefully, not in that order. LOL.
 
Dave Theisen said:
When the OP asked the question whether or not to report it, my first thought was "you just did"

As far as keeping this pilot as a club member, the incident itself shows bad judgement, the decision to try and fly it home shows even worse judgement.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

(on both counts)


He was gonna fly it home like that? Really? Not saying he wouldn't have made it, necessarily... but it would have led to even more damage, especially to the prop and engine. Sometimes you have to leave "bad enough alone". :rolleyes:
 
Here's the deal, you have a plane that will need biiiig bucks spent on it before it it airworthy.

The engine and prop alone are going to cost big bux. From a cash standpoint alone it's substantially damaged.
 
Skylane81E said:
Here's the deal, you have a plane that will need biiiig bucks spent on it before it it airworthy.

The engine and prop alone are going to cost big bux. From a cash standpoint alone it's substantially damaged.
Click to expand...
Thats all very true, but from what I have been told today we have to tear the engine down for a inspection but most times there is no internal damage. If thats the case they will repair this plane, if we have to do a whole rebuild then Im sure the whole cost will be pushed to where the insurance company will say its a total loss. We just replaced the prop
that was just a bit north of $4000K. It didn't have 20 hours on a new prop.

Mike
 
flykelley said:
Thats all very true, but from what I have been told today we have to tear the engine down for a inspection but most times there is no internal damage. If thats the case they will repair this plane, if we have to do a whole rebuild then Im sure the whole cost will be pushed to where the insurance company will say its a total loss. We just replaced the prop
that was just a bit north of $4000K. It didn't have 20 hours on a new prop.

Mike
Click to expand...

What a hit that's gonna be in the end. I fly a Warrior and have some time in an Archer and just thinking how easy it is to get it to fall out of the sky. I can't remember being in a position to land long unless it was for a reason.

Good Luck!!
 
It never hurts to call the NTSB and tell them, they will tell you if it's reportable or not.
I've had the NTSB tell one of our pilots that a prop strike with no other damage was not reportable, nose over on a taildragger.

But based on that wing, I would say yes, it is reportable. Local FSDO will want a call too. I'm betting the insurance company may want a copy of the accident report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top