Passenger in experimental biplane report regarding engine quitting and resulting in off airport land...

Narrative:

I am filing this form because the following will probably be considered an incident as per the local FSDO after the pilot spoke with them after the incident. On sep/xa/97 I was flying a passenger on a flight from T82 to peq. The flight was to last 2 hours and 15 mins. We arrived overhead peq at about 2 hours and 4 mins of flight time. As we arrived overhead the destination airport, the airplane's engine quit. We were about 1000 ft AGL and decided to dead stick the airplane onto 1 of the 2 runways on the airfield. As we approached the airfield (before the engine quit) we made several calls to the unicom, but received no answer. Therefore we did not know the active runway, but did have a good idea where the wind was coming from, so we decided to land with a slight crosswind and headwind as opposed to landing with a tailwind. There was a cropduster on our desired runway, but we were committed to that runway due to the winds and our quickly decreasing altitude. The pilot decided to use that runway, but due to the cropduster being on the active runway, he had to fly downwind a bit in order to ensure the airplane had ample runway to land. Being an experimental biplane with a high compression engine, and having a windmilling engine most of the descent, the aircraft had a very large sink rate. Also, in the turn from downwind to final the airplane appeared to hit a 'sink' hole. The plane also lost lift due to the 30 degree angle of bank turn required to return to the runway heading. Once through 135 degrees of turn it was obvious that we were not going to make the runway and the propeller stopped turning. The airplane had been blown significantly in the turn and we did not have enough altitude to complete the turn back to runway heading. The result was an off-field landing almost parallel to one of the runways. The airplane had a very soft landing and the rollout looked promising. As the plane slowed, it hit 2 6-12 inch dirt berms in the field. Those 2 berms collapsed the gear one at a time. The airplane then slowed to a halt at the edge of the intersecting runway. Neither of us on board were injured, but the airplane will need new landing gear and lower and leading edge wing work due to the gear collapse. The spar does not appear to be damaged. Also the (stopped) wooden propeller was nicked as it touched the ground. The airplane had a large increase in drag once the gear collapsed which caused the airplane to nose over, allowing the propeller to strike the edge of the pavement and we slid toward the edge of the intersecting runway. During the whole incident, the ELT never went off due to the soft landing by the pilot and the gear collapsing. The cause of the engine failure is not known yet. He had flight planned the 247.3 NM route via GPS at 10 gph (previous owner says it burns 9 gph) and 110 KTS. That is a total time of 2 hours 15 mins and 22.5 gallons. We did the flight at about 114 KTS (tailwind component) the entire trip and arrived shortly after 2 hours 2 mins when the engine stopped within 1/2 mi from the airport and should have burned only 21.7 gallons. The tank holds 27 gallons and was filled up all the way moments before the flight took off from T82. (It had more like 27.5 gallons.) also, the plane had just flown a flight from efd with a total flight time of 2 hours and it was done at the same altitude. The plane had landed and had plenty of gas prior to refueling at T82. When the prior flight left efd it had 25 gallons. Both flts were at the same altitude, so the fuel burn should not have been that different. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that the aircraft has been trucked back to california so the owner can oversee the repairs. The insurance company has dragged its feet and will not approve any work at this time. Consequently, there is no knowledge of what problem actually occurred. The general speculation is that it might be a carburetor problem or fuel leakage. The lack of fuel made no sense as the previous leg of the trip had been about the same distance and there was adequate fuel remaining.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PAX IN EXPERIMENTAL BIPLANE RPT REGARDING ENG QUITTING AND RESULTING IN OFF ARPT LNDG. WIND BLEW THEM OFF COURSE SO THEY COULD NOT MAKE THE RWY.

