Back to Main Page
Aircraft:
Aero Commander 500
Where: Concord, CA
Injuries: None
Phase of Flight: Takeoff
An Aero Commander 500 impacted trees during climb out
after takeoff from Petaluma, California. The private pilot and two
passengers were not injured. The left wing of the airplane was
substantially damaged. The owner operated the personal flight under 14
CFR Part 91. The flight departed from Petaluma at 2200, and was
destined for Concord, California, where it landed about 2220.
Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at Oakland, California,
36 miles southeast of Petaluma; however, the pilot reported that
visual conditions prevailed at Petaluma and Concord. No flight plan
was filed.
In his report to the Safety Board, the non-instrument
rated pilot reported that he received a weather briefing and that
visual flight rules (VFR) conditions prevailed at his destination, 31
miles to the southeast. It was a dark, moonless, night but stars were
visible in the sky at the departure airport with haze to the west.
Lights were visible 10 miles to the south. The pilot departed on
runway 29 and made a right, downwind departure. During the departure
turn, he encountered instrument meteorological conditions at about 900
feet. He reported that while in the clouds he had difficulty leveling
the wings and there was 'some altitude fluctuation.' During this time
there was a 'pop' sound and the aircraft became difficult to control.
He broke out on top of the clouds at 2,700 feet and proceeded to
landing at Concord, his original destination. Control of the aircraft
required him to input full right rudder control, 90 percent of
available right aileron control, and to reduce power on the right
engine. Inspection of the left wing revealed damage to the outboard 5
feet of the wing leading edge and embedded tree debris.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the
probable cause(s) of this accident/incident as follows: The pilot's
inadvertent (dark, nighttime) VFR flight into instrument
meteorological conditions and subsequent loss of altitude control. A
factor in the accident was the pilot's inadequate preflight weather
evaluation.
Source:
National Transportation Board
Aircraft:
Aeronca 7AC
Where: Erhard, MN
Injuries: None
Phase of Flight: Descent
An Aeronca 7AC piloted by a private pilot was destroyed
when it impacted terrain 6 miles east of Erhard, Minnesota. A post
crash fire ensued. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the
time of the accident. The personal flight was being operated without a
flight plan. The pilot and passenger on board reported no injuries.
The local flight originated near Pelican Rapids, Minnesota, at 1730.
In his written statement, the pilot said he was in a
left turning descent from approximately 1,000 feet agl to
approximately 700 feet agl when the airplane's left wing dropped. The
pilot said, 'I applied right stick, and simultaneously the airplane
entered a spin. I pushed the stick immediately forward and applied
right rudder - waiting for the aircraft to recover. The aircraft
recovered approximately 35 feet from the ground, below a tree line
that was quickly approaching. There was an area of open (unobstructed)
ground to my left and I elected to land there. During the landing one
of the landing gear collapsed and I slid to a stop short of the
trees.' The pilot said a fire occurred in the engine nacelle area. 'My
extinguisher was not adequate to extinguish the fire and eventually
the entire fabric A/C (aircraft) was consumed.'
Also in his written statement, the pilot provided the
following safety recommendation: 'Maintain adequate airspeed at all
times when airborne.'
The National Transportation Safety Board determined the
probable cause(s) of this accident/incident as follows: The pilot not
maintaining adequate airspeed while maneuvering in the turn. Factors
relating to this accident were the low airspeed, the inadvertent
stall, and the low altitude.
Source:
National Transportation Board
Aircraft:
Aeronca CH-7A
Where: Cumberland, MD
Injuries: 1 serious; 1
minor
Phase of flight:
Takeoff
At
1610 eastern standard time, an Aeronca CH-7A was substantially
damaged when it impacted terrain shortly after taking off from
Mexico Farms Airport (1W3), Cumberland, Maryland. The certificated
private pilot/mechanic was seriously injured, and the passenger
received minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions (VMC)
prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the local test flight
conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.
According to the airplane's owner, he had hired the pilot/mechanic
to restore it following 5 to 7 years of storage. This was the
airplane's first flight since being completely disassembled and
rebuilt.
Telephone interviews with both the pilot and the passenger revealed
that neither had any memory of the accident flight; however, the
pilot did state that in the weeks prior to the accident, he had
fueled the airplane with aviation fuel and had performed several
ground runs.
According to witness statements, the airplane took off from runway
09, then made a 180-degree climbing right turn to the west,
attaining an altitude of approximately 400 feet above ground level.
