Narrative:

This was a routine chkout flight in an small aircraft. I was in the left seat with a cpii in the right. After completing the required air maneuvers, we proceeded to the airport to try takeoffs and lndgs. After 2 on runway 11, an aircraft on the ground announced over the CTAF that it was changing to runway 29 due to a wind shift. Winds were approximately 10-15 KTS at 350 degree. We were in a downwind for 11 and crossed over to downwind on 29. After a normal approach the aircraft became low and slow on short final. I added power and leveled out the descent, we landed on the numbers with a nose high attitude to the left of centerline. The attitude combined with the crosswind caused a drift to the left. I had trouble detecting this with nose high attitude. When I tried to correct with right rudder my foot had momentarily stuck between the right pedal and the wall. I told the instructor to take over. We went off the left side of the runway onto the grass and used soft field techniques to get airborne and went around and landed. After inspecting the aircraft we decided it was airworthy finding only a 1 inch dent in the leading edge of the right side of the stabilator. We could not be sure that we had caused the dent. We proceeded to fly the aircraft back to the home base (jeffco, about 20 mi away). This went without incident. We again inspected the aircraft and finding no further damage secured it. We squawked the dent. The next day when we reported the incident, we were told that more extensive damage had been reported. The underneath of the stabilator was dented and the underneath of the fuselage near the rear third was dented. The aircraft had been flown twice without incident since our mishap. We obviously had done an unacceptable job of inspecting the aircraft. This was partly due to concentrating on the obvious dent and things such as the propeller and gear. We were also extremely happy that a more serious incident had not occurred and had a fair amount of adrenalin flowing. Our judgement in not downing the aircraft for further inspection was poor. We may have violated FARS by flying an aircraft that was potentially unairworthy, although to our knowledge at the time, we thought that we had no reason to consider the aircraft unairworthy. This appears to be a decision left to the PIC. We should not let the euphoria of escaping a potentially serious incident (veering off the runway) without obvious damage cloud our judgement. It also points to the need for thorough preflight inspections. The damage underneath, even though minor, was overlooked by us and 2 subsequent inspections. Also immediately reporting of the incident so that it could be inspected by others instead of waiting until the next day (especially rental aircraft) was poor judgement. Many lessons learned in this one!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: STUDENT PLT IN CHKOUT ON SMA ACFT MADE HARD LNDG. POSTFLT INSPECTIONS SHOWED MINOR DAMAGE BUT LATER INSPECTIONS REVEALED MORE SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE.

Narrative: THIS WAS A ROUTINE CHKOUT FLT IN AN SMA. I WAS IN THE L SEAT WITH A CPII IN THE R. AFTER COMPLETING THE REQUIRED AIR MANEUVERS, WE PROCEEDED TO THE ARPT TO TRY TKOFS AND LNDGS. AFTER 2 ON RWY 11, AN ACFT ON THE GND ANNOUNCED OVER THE CTAF THAT IT WAS CHANGING TO RWY 29 DUE TO A WIND SHIFT. WINDS WERE APPROX 10-15 KTS AT 350 DEG. WE WERE IN A DOWNWIND FOR 11 AND CROSSED OVER TO DOWNWIND ON 29. AFTER A NORMAL APCH THE ACFT BECAME LOW AND SLOW ON SHORT FINAL. I ADDED PWR AND LEVELED OUT THE DSCNT, WE LANDED ON THE NUMBERS WITH A NOSE HIGH ATTITUDE TO THE L OF CENTERLINE. THE ATTITUDE COMBINED WITH THE XWIND CAUSED A DRIFT TO THE L. I HAD TROUBLE DETECTING THIS WITH NOSE HIGH ATTITUDE. WHEN I TRIED TO CORRECT WITH R RUDDER MY FOOT HAD MOMENTARILY STUCK BTWN THE R PEDAL AND THE WALL. I TOLD THE INSTRUCTOR TO TAKE OVER. WE WENT OFF THE L SIDE OF THE RWY ONTO THE GRASS AND USED SOFT FIELD TECHNIQUES TO GET AIRBORNE AND WENT AROUND AND LANDED. AFTER INSPECTING THE ACFT WE DECIDED IT WAS AIRWORTHY FINDING ONLY A 1 INCH DENT IN THE LEADING EDGE OF THE R SIDE OF THE STABILATOR. WE COULD NOT BE SURE THAT WE HAD CAUSED THE DENT. WE PROCEEDED TO FLY THE ACFT BACK TO THE HOME BASE (JEFFCO, ABOUT 20 MI AWAY). THIS WENT WITHOUT INCIDENT. WE AGAIN INSPECTED THE ACFT AND FINDING NO FURTHER DAMAGE SECURED IT. WE SQUAWKED THE DENT. THE NEXT DAY WHEN WE RPTED THE INCIDENT, WE WERE TOLD THAT MORE EXTENSIVE DAMAGE HAD BEEN RPTED. THE UNDERNEATH OF THE STABILATOR WAS DENTED AND THE UNDERNEATH OF THE FUSELAGE NEAR THE REAR THIRD WAS DENTED. THE ACFT HAD BEEN FLOWN TWICE WITHOUT INCIDENT SINCE OUR MISHAP. WE OBVIOUSLY HAD DONE AN UNACCEPTABLE JOB OF INSPECTING THE ACFT. THIS WAS PARTLY DUE TO CONCENTRATING ON THE OBVIOUS DENT AND THINGS SUCH AS THE PROP AND GEAR. WE WERE ALSO EXTREMELY HAPPY THAT A MORE SERIOUS INCIDENT HAD NOT OCCURRED AND HAD A FAIR AMOUNT OF ADRENALIN FLOWING. OUR JUDGEMENT IN NOT DOWNING THE ACFT FOR FURTHER INSPECTION WAS POOR. WE MAY HAVE VIOLATED FARS BY FLYING AN ACFT THAT WAS POTENTIALLY UNAIRWORTHY, ALTHOUGH TO OUR KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME, WE THOUGHT THAT WE HAD NO REASON TO CONSIDER THE ACFT UNAIRWORTHY. THIS APPEARS TO BE A DECISION LEFT TO THE PIC. WE SHOULD NOT LET THE EUPHORIA OF ESCAPING A POTENTIALLY SERIOUS INCIDENT (VEERING OFF THE RWY) WITHOUT OBVIOUS DAMAGE CLOUD OUR JUDGEMENT. IT ALSO POINTS TO THE NEED FOR THOROUGH PREFLT INSPECTIONS. THE DAMAGE UNDERNEATH, EVEN THOUGH MINOR, WAS OVERLOOKED BY US AND 2 SUBSEQUENT INSPECTIONS. ALSO IMMEDIATELY RPTING OF THE INCIDENT SO THAT IT COULD BE INSPECTED BY OTHERS INSTEAD OF WAITING UNTIL THE NEXT DAY (ESPECIALLY RENTAL ACFT) WAS POOR JUDGEMENT. MANY LESSONS LEARNED IN THIS ONE!

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.