Narrative:

Was landing at 5v5 to make a touch-and-go, coming in with 20 degrees flaps extended. Made touch-and-go and throttled up, gained 55 KIAS, with flaps still extended (bad decision on my part), lifted off and started climbing. At altitude of 5400 ft MSL the aircraft stopped climbing and started sinking. At this time, we were about to cross highway US491 off the departure end of runway 20. We were sinking, so I made a gentle left turn to line up with and stay over the highway while at same time was going over all controls to try to gain more speed and lift. Knowing the flaps were still in while making that turn towards the end of it, I was bringing the flaps in. Consequently, that caused the sink rate to worsen and right about that time I saw power lines dead ahead. It was too late to avoid the lines, go under, or I sure could not go over because of trying to fight the sink. The plane was on the verge of the wings stalling. The stall warning kept chirping as I kept the plane from diving to the highway. After cutting through the lines, the plane kept sinking for 1/4 or 1/2 mi. If the terrain had not started going downhill from the lines I would have been forced to the highway. There seemed to be something pushing the plane down. I had 65 KIAS still sinking, by the time we cut through the lines the flaps were in. After that 1/4 or 1/2 mi we started achieving a positive rate of climb. I stayed 5800 ft MSL. I headed back to 5v5. Made the pattern for runway 20 and I was a bit nervous on approach and scrapped it. I climbed back to pattern altitude and was not there at all, so I made it a soft field style landing keeping the nose up till it had to come down. Luckily it was there and I taxied back to the parking area. I think I made a grave mistake leaving the flaps at 20 degrees on takeoff. I also believe some sort of draft or sinking air mass may have been pushing us down. My weight and balance was in the envelope, but on the top side of the weight end, causing a very bad combo. As for what could have been done to avoid it, there's a number of things I can think of now that it is done: 1) I could have simply not ever made the flight. 2) I could have gone with 1 less passenger. 3) I could have not been stupid and left the flaps at 20 degrees on takeoff. 4) I could have, instead of fighting the sink, just immediately put the plane down on the highway and regrouped there. 5) I may have lowered the nose more and noticed the lines sooner by the direction of the poles and got down close to the ground, in ground effect, and went under them. 6) or any combination of all of the above. 7) maybe low level flight should be part of the flight training for private pilots. I could have been more aware of dodging obstacles not found at elevation. 8) some of those orange balls on the power lines may have made them more visible, being that close to an airport. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the aircraft was carrying 4 occupants -- the maximum number of occupants allowable. The tanks were roughly 1/2 full, or 20-25 gallons. The elevation of the 5v5 airport is 5270 ft, the temperature was cool, and the runway is 4840 ft long. Analyst perceives the aircraft was operating at or at least very near to its maximum capability for the density altitude. The reporter advised that he lifted off at about 55 KIAS with flaps extended to 20 degrees. The result was apparently that the aircraft had enough thrust to stay aloft but not climb much above ground effect at the reduced speed as long as the flaps were extended. That speed was not enough, however, to allow the flaps to be retracted to allow the airspeed to increase and allow further climb with reduced drag which would result. He appeared to be in the equivalent of a low altitude coffin corner from which the only relief was a descent to allow airspeed to build up. In response to the analyst's inquiry regarding his use of carburetor heat for the landing the reporter noted that he encountered difficulty in closing the carburetor heat during the transition to takeoff confign. The reporter speculates his attention to this difficulty likely caused him to forget to repos the flaps appropriately. It is also possible this difficulty was the result of a malfunction of the carburetor heat itself and, if so and the heat remained 'on,' the power the engine was capable of producing would have been reduced significantly. The reporter advised he made no mention of this operational difficulty to the mechanic. The reporter advised that the encounter with the power lines resulted in damage to the leading edge of the propeller, scratches to the windshield, and damage to the left navigation light reflector on the wingtip. The aircraft was landed at 5v5 and a mechanic ferried to the site from the aircraft's home base. After an inspection and superficial filing repair to the propeller damage, the aircraft was flown back to its home base.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INEXPERIENCED PLT OF C172 NEARLY RUNS OUT OF ALT AND AIRSPD WHILE PERFORMING A TOUCH-AND-GO LNDG AT 5V5.