Shortly after passing abeam the threshold of runway 09, the airplane
made a descending left turn, clipping several trees and a
second-floor porch railing before impacting the ground and coming to
rest on its left side, against the back of a residence.
A
witness, who was working outside in her garden, described the engine
sounds as being "loud and slow" prior to hearing the impact.
The
airplane was examined on site by a Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) inspector. All of the wreckage was contained within the
backyard of a single residence, with some evidence of impact with
trees and another house immediately south of the accident site.
Damage to both residences was superficial. The damage path indicated
a steep, left-wing-low decent. The left side of the airplane was
extensively damaged.
The
wreckage was moved to a hangar and further examined. According to
the inspector, rotational damage was observed on the propeller.
The
propeller hub was rotated by hand, and thumb compression was
obtained on all cylinders. Valve train continuity was established to
the rear accessory drive. Examination of the top row of spark plugs
revealed their electrodes were intact and light gray in color. The
right magneto was damaged by impact; the left magneto was rotated by
hand and delivered spark on all towers.
Examination of the fuel tank revealed 1 to 2 gallons of auto fuel.
The fuel bowl-to-carburetor supply line was disconnected at the
carburetor. Fuel flowed freely from the bowl. The carburetor inlet
screen was not contaminated and the bowl was full of fuel. Throttle
linkage continuity was established, although the throttle could not
be operated due to impact damage. The throttle was found in the
'idle' position. The engine was not equipped with a mixture control.
Control cable continuity was established from the flight control
surfaces to the cockpit. The cables exhibited tool-cut damage and "broomstraw"
breakage. None of the terminus-point cable connections showed signs
of pre-impact failure.
The
Aeronca CH-7A was a high-wing airplane with a wooden wing spar
supported by 'V' shaped struts. The bottom of each strut was
attached at a single point to the fuselage, while the top of each
strut was bolted to the underside of the wing spar at two attachment
points, fore and aft.
According to the inspector, the aft strut attachment point was not
connected to the left wing spar at the accident site. The aft
strut/wing attachment hardware was not found in the wreckage of the
airplane or at the accident site. The bolt holes in the wing spar
and on the aft strut revealed no signs of damage or stress from
impact. The bolt holes in the wing spar and on the forward strut
revealed signs of stress and bolt-hole-elongation.
Following the accident, the pilot/mechanic told the investigator
that he remembered installing all four strut/wing attachment bolts
prior to the accident flight.
Weather conditions at Greater Cumberland Regional Airport (CBE),
Cumberland, Maryland, 1 mile north of Mexico Farms, were reported at
1642 as winds at 150 degrees true at 14 knots, gusting to 18 knots,
and clear skies with 10 miles visibility.
Mexico Farms Airport was
an uncontrolled airport with a single 2,100-foot-long by
195-foot-wide turf runway, and a field elevation of 607 feet.
The National
Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this
accident as follows: The pilot/mechanic's failure to ensure the
proper installation of the left wing's aft strut-to-spar attachment
bolt, which resulted in a loss of control and a subsequent impact
with terrain.
Aircraft:
(Smith) Aerostar
Where: Johns Island,
SC
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
Phase of Flight:
Takeoff
A Smith Aerostar
operated by a commercial pilot, collided with the ground following a
loss of power in one engine during initial climb after takeoff from
Charleston Executive Airport, Johns Island, South Carolina. The
personal flight was operated under the provisions of Title 14 CFR
Part 91 with no flight plan filed. Visual meteorological conditions
prevailed. The commercial pilot and the pilot-rated passenger
received fatal injuries, and the airplane sustained substantial
damage from impact and from post-impact fire. The flight departed
Charleston Executive Airport, Johns Island, South Carolina, about
1524.
A witness at a
maintenance facility at Charleston Executive Airport stated the
pilot stopped in and requested maintenance on the airplane. The
witness reported he was too busy to look at the airplane, and he
suggested the pilot call a facility at Charleston International
Airport, Charleston, South Carolina. A witness at a maintenance
facility at Charleston International Airport stated the pilot
telephoned him and told him that, during engine start, one engine
sputtered and abruptly stopped. The witness stated the pilot told
him he wanted to bring the airplane over to have the problem looked
at before returning to Florida, but the airplane did not arrive.
