<< >> NASA ASRS Report 590919, August 2003

C182 student and instructor pilot let the aircraft get slow when power was not added, and landed tail first. The aircraft was damaged.

Attributes
ACN	590919
Time
Date	200308
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : prc.airport
State Reference	AZ
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 10
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : prc.tower
Operator	general aviation : instructional
Make Model Name	Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing : roll
Route In Use	approach : traffic pattern
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	other
Function	instruction : trainee
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 20 flight time total : 270 flight time type : 2.7
ASRS Report	590919
Person 2
Affiliation	other
Function	instruction : instructor
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far other anomaly other anomaly
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	none taken : insufficient time
Consequence	other other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Company Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

Problem began on short final. I flew the aircraft down to about 20 ft, reducing power down to idle. As the aircraft began to sink, I raised the nose to abort a vy pitch attitude. The sink rate started to increase, so I added a little more aft pressure on the yoke and touched down main wheels first. The position of the yoke upon touchdown caused the aircraft to strike it's tail and become airborne. The aircraft flew for half a second and landed flat again. Damage was discovered upon postflt tiedown procedures. Student nor instructor believed landing was hard enough to damage anything. Damage found was missing tiedown ring. Contributing factors were very low time in aircraft (less than 5 hours) and transition of pilot from left to right seat (approximately 20 hours ago) for CFI/ii training. I also learned a new landing technique applicable to C172 models. Maybe instructor should not be so complacent when student is transitioning to a new aircraft. Installation of a tailskid could have limited damage. Students (my) view of a landing was different on each landing attempt. Maybe if consistent pictures were demonstrated and if both student and instructor had more time in type, we would have realized our mistakes earlier.

Related reports:

• Instructor and student pilot landed small aircraft twin, gea...
• Small aircraft instructor pilot reported his student landed ...
• Small aircraft aircraft being landed by student pilot drifte...
• A PA44 instructor and student landed at dvt prior to precedi...
• Instructor pilot of small aircraft and student landed while ...

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.37000feet.com

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C182 STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR PLT LET THE ACFT GET SLOW WHEN PWR WAS NOT ADDED, AND LANDED TAIL FIRST. THE ACFT WAS DAMAGED.

Narrative: PROB BEGAN ON SHORT FINAL. I FLEW THE ACFT DOWN TO ABOUT 20 FT, REDUCING PWR DOWN TO IDLE. AS THE ACFT BEGAN TO SINK, I RAISED THE NOSE TO ABORT A VY PITCH ATTITUDE. THE SINK RATE STARTED TO INCREASE, SO I ADDED A LITTLE MORE AFT PRESSURE ON THE YOKE AND TOUCHED DOWN MAIN WHEELS FIRST. THE POS OF THE YOKE UPON TOUCHDOWN CAUSED THE ACFT TO STRIKE IT'S TAIL AND BECOME AIRBORNE. THE ACFT FLEW FOR HALF A SECOND AND LANDED FLAT AGAIN. DAMAGE WAS DISCOVERED UPON POSTFLT TIEDOWN PROCS. STUDENT NOR INSTRUCTOR BELIEVED LNDG WAS HARD ENOUGH TO DAMAGE ANYTHING. DAMAGE FOUND WAS MISSING TIEDOWN RING. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE VERY LOW TIME IN ACFT (LESS THAN 5 HRS) AND TRANSITION OF PLT FROM L TO R SEAT (APPROX 20 HRS AGO) FOR CFI/II TRAINING. I ALSO LEARNED A NEW LNDG TECHNIQUE APPLICABLE TO C172 MODELS. MAYBE INSTRUCTOR SHOULD NOT BE SO COMPLACENT WHEN STUDENT IS TRANSITIONING TO A NEW ACFT. INSTALLATION OF A TAILSKID COULD HAVE LIMITED DAMAGE. STUDENTS (MY) VIEW OF A LNDG WAS DIFFERENT ON EACH LNDG ATTEMPT. MAYBE IF CONSISTENT PICTURES WERE DEMONSTRATED AND IF BOTH STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR HAD MORE TIME IN TYPE, WE WOULD HAVE REALIZED OUR MISTAKES EARLIER.

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.