Narrative:

I was pilot in command of a 2-place tandem seat glider (a modified sgs-2-33 with an experimental category airworthiness certificate). I was flying from the front seat and had an adult non-pilot passenger in the rear seat. The aircraft is club-owned and I am a member of the soaring club. We launched uneventfully by aerotow from runway 33. I released from aerotow at approximately 7000 ft MSL roughly 3 miles upwind from the airfield and attempted; without much success; to find workable lift. I decided to return to the airport and land. My initial plan was to land on runway 33; but another glider was staging for takeoff on that runway. So; I elected to continue a left-hand turn to runway 27. Wind was from the west-northwest and estimated at 20-25 KTS though the actual direction of the wind had been quite variable throughout the day. Runway 27 was my intended site of landing and the tow-plane had also landed there. I turned base to final and began my approach crossing the interstate. As I crossed the highway; I found myself in a substantial downdraft. I was forced to lower the nose of the aircraft to maintain appropriate airspeed and it became apparent that I would be unable to make the runway. Additionally; continuing a straight approach would have resulted in striking an elevated berm supporting a north-south oriented railroad track. I attempted a right turn to the north in order to land in the grass parallel to the railroad track berm between the railroad track and the interstate. The sink was continuing and I was unable to turn very sharply for fear of striking the right wingtip on the ground and potentially cart wheeling the aircraft on landing. I ended up touching down on the lower portion of the berm which was composed of soft; wet mud. The landing was normal and fully controlled. The main gear wheel sunk into the mud on touchdown and prevented a normal roll out. The glider came to a rest within a few feet of the point of initial contact with the ground. The fuselage and right wing were both damaged in the incident. No injuries occurred to either occupant of the aircraft nor to persons or property on the ground in the landing. The aircraft never touched the railroad track though; once at rest; the left wingtip was potentially impinging on the airspace which would be used by a passing train. As the landing occurred next to the interstate; many passersby stopped and emergency services were contacted by an unknown; uninvolved party. Troopers from the state patrol and sheriff's deputies arrived on scene and were advised this was a non-injury off-airport landing and fire and EMS were not required. While both fire and EMS were canceled by law enforcement; a single volunteer fire truck continued to the scene. The two firefighters looked at the aircraft and then left. A deputy contacted the NTSB by telephone and he advised the soaring club members present that NTSB authorized movement of the aircraft. The railroad company was also contacted and all train traffic was temporarily halted until the aircraft was moved away from the track. The ship was disassembled and trailered back to a hangar at the airport for repair. Chain of events: the chain of events leading to the off-field landing includes: 1) the decision to fly in high winds of variable direction. 2) choosing an alternate runway with insufficient altitude to compensate for sink on final. 3) turning the base leg of the pattern too far downwind for the conditions making the final leg too long; and; 4) selection of a landing spot with ground which was too soft to support the weight of the aircraft. Corrective action employed involved maintaining appropriate airspeed; choosing a landing spot off-airport and landing the glider. Human factors: the human factors involved in the off-field landing included: 1) the decision to fly with high winds of variable direction. 2) the decision to change from the original runway of intended landing to an alternate runway. 3) pilot distraction due to glider staged for takeoff on the runway of intended landing. 4) pilot distraction due to the tow plane still on the alternate runway selected. 5) decision to turn base leg too far downwind from selected runway given high surface winds. 6) insufficient altitude to compensate for unanticipated severely sinking air on short final and; 7) decision to land on mud too soft to support aircraft weight.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A glider pilot landed off airport because conflicting runway traffic forced him to change runways and when not enough altitude on his landing final airspace was available he hit a windshear which forced the aircraft to the ground near a railroad track.

Narrative: I was pilot in command of a 2-place tandem seat glider (a modified SGS-2-33 with an experimental category airworthiness certificate). I was flying from the front seat and had an adult non-pilot passenger in the rear seat. The aircraft is club-owned and I am a member of the soaring club. We launched uneventfully by aerotow from Runway 33. I released from aerotow at approximately 7000 FT MSL roughly 3 miles upwind from the airfield and attempted; without much success; to find workable lift. I decided to return to the airport and land. My initial plan was to land on Runway 33; but another glider was staging for takeoff on that runway. So; I elected to continue a left-hand turn to Runway 27. Wind was from the west-northwest and estimated at 20-25 KTS though the actual direction of the wind had been quite variable throughout the day. Runway 27 was my intended site of landing and the tow-plane had also landed there. I turned base to final and began my approach crossing the interstate. As I crossed the highway; I found myself in a substantial downdraft. I was forced to lower the nose of the aircraft to maintain appropriate airspeed and it became apparent that I would be unable to make the runway. Additionally; continuing a straight approach would have resulted in striking an elevated berm supporting a north-south oriented railroad track. I attempted a right turn to the north in order to land in the grass parallel to the railroad track berm between the railroad track and the interstate. The sink was continuing and I was unable to turn very sharply for fear of striking the right wingtip on the ground and potentially cart wheeling the aircraft on landing. I ended up touching down on the lower portion of the berm which was composed of soft; wet mud. The landing was normal and fully controlled. The main gear wheel sunk into the mud on touchdown and prevented a normal roll out. The glider came to a rest within a few feet of the point of initial contact with the ground. The fuselage and right wing were both damaged in the incident. No injuries occurred to either occupant of the aircraft nor to persons or property on the ground in the landing. The aircraft never touched the railroad track though; once at rest; the left wingtip was potentially impinging on the airspace which would be used by a passing train. As the landing occurred next to the interstate; many passersby stopped and emergency services were contacted by an unknown; uninvolved party. Troopers from the State Patrol and sheriff's deputies arrived on scene and were advised this was a non-injury off-airport landing and fire and EMS were not required. While both fire and EMS were canceled by law enforcement; a single volunteer fire truck continued to the scene. The two firefighters looked at the aircraft and then left. A deputy contacted the NTSB by telephone and he advised the soaring club members present that NTSB authorized movement of the aircraft. The railroad company was also contacted and all train traffic was temporarily halted until the aircraft was moved away from the track. The ship was disassembled and trailered back to a hangar at the airport for repair. Chain of events: The chain of events leading to the off-field landing includes: 1) the decision to fly in high winds of variable direction. 2) Choosing an alternate runway with insufficient altitude to compensate for sink on final. 3) Turning the base leg of the pattern too far downwind for the conditions making the final leg too long; and; 4) selection of a landing spot with ground which was too soft to support the weight of the aircraft. Corrective action employed involved maintaining appropriate airspeed; choosing a landing spot off-airport and landing the glider. Human Factors: The human factors involved in the off-field landing included: 1) The decision to fly with high winds of variable direction. 2) The decision to change from the original runway of intended landing to an alternate runway. 3) Pilot distraction due to glider staged for takeoff on the runway of intended landing. 4) Pilot distraction due to the tow plane still on the alternate runway selected. 5) Decision to turn base leg too far downwind from selected runway given high surface winds. 6) Insufficient altitude to compensate for unanticipated severely sinking air on short final and; 7) decision to land on mud too soft to support aircraft weight.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.