A witness, who was an
airline transport-rated corporate pilot, was standing on the ramp at
Charleston Executive Airport and observed the airplane rolling for
takeoff on runway 27. The witness stated the airplane appeared to
rotate "really late," using approximately 4,000 feet of runway. He
stated he and a fellow corporate pilot commented to each other about
the long takeoff roll, wondering if the airplane was over gross
weight and wondering why the pilot did not abort the takeoff. He
stated he watched airplane climb to about 400 or 500 feet, then he
saw it "enter a left-hand spin ... I counted three decreasing radius
turns in the spin before I saw it disappear behind some trees." The
witness then saw a large, smoky black-orange fireball and ran inside
to telephone the 911 operator. Emergency response personnel located
the airplane on the ground in flames in a wooded area approximately
5,500 feet from the departure end of runway 27.
PERSONNEL
INFORMATION
The pilot held a commercial pilot certificate for airplane
single-engine land, airplane multi-engine land, and instrument
airplane; a flight instructor certificate for airplane single-engine
land and instrument airplane, and an advanced ground instructor
certificate. The pilot held a second-class medical certificate with
the limitation "holder shall wear corrective lenses." The pilot's
logbook was not recovered for examination. The pilot reported 2,007
total civilian flight hours on his application for the airman
medical certificate. A past owner of the airplane stated the pilot
had approximately 150 hours total multi-engine time. The pilot's
total time in make and model was not known; a representative from
the company that insured the airplane reported the pilot experience
requirements in make and model for insurance purposes would have
included 25 hours dual instruction and 10 hours solo.
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
The airplane was manufactured in 1975 and was certificated as a
Smith Aerostar 601P. It was subsequently modified with two Lycoming
TIO-540-U2A 350-horsepower engines and two Hartzell HC-C3YR-2CUF
constant-speed propellers. The maintenance logbooks were not
recovered for examination. Work orders provided by a maintenance
facility revealed an annual inspection was completed at a Hobbs time
of 3,805.9. The Hobbs meter reading at the accident site could not
be determined. A past owner of the airplane reported the engines
were installed by Aerostar Aircraft Corporation. An online sales
advertisement of the airplane by its previous owner described the
airplane as a "Superstar 700 Pressurized Aerostar" and listed the
aircraft time as 3820 hours since new, engine time 625 hours since
new, and propeller time 625 hours since overhaul.
An Aviation
Laboratories report recorded oil analysis results for samples from
each engine. For each engine, the report stated, "Note increase in
iron. Increased iron is typically caused by aircraft inactivity."
The airplane was
topped off with 102.3 gallons 100LL fuel prior to departure.
WRECKAGE AND IMPACT
INFORMATION
Examination of the wreckage revealed the airplane came to rest
upright at the base of trees freshly broken and scraped
approximately 30 to 40 feet above the ground. Charred trees and
smoldering ground vegetation encircled the wreckage. The cockpit,
instrument panel, and cabin were crushed and fire-damaged. The
throttle quadrant was crushed and fire-damaged with the throttle,
propeller, and mixture control levers bent and melted.
Both wings were
crushed and fire-damaged, and the wings and engines remained
attached to the main spar. The outboard section of the left wing was
separated. The left aileron was crushed, fire-damaged, and partially
attached. The left flap was attached. The right aileron was
separated and fire-damaged on the ground adjacent to the trailing
edge of the right wing. The right flap was crushed and fire-damaged
with the middle section attached. The empennage was attached to the
fuselage. The vertical stabilizer was in place with the rudder and
rudder trim tab attached. The horizontal stabilizer was in place,
and the left elevator and trim tab were attached; the right elevator
was crushed and attached at the inboard attachment, and the right
elevator trim tab was attached.
The right propeller
was attached to the flange. Examination revealed two propeller
blades displayed little damage with some chordwise scratches, and
the counterweight and pitch change knob on each were intact. The
third propeller blade was bent aft approximately 90 degrees and was
twisted toward low pitch; the blade displayed chordwise scoring and
areas absent of paint on the camber side, the counterweight was
intact, and the pitch change knob was separated. The cylinder was
separated from the hub and retained its air charge, the pitch change
rod was separated and the mechanism could not be actuated, and the
piston was intact. Examination of the right propeller governor
revealed the unit was damaged and was leaking at the cover / body
seal. Functional testing and disassembly examination of the right
propeller governor revealed no evidence of pre-impact abnormality.
The left propeller
was attached to the flange. Examination revealed two propeller
blades displayed little damage, and the third blade was bent aft
approximately 90 degrees; the counterweight and pitch change knob on
each blade were intact. The cylinder retained its air charge, the
pitch change mechanism could be actuated, and the piston was intact.