Narrative: WAS LNDG AT 5V5 TO MAKE A TOUCH-AND-GO, COMING IN WITH 20 DEGS FLAPS EXTENDED. MADE TOUCH-AND-GO AND THROTTLED UP, GAINED 55 KIAS, WITH FLAPS STILL EXTENDED (BAD DECISION ON MY PART), LIFTED OFF AND STARTED CLBING. AT ALT OF 5400 FT MSL THE ACFT STOPPED CLBING AND STARTED SINKING. AT THIS TIME, WE WERE ABOUT TO CROSS HWY US491 OFF THE DEP END OF RWY 20. WE WERE SINKING, SO I MADE A GENTLE L TURN TO LINE UP WITH AND STAY OVER THE HWY WHILE AT SAME TIME WAS GOING OVER ALL CTLS TO TRY TO GAIN MORE SPD AND LIFT. KNOWING THE FLAPS WERE STILL IN WHILE MAKING THAT TURN TOWARDS THE END OF IT, I WAS BRINGING THE FLAPS IN. CONSEQUENTLY, THAT CAUSED THE SINK RATE TO WORSEN AND RIGHT ABOUT THAT TIME I SAW PWR LINES DEAD AHEAD. IT WAS TOO LATE TO AVOID THE LINES, GO UNDER, OR I SURE COULD NOT GO OVER BECAUSE OF TRYING TO FIGHT THE SINK. THE PLANE WAS ON THE VERGE OF THE WINGS STALLING. THE STALL WARNING KEPT CHIRPING AS I KEPT THE PLANE FROM DIVING TO THE HWY. AFTER CUTTING THROUGH THE LINES, THE PLANE KEPT SINKING FOR 1/4 OR 1/2 MI. IF THE TERRAIN HAD NOT STARTED GOING DOWNHILL FROM THE LINES I WOULD HAVE BEEN FORCED TO THE HWY. THERE SEEMED TO BE SOMETHING PUSHING THE PLANE DOWN. I HAD 65 KIAS STILL SINKING, BY THE TIME WE CUT THROUGH THE LINES THE FLAPS WERE IN. AFTER THAT 1/4 OR 1/2 MI WE STARTED ACHIEVING A POSITIVE RATE OF CLB. I STAYED 5800 FT MSL. I HEADED BACK TO 5V5. MADE THE PATTERN FOR RWY 20 AND I WAS A BIT NERVOUS ON APCH AND SCRAPPED IT. I CLBED BACK TO PATTERN ALT AND WAS NOT THERE AT ALL, SO I MADE IT A SOFT FIELD STYLE LNDG KEEPING THE NOSE UP TILL IT HAD TO COME DOWN. LUCKILY IT WAS THERE AND I TAXIED BACK TO THE PARKING AREA. I THINK I MADE A GRAVE MISTAKE LEAVING THE FLAPS AT 20 DEGS ON TKOF. I ALSO BELIEVE SOME SORT OF DRAFT OR SINKING AIR MASS MAY HAVE BEEN PUSHING US DOWN. MY WT AND BAL WAS IN THE ENVELOPE, BUT ON THE TOP SIDE OF THE WT END, CAUSING A VERY BAD COMBO. AS FOR WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO AVOID IT, THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS I CAN THINK OF NOW THAT IT IS DONE: 1) I COULD HAVE SIMPLY NOT EVER MADE THE FLT. 2) I COULD HAVE GONE WITH 1 LESS PAX. 3) I COULD HAVE NOT BEEN STUPID AND LEFT THE FLAPS AT 20 DEGS ON TKOF. 4) I COULD HAVE, INSTEAD OF FIGHTING THE SINK, JUST IMMEDIATELY PUT THE PLANE DOWN ON THE HWY AND REGROUPED THERE. 5) I MAY HAVE LOWERED THE NOSE MORE AND NOTICED THE LINES SOONER BY THE DIRECTION OF THE POLES AND GOT DOWN CLOSE TO THE GND, IN GND EFFECT, AND WENT UNDER THEM. 6) OR ANY COMBINATION OF ALL OF THE ABOVE. 