Narrative:

I approached to land having completed the items on the before landing checklist. The wind was approximately 30 KTS from 250-260 degrees with runway 26 being active. I flew a normal descent profile to the runway maintaining 125 KTS and the PAPI visual GS. Near the runway, I rotated in the usual manner, and close to the runway surface, made the usual small power reduction. The aircraft settled to the runway and there was a somewhat firm landing. The landing did not seem unusually firm when compared to other lndgs experienced in this aircraft. I departed the active and when on the taxiway and turning to the southeast, there seemed to be a stuck brake on the left main gear. As power was applied, the aircraft started to pivot to the left. I stopped, set the brakes and shut down the engines. I checked the brakes which did not seem hot and there was no tire streaking on the taxiway. I entered the aircraft and started the engines and taxied back to the hangar. The taxi was normal. At the hangar, the aircraft was chocked and both engines were shut down. Both propellers were spun through 20 blades per the recommended garrett procedure. Neither I nor the copilot noticed anything unusual and we departed the airport. 2 days later, on monday, the aircraft was inspected because someone had witnessed the landing and thought it was a hard landing. Subsequent inspection has revealed damage to the nacelles, and possibly the wings, fuselage and tail. The damage appears to be far greater than I could have expected from the way the landing was experienced in the cockpit. Even though the landing was somewhat firm, it was not a crash landing. There was no indication of a stall and the sas did not activate during landing. The aircraft was light with pilot, copilot and only 1000 pounds of fuel at the time of landing. Perhaps I should have not made the usual power reduction while landing, but there was no indication of gusts or windshear activity. I should have inspected the aircraft more closely before leaving the airport. Even though it did not seem to be a very abnormal landing, any landing other than a completely normal landing should be followed by an external inspection of the aircraft and notification if any damage is found.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN SW4 CREW, ARRIVING AT NTD, WERE RPTED AS ALLEGEDLY HAVING MADE A HARD LNDG, WHICH SPAWNED AN ACFT INSPECTION.

Narrative: I APCHED TO LAND HAVING COMPLETED THE ITEMS ON THE BEFORE LNDG CHKLIST. THE WIND WAS APPROX 30 KTS FROM 250-260 DEGS WITH RWY 26 BEING ACTIVE. I FLEW A NORMAL DSCNT PROFILE TO THE RWY MAINTAINING 125 KTS AND THE PAPI VISUAL GS. NEAR THE RWY, I ROTATED IN THE USUAL MANNER, AND CLOSE TO THE RWY SURFACE, MADE THE USUAL SMALL PWR REDUCTION. THE ACFT SETTLED TO THE RWY AND THERE WAS A SOMEWHAT FIRM LNDG. THE LNDG DID NOT SEEM UNUSUALLY FIRM WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER LNDGS EXPERIENCED IN THIS ACFT. I DEPARTED THE ACTIVE AND WHEN ON THE TXWY AND TURNING TO THE SE, THERE SEEMED TO BE A STUCK BRAKE ON THE L MAIN GEAR. AS PWR WAS APPLIED, THE ACFT STARTED TO PIVOT TO THE L. I STOPPED, SET THE BRAKES AND SHUT DOWN THE ENGS. I CHKED THE BRAKES WHICH DID NOT SEEM HOT AND THERE WAS NO TIRE STREAKING ON THE TXWY. I ENTERED THE ACFT AND STARTED THE ENGS AND TAXIED BACK TO THE HANGAR. THE TAXI WAS NORMAL. AT THE HANGAR, THE ACFT WAS CHOCKED AND BOTH ENGS WERE SHUT DOWN. BOTH PROPS WERE SPUN THROUGH 20 BLADES PER THE RECOMMENDED GARRETT PROC. NEITHER I NOR THE COPLT NOTICED ANYTHING UNUSUAL AND WE DEPARTED THE ARPT. 2 DAYS LATER, ON MONDAY, THE ACFT WAS INSPECTED BECAUSE SOMEONE HAD WITNESSED THE LNDG AND THOUGHT IT WAS A HARD LNDG. SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION HAS REVEALED DAMAGE TO THE NACELLES, AND POSSIBLY THE WINGS, FUSELAGE AND TAIL. THE DAMAGE APPEARS TO BE FAR GREATER THAN I COULD HAVE EXPECTED FROM THE WAY THE LNDG WAS EXPERIENCED IN THE COCKPIT. EVEN THOUGH THE LNDG WAS SOMEWHAT FIRM, IT WAS NOT A CRASH LNDG. THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF A STALL AND THE SAS DID NOT ACTIVATE DURING LNDG. THE ACFT WAS LIGHT WITH PLT, COPLT AND ONLY 1000 LBS OF FUEL AT THE TIME OF LNDG. PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE NOT MADE THE USUAL PWR REDUCTION WHILE LNDG, BUT THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF GUSTS OR WINDSHEAR ACTIVITY. I SHOULD HAVE INSPECTED THE ACFT MORE CLOSELY BEFORE LEAVING THE ARPT. EVEN THOUGH IT DID NOT SEEM TO BE A VERY ABNORMAL LNDG, ANY LNDG OTHER THAN A COMPLETELY NORMAL LNDG SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY AN EXTERNAL INSPECTION OF THE ACFT AND NOTIFICATION IF ANY DAMAGE IS FOUND.

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.