Examination of the left propeller governor revealed the unit was
fire-damaged, and damage precluded a functional test of the unit.
Disassembly examination revealed the non-metallic components were
melted or damaged; the pump gears, gear pockets, and bearing
surfaces showed no signs of damage or abnormal wear.
Examination of the
right engine revealed fire damage to the engine and accessories. The
magnetos and the ignition harness were fire-damaged, and the spark
plugs displayed deposits and wear consistent with the "normal"
condition on the Champion AV-27 comparison chart for fine-wire
plugs. Both turbochargers were fire-damaged. The fuel servo was
fire-damaged, the inlet screen was free of debris, the fuel pump was
fire-damaged, the fuel flow manifold was fire-damaged, and the No. 1
fuel injector nozzle was clear with the other injector nozzles
contaminated with debris. Crankshaft continuity was observed to the
accessory drive gears when the crankshaft was turned at the flange,
valve movement was observed, and compression developed on all six
cylinders. The oil suction screen contained a few flakes of
non-metallic debris, and the oil filter was fire-damaged.
Examination of the
left engine revealed fire damage to the left side of the engine and
to the accessories, and the propeller was attached. The magnetos and
the ignition harness were damaged, and the magnetos produced
ignition spark on all towers when rotated. The spark plugs displayed
deposits and wear consistent with the "normal" condition on the
Champion AV-27 comparison chart for fine-wire plugs, except the No.
5 bottom plug was contaminated with a fragment of piston ring
material, the No. 5 top plug had a dark sooty appearance, and the
nose core of the No. 2 bottom plug was fragmented. The left
turbocharger was fire-damaged, rotated when turned, and the inlet
hose was secure, fire-damaged, and collapsed at the elbow. The right
turbocharger was damaged, would not rotate, and partial disassembly
revealed dirt and soil debris inside. The debris was cleared, the
unit rotated, and no abnormalities were observed on the compressor
vanes. The fuel servo flange was fractured, and the inlet screen was
free of debris; flow bench examination of the fuel servo revealed no
abnormalities. The fuel flow manifold diaphragm was heat-damaged.
Flow bench examination of the fuel injector lines and nozzles on a
serviceable fuel flow manifold revealed the lines and nozzles were
free of obstruction. The engine crankshaft could not be rotated. A
hole was observed in the left forward bottom of the crankcase.
Metallic debris was retrieved from the oil suction screen and oil
filter, and oil was present in the oil cooler lines.
Disassembly
examination of the left engine revealed the crankcase showed
internal scrape and gouge damage, with the most pronounced damage in
the areas under the Nos. 6, 5, and 4 cylinders. A counterweight was
found separated in the crankcase. One roller and its two retaining
rings and two washers were in place in the counterweight; the other
roller was absent, its retaining rings were in place, one washer was
fractured and separated, the other washer was cracked. Examination
of the crankshaft revealed one ear of the separated counterweight's
mounting pad was separated from the crankshaft and embedded in the
crankcase. The camshaft showed damage marks and was separated aft of
the second camshaft lobe from the rear; the location of the camshaft
separation was consistent with the plane of rotation of the
separated counterweight assembly. The inside of the No. 5 cylinder
barrel and the No. 5 piston skirt displayed longitudinal scoring.
The rear side of the No. 5 piston from top to bottom was eroded
away, the rings for the corresponding area were eroded away, and
ring material was embedded in the piston skirt.
MEDICAL AND
PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION
An autopsy was performed on the pilot by the Medical University of
South Carolina, Department of Pathology, Charleston, South Carolina,
on April 6, 2004. The report stated the cause of death was "...
blunt force trauma ..." Forensic toxicology was performed on
specimens from the pilot by the FAA Bioaeronautical Sciences
Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The report stated no
ethanol was detected in the vitreous, and no drugs were detected in
the urine.
TESTS AND RESEARCH
Metallurgical examination of the fracture surfaces of the
counterweight washer revealed features consistent with overload.
Core hardness and case hardness measurements of the washer were
found to conform with the manufacturer's engineering specifications.
The case depth measurement of the washer was found to be 0.001 to
0.003 inches more than the maximum limit of 0.016 inches specified
in the engineering drawing.
Metallurgical
examination of the fracture surfaces of the separated ear of the
crankshaft's counterweight mounting pad revealed features consistent
with high-stress, low-cycle fatigue. Crankshaft composition, core
hardness, case hardness, and case depth measurements were found to
conform with the manufacturer's engineering specifications.