7) MAYBE LOW LEVEL FLT SHOULD BE PART OF THE FLT TRAINING FOR PVT PLTS. I COULD HAVE BEEN MORE AWARE OF DODGING OBSTACLES NOT FOUND AT ELEVATION. 8) SOME OF THOSE ORANGE BALLS ON THE PWR LINES MAY HAVE MADE THEM MORE VISIBLE, BEING THAT CLOSE TO AN ARPT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE ACFT WAS CARRYING 4 OCCUPANTS -- THE MAX NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS ALLOWABLE. THE TANKS WERE ROUGHLY 1/2 FULL, OR 20-25 GALLONS. THE ELEVATION OF THE 5V5 ARPT IS 5270 FT, THE TEMP WAS COOL, AND THE RWY IS 4840 FT LONG. ANALYST PERCEIVES THE ACFT WAS OPERATING AT OR AT LEAST VERY NEAR TO ITS MAX CAPABILITY FOR THE DENSITY ALT. THE RPTR ADVISED THAT HE LIFTED OFF AT ABOUT 55 KIAS WITH FLAPS EXTENDED TO 20 DEGS. THE RESULT WAS APPARENTLY THAT THE ACFT HAD ENOUGH THRUST TO STAY ALOFT BUT NOT CLB MUCH ABOVE GND EFFECT AT THE REDUCED SPD AS LONG AS THE FLAPS WERE EXTENDED. THAT SPD WAS NOT ENOUGH, HOWEVER, TO ALLOW THE FLAPS TO BE RETRACTED TO ALLOW THE AIRSPD TO INCREASE AND ALLOW FURTHER CLB WITH REDUCED DRAG WHICH WOULD RESULT. HE APPEARED TO BE IN THE EQUIVALENT OF A LOW ALT COFFIN CORNER FROM WHICH THE ONLY RELIEF WAS A DSCNT TO ALLOW AIRSPD TO BUILD UP. IN RESPONSE TO THE ANALYST'S INQUIRY REGARDING HIS USE OF CARB HEAT FOR THE LNDG THE RPTR NOTED THAT HE ENCOUNTERED DIFFICULTY IN CLOSING THE CARB HEAT DURING THE TRANSITION TO TKOF CONFIGN. THE RPTR SPECULATES HIS ATTN TO THIS DIFFICULTY LIKELY CAUSED HIM TO FORGET TO REPOS THE FLAPS APPROPRIATELY. IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THIS DIFFICULTY WAS THE RESULT OF A MALFUNCTION OF THE CARB HEAT ITSELF AND, IF SO AND THE HEAT REMAINED 'ON,' THE PWR THE ENG WAS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING WOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED SIGNIFICANTLY. THE RPTR ADVISED HE MADE NO MENTION OF THIS OPERATIONAL DIFFICULTY TO THE MECH. THE RPTR ADVISED THAT THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE PWR LINES RESULTED IN DAMAGE TO THE LEADING EDGE OF THE PROP, SCRATCHES TO THE WINDSHIELD, AND DAMAGE TO THE LEFT NAV LIGHT REFLECTOR ON THE WINGTIP. THE ACFT WAS LANDED AT 5V5 AND A MECH FERRIED TO THE SITE FROM THE ACFT'S HOME BASE. AFTER AN INSPECTION AND SUPERFICIAL FILING REPAIR TO THE PROP DAMAGE, THE ACFT WAS FLOWN BACK TO ITS HOME BASE.

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.