Narrative:

The intention of the flight was to do practice instrument approachs in VMC. On the second approach, the landing gear of the aircraft would not extend fully. The auxiliary procedure to extend the gear (hand pump) was ineffective. Decided to land at hagerstown, because of maintenance facs on the field. Other procedures were attempted in order to extend the gear. These included a high 'G' pullup, and use of the aircraft towbar to hook a gear leg and pull it into position. They all failed. The nose gear did lock in position however. I elected to land in the grass (which is not an officially designated landing area) to minimize sparks and damage to the aircraft. A successful gear up landing was made (no injuries). Mechanical inspection revealed no damage to the aircraft and a broken gear actuator. This event does not meet the legal definition of an accident. The problem relates to inherent weakness of the design of the landing gear system on this type aircraft. The controllers and pilot handled the situation as well as possible. As PIC, I exercised my authority and landed in an unauthorized landing area. I believe that this decision contributed to the absences of injuries and to the absence of damage to the aircraft (the paint was not even scratched in spite of main gear collapse). Pilots should be reminded of their ultimate authority/authorized to deviate from procedure to the extent required to meet an emergency.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA MADE A LNDG WITH NOSE GEAR ONLY BECAUSE THE MAIN GEAR ACTUATOR FAILED.

Narrative: THE INTENTION OF THE FLT WAS TO DO PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APCHS IN VMC. ON THE SEC APCH, THE LNDG GEAR OF THE ACFT WOULD NOT EXTEND FULLY. THE AUX PROC TO EXTEND THE GEAR (HAND PUMP) WAS INEFFECTIVE. DECIDED TO LAND AT HAGERSTOWN, BECAUSE OF MAINT FACS ON THE FIELD. OTHER PROCS WERE ATTEMPTED IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE GEAR. THESE INCLUDED A HIGH 'G' PULLUP, AND USE OF THE ACFT TOWBAR TO HOOK A GEAR LEG AND PULL IT INTO POS. THEY ALL FAILED. THE NOSE GEAR DID LOCK IN POS HOWEVER. I ELECTED TO LAND IN THE GRASS (WHICH IS NOT AN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED LNDG AREA) TO MINIMIZE SPARKS AND DAMAGE TO THE ACFT. A SUCCESSFUL GEAR UP LNDG WAS MADE (NO INJURIES). MECHANICAL INSPECTION REVEALED NO DAMAGE TO THE ACFT AND A BROKEN GEAR ACTUATOR. THIS EVENT DOES NOT MEET THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF AN ACCIDENT. THE PROB RELATES TO INHERENT WEAKNESS OF THE DESIGN OF THE LNDG GEAR SYS ON THIS TYPE ACFT. THE CTLRS AND PLT HANDLED THE SITUATION AS WELL AS POSSIBLE. AS PIC, I EXERCISED MY AUTHORITY AND LANDED IN AN UNAUTH LNDG AREA. I BELIEVE THAT THIS DECISION CONTRIBUTED TO THE ABSENCES OF INJURIES AND TO THE ABSENCE OF DAMAGE TO THE ACFT (THE PAINT WAS NOT EVEN SCRATCHED IN SPITE OF MAIN GEAR COLLAPSE). PLTS SHOULD BE REMINDED OF THEIR ULTIMATE AUTH TO DEVIATE FROM PROC TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED TO MEET AN EMER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.