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
According to Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular
AC65-12A, Chapter 10, Engine Maintenance and Operation, Basic Engine
Operating Principles, Combustion Process, "... instantaneous and
explosive burning of the fuel/air mixture ... is called detonation.
... [Detonation can] cause a "scrubbing" action on the cylinder and
the piston. This can burn a hole completely through the piston. ...
Severe detonation ... is indicated by ... broken ring lands, or
eroded portions of valves, pistons, or cylinder heads."
An aircraft
registration application on file with the FAA listed "Aero Dreams,
LLC" as the applicant and was signed by the commercial pilot as
"president."
A review of Emergency
Operating Procedures for the Aerostar 601P revealed the following
procedures: "Loss of Engine Before Liftoff: Close throttles and stop
aircraft," and "Loss of Engine After Liftoff: If sufficient landing
area is still ahead, pull throttles back and effect and immediate
landing. Without sufficient landing area ahead, proceed as follows:
... 8. After obstacle clearance, establish best rate of climb speed
..." The procedures further state, "Normal procedures do not require
operation below the single engine minimum control speed, however,
should this condition inadvertently arise and engine failure occur,
power on the operating engine should immediately be reduced and the
nose lowered to attain a speed above ... the single engine minimum
control speed."
The National
Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this
accident as follows: The pilot's failure to maintain airspeed during
emergency descent, which resulted in an inadvertent stall/spin and
uncontrolled descent into trees and terrain. A factor was the loss
of engine power in one engine due to pre-ignition/detonation.
Aircraft:
Avid Amphibian
Where: Fredericksburg, VA
Injuries: 1 minor
Phase of Flight: Takeoff
On June 22, about 1530 Eastern
Daylight Time, a homebuilt Avid Amphibian was substantially damaged
during a forced landing after takeoff from the Shannon Airport (EZF),
Fredericksburg, Virginia. The certificated commercial pilot sustained
minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no
flight plan had been filed for the personal flight conducted under 14
CFR Part 91.
In a telephone interview, the pilot said that about 1 1/2 to 2 weeks
prior to the accident, he removed the airplane's engine, propeller,
alternator, and magnetos to check wiring located beneath the
airplane's instrument panel. After reassembling the components, he
performed a successful engine ground test run-up, and a 30 minute test
flight. During the test flight, the pilot noticed the engine RPM
consistently went beyond the red line limit. After landing he
confirmed that the propeller, which was an IVRO Magnum, ground
adjustable propeller, was set to the same pitch prior to its removal.
On the day of the accident, the pilot adjusted the propeller pitch an
additional 5 degrees to keep the RPM within limits. He then performed
a normal ground run-up at EZF, and departed Runway 24 for a test
flight. The pilot stated that the takeoff was normal and the engine
sounded "smooth." After reaching an altitude of about 300 to 400 feet
(agl), the airplane experienced a sharp reduction in power. The RPM
dropped from 6,600 to 5,700; however, the engine sound remained
constant. The pilot retarded the throttle and then advanced the
throttle forward. The engine RPM increased momentarily then dropped to
about 5,000 RPM. The pilot was unable to maintain altitude and
performed a forced landing to a cornfield. The pilot noted that the
engine continued to run smoothly at the lower RPM, and at no time did
the engine "sputter or cough."
According to the pilot, the airplane had been operated
about 270 hours. The airplane's engine, an Aero GT-1000, had been
operated about 285 hours.
Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation
Administration inspector did not revealed any catastrophic airframe or
engine malfunctions. Additionally, the airplane's engine ran smoothly
during a post accident test run performed by the pilot; however,
examination of the propeller reduction gear box revealed that the
steel cage of the sprague clutch bearing was "cracked and partially
disintegrated."
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the
probable cause(s) of this accident/incident as follows: A failure of
the propeller reduction gear assembly for undetermined reasons, which
resulted in a loss of thrust.
Aircraft:
Boeing A75N1(PT17)
Where: Sutton, WV
Injuries: 2 Minor.
Phase of Flight: Takeoff
At 1915 eastern
daylight time, a Boeing Stearman PT17, N55175, was substantially
damaged when it collided with trees and terrain during take-off from
Braxton County Airport (48I), Sutton, West Virginia. The certificated
airline transport pilot and the passenger were not injured. Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for
the local personal flight conducted.