Narrative: I AM FILING THIS FORM BECAUSE THE FOLLOWING WILL PROBABLY BE CONSIDERED AN INCIDENT AS PER THE LCL FSDO AFTER THE PLT SPOKE WITH THEM AFTER THE INCIDENT. ON SEP/XA/97 I WAS FLYING A PAX ON A FLT FROM T82 TO PEQ. THE FLT WAS TO LAST 2 HRS AND 15 MINS. WE ARRIVED OVERHEAD PEQ AT ABOUT 2 HRS AND 4 MINS OF FLT TIME. AS WE ARRIVED OVERHEAD THE DEST ARPT, THE AIRPLANE'S ENG QUIT. WE WERE ABOUT 1000 FT AGL AND DECIDED TO DEAD STICK THE AIRPLANE ONTO 1 OF THE 2 RWYS ON THE AIRFIELD. AS WE APCHED THE AIRFIELD (BEFORE THE ENG QUIT) WE MADE SEVERAL CALLS TO THE UNICOM, BUT RECEIVED NO ANSWER. THEREFORE WE DID NOT KNOW THE ACTIVE RWY, BUT DID HAVE A GOOD IDEA WHERE THE WIND WAS COMING FROM, SO WE DECIDED TO LAND WITH A SLIGHT XWIND AND HEADWIND AS OPPOSED TO LNDG WITH A TAILWIND. THERE WAS A CROPDUSTER ON OUR DESIRED RWY, BUT WE WERE COMMITTED TO THAT RWY DUE TO THE WINDS AND OUR QUICKLY DECREASING ALT. THE PLT DECIDED TO USE THAT RWY, BUT DUE TO THE CROPDUSTER BEING ON THE ACTIVE RWY, HE HAD TO FLY DOWNWIND A BIT IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE AIRPLANE HAD AMPLE RWY TO LAND. BEING AN EXPERIMENTAL BIPLANE WITH A HIGH COMPRESSION ENG, AND HAVING A WINDMILLING ENG MOST OF THE DSCNT, THE ACFT HAD A VERY LARGE SINK RATE. ALSO, IN THE TURN FROM DOWNWIND TO FINAL THE AIRPLANE APPEARED TO HIT A 'SINK' HOLE. THE PLANE ALSO LOST LIFT DUE TO THE 30 DEG ANGLE OF BANK TURN REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THE RWY HDG. ONCE THROUGH 135 DEGS OF TURN IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO MAKE THE RWY AND THE PROP STOPPED TURNING. THE AIRPLANE HAD BEEN BLOWN SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE TURN AND WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH ALT TO COMPLETE THE TURN BACK TO RWY HDG. THE RESULT WAS AN OFF-FIELD LNDG ALMOST PARALLEL TO ONE OF THE RWYS. THE AIRPLANE HAD A VERY SOFT LNDG AND THE ROLLOUT LOOKED PROMISING. AS THE PLANE SLOWED, IT HIT 2 6-12 INCH DIRT BERMS IN THE FIELD. THOSE 2 BERMS COLLAPSED THE GEAR ONE AT A TIME. THE AIRPLANE THEN SLOWED TO A HALT AT THE EDGE OF THE INTERSECTING RWY. NEITHER OF US ON BOARD WERE INJURED, BUT THE AIRPLANE WILL NEED NEW LNDG GEAR AND LOWER AND LEADING EDGE WING WORK DUE TO THE GEAR COLLAPSE. THE SPAR DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE DAMAGED. ALSO THE (STOPPED) WOODEN PROP WAS NICKED AS IT TOUCHED THE GND. THE AIRPLANE HAD A LARGE INCREASE IN DRAG ONCE THE GEAR COLLAPSED WHICH CAUSED THE AIRPLANE TO NOSE OVER, ALLOWING THE PROP TO STRIKE THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT AND WE SLID TOWARD THE EDGE OF THE INTERSECTING RWY. DURING THE WHOLE INCIDENT, THE ELT NEVER WENT OFF DUE TO THE SOFT LNDG BY THE PLT AND THE GEAR COLLAPSING. THE CAUSE OF THE ENG FAILURE IS NOT KNOWN YET. HE HAD FLT PLANNED THE 247.3 NM RTE VIA GPS AT 10 GPH (PREVIOUS OWNER SAYS IT BURNS 9 GPH) AND 110 KTS. THAT IS A TOTAL TIME OF 2 HRS 15 MINS AND 22.5 GALLONS. WE DID THE FLT AT ABOUT 114 KTS (TAILWIND COMPONENT) THE ENTIRE TRIP AND ARRIVED SHORTLY AFTER 2 HRS 2 MINS WHEN THE ENG STOPPED WITHIN 1/2 MI FROM THE ARPT AND SHOULD HAVE BURNED ONLY 21.7 GALLONS. THE TANK HOLDS 27 GALLONS AND WAS FILLED UP ALL THE WAY MOMENTS BEFORE THE FLT TOOK OFF FROM T82. (IT HAD MORE LIKE 27.5 GALLONS.) ALSO, THE PLANE HAD JUST FLOWN A FLT FROM EFD WITH A TOTAL FLT TIME OF 2 HRS AND IT WAS DONE AT THE SAME ALT. THE PLANE HAD LANDED AND HAD PLENTY OF GAS PRIOR TO REFUELING AT T82. WHEN THE PRIOR FLT LEFT EFD IT HAD 25 GALLONS. BOTH FLTS WERE AT THE SAME ALT, SO THE FUEL BURN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THAT DIFFERENT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT THE ACFT HAS BEEN TRUCKED BACK TO CALIFORNIA SO THE OWNER CAN OVERSEE THE REPAIRS. THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS DRAGGED ITS FEET AND WILL NOT APPROVE ANY WORK AT THIS TIME. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT PROB ACTUALLY OCCURRED. THE GENERAL SPECULATION IS THAT IT MIGHT BE A CARB PROB OR FUEL LEAKAGE. THE LACK OF FUEL MADE NO SENSE AS THE PREVIOUS LEG OF THE TRIP HAD BEEN ABOUT THE SAME DISTANCE AND THERE WAS ADEQUATE FUEL REMAINING.

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.

Attributes
ACN	380018
Time
Date	199709
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : peq
State Reference	TX
Altitude	msl bound lower : 1000 msl bound upper : 1000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Experimental
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other other
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	observation : passenger
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 60 flight time total : 1000 flight time type : 4
ASRS Report	380018
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : critical other anomaly other
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : unspecified other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : declared emergency none taken : unable other
Consequence	other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Aircraft

Passenger in experimental biplane report regarding engine quitting and resulting in off airport landing. Wind blew them off course so they could not make the runway.