What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Bad landing at KFLG

flion

Well Known Member
Not to steal Todd's thunder; this is several weeks old anyway. I've waited this long while dealing with the FAA and insurance and I still don't want to get into details or speculation; I promise I'll give a better account once all the dust has settled. Anyway: a few weeks ago we flew a formation flight for a friend's memorial - two -6As and a Bonanza. We pilot's discussed the weather, windy and gusty, and decided that we could fly a loose formation safely, so we did (and it went fine). It was too gusty to safely fly a formation landing, so we proceeded independently to the pattern; I was the third. It was pretty bumpy and there was a strong crosswind component, but everything seemed well within capabilities of myself and the aircraft. On flare I caught a trailing gust and the aircraft bounced but still had flying speed (I was carrying excess just for that reason), so I maintained control and let it settle back. On rollout, just as I was about to shut off the boost pump, etc., a gust picked me up and, with no elevator authority, I was a passenger as the RV impacted the runway slightly nose down. It was enough to catch the new-style fork and drag the nose gear under. The engine was at idle so the prop immediately stopped and the plane went up on the nosegear, spinner, left wheel, and left wingtip. Since I had already slowed on rollout, the aircraft did not have enough momentum to pitch over and merely slid a short distance before settling back on the mains. I informed tower that the occupants were Ok and shut off all the systems before exiting the aircraft.

Nose_gear_collapse.jpg


The aircraft was towed to the hangar and I took a couple of days before I went out to survey the damage. The prop was not bad and everything else looked pretty intact, which was a bit deceptive. I discovered that the nose wheel pant had penetrated the cowling, but not so badly it couldn't be repaired. The wheels and axles are fine, though that left wheel pant made the mains look bent and got me to check them carefully. The left wheel pant and it's mounting plates are history but everything else on the mains are fine. Obviously the nose gear is gone, but surprisingly the rear of the pant and the wheel/axle are good; once it curled, the nose gear protected the wheel. Other than the penetration, the cowling is fine. The spinner and left wingtip are lightly scratched but easily repairable.

Once the cowling was off, it was apparent the engine mount had been hurt. The lower right middle spool (I hope that makes sense) had moved back about half an inch and had obviously moved vertically momentarily enough to tear the firewall about an inch and shear the bracket behind it (which saved the bottom skin). After removing the mount, it was clear I'd have to replace the firewall; it turned out the mount was too badly damaged around the nosegear socket to be repaired, so it will be replaced. After removing the firewall, only four of the stiffeners need to be replaced (the two diagonals, bottom, and the middle right) and the brackets had merely sheared their rivets so the bottom skin, stiffeners, and brackets are Ok. The engine has just been torn down and pronounced probably undamaged; I'll know more soon but it looks like the worst has been dodged. Now it's time to put it all back together, and I hope to be flying before the end of summer. It seems a great opportunity to make a couple of changes I've been meaning to tackle and to finally get the aircraft painted, so there's a little silver lining.

I don't want to re-ignite the nosegear discussion; I have the new-style and I don't think it was a primary factory in this incident anyway. As I said before, until I'm done dealing with the aftermath, I don't want to discuss it more anyway; you'll just have to wait patiently for awhile. I promise I'll make an update on it later.

For now, it's not a big deal. The RV will fly again, and soon. No one was hurt and it looks like most of the big-dollar bullets have been dodged. The worst part will be riveting the firewall back on; the poor person doing the bucking will have a miserable job of it.
 
Glad you're OK and the airplane will fly again Patrick. I lived in Flag for a while and did some contract corporate and air ambulance flying while there. The winds there can certainly get sporting at times...that's for sure!

You sure have a great "find the silver lining" attitude about it...all the best in the rebuild, and hope you're back up in the air soon!

Cheers,
Bob
 
I feel your pain!!

Patrick:

I feel your pain having bent the nose gear on my 9A two years ago. Based on the photo, your prop struck the ground. I was at idle when my prop struck but even so, when we removed the crank, it was bent 22 thou. The limit is 18 thou.

Several A & Ps dialed my crank while it was still inside the engine. Some said it was ok, but when we removed it the truth was discovered.

I hope you're luckier than me, but if the insurance company is on the hook for the repairs, you might want to check. Aside from the labor, tearing an engine apart costs approx $1k for bearings and gaskets.
 
Don't worry about stealing my thunder Patrick! I am just sorry that you have to deal with this situation. Glad you weren't hurt. The insurance company will make everything all better! Get her back flying ASAP and you might as well paint her! By the way my wife graduated from NAU.
 
Last edited:
It sounds like you think that no engine damage occurred. I would rethink that based upon what you reported. Engine tear down may be prudent.
 
It sounds like you think that no engine damage occurred. I would rethink that based