In a written
statement, the pilot said he was concerned with the field elevation
(1,270 feet msl), aircraft weight, heat, and humidity before the
flight. He elected to depart to the north (runway 01) where the
terrain appeared to be lower than to the south, and the winds appeared
calm. During the takeoff roll, the pilot felt a "slightly slower
acceleration than normal." After an "abnormally" long takeoff roll,
and bouncing twice on the runway, the airplane began to climb in
ground effect.
The pilot said
that he considered aborting the takeoff twice, but was concerned that
there was not enough available runway to land, and felt that he would
be able to out climb the terrain located at the end of the runway.
As the airplane
left ground effect, its climb rate was "barely" 100 feet per minute.
When the pilot realized that he would not clear the terrain, he
lowered the nose in an attempt to gain airspeed. He located an area of
lower terrain, made a shallow right turn, and attempted to fly through
the area. However, the airplane sank into the trees and rolled.
During the
flight, the pilot verified that the throttle was full forward and the
engine instruments indicated full power. He said the engine sounded as
if it was "normally producing full power."
The pilot
reported two causes of the accident; "the aircraft's heavy weight with
3/4 fuel and heavy weight of the crew", and "the pilot's unfamiliarity
with the aircraft's performance in high-density altitude operations."
The pilot also
reported a total of 2,450 flight hours, of which, 12 flight hours were
in make and model.
Runway 01 was a
4,000-foot-long and 60-foot-wide asphalt runway.
A Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Inspector examined the wreckage.
According to the inspector, the left top and bottom wings exhibited
impact damage, and the right top and bottom wings were separated from
the airplane. The propeller and tail control surfaces were also
damaged.
The weather at
Braxton County Airport, at 1851, was reported as winds from 270
degrees at 5 knots, temperature 73 degrees F, dewpoint 63 degrees F,
and barometric pressure setting of 29.92 inches Hg. The visibility was
10 statute miles and clear skies.
THE CAUSE
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows: The pilot's failure to abort the
takeoff in a timely manner. Factors included the high density altitude
conditions, and the pilot's lack of familiarity with the airplane's
high density altitude performance characteristics.
Source:
National Transportation Board
Aircraft:
Boeing 757
Where: Atlanta, GA
Injuries: None
Phase of Flight: Landing
At approximately 0805 eastern
daylight time, a Boeing 757 experienced a tail strike while landing at
Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia. Flight
274 was operating under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 121 while on an
instrument flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at
the time of the flight, and there were no injuries. The flight
departed at 1210 and operated as a scheduled domestic passenger flight
from Jorge Chavez International Airport in Lima, Peru.
According to the flight crew,
there were two pilots, five flight attendants, and 82 revenue
passengers on board flight 274. This leg of the flight was flown by
the First Officer. The First Officer said, "When I made my walk around
in Lima, I noticed a large number of crates that were prepared for
loading onto the aircraft. This seemed unusual, especially in view of
the fact we carried virtually no cargo on the trip from Atlanta. Since
we were flying a B-757, rather than a B-767 which is more normally
flown in our category, the Captain and I discussed the different
flying characteristics of the B-757 and the need to take the B-757's
tendency to pitch down somewhat abruptly following touchdown into
account upon landing."
Upon arriving in Atlanta, the
Captain recalled that the final approach and flare appeared normal.
The Captain also noted, "At some point during the flare, the tail of
the aircraft apparently contacted the runway, although it was not
evident to us in the cockpit." While on the landing flare on runway
27R into Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, the tail of the
airplane collided with the ground.
Examination of the airplane
revealed belly skin damage on the tail section aft of the drain mast.
The aft pressure bulkhead showed buckles between S-29 left and S-29
right stringers. Buckles were also noted in the lower web of the aft
pressure bulkhead.
Data recovered from the Flight
Data Recorder revealed the airplane touchdown at 0805:35 at 110.25
knots and a pitch attitude of 10.37 degrees. Touchdown is based on the
air/ground switch state change. The vertical acceleration spike (1.265
g's) at 0805:36.64 indicates the time of the tail strike. The max
pitch angle (11.25 degrees) was recorded at 0805:37.05. The VREF
airspeed for the airplane is 128 knots.
The National Transportation
Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this
accident/incident as follows: The pilot's improper landing flare that
resulted in the tail section collision with the runway. Both pilots
were given additional flight training and returned to normal duty
.(See'it
happens to the best of us! IFA Editor)
Source: National
Transportation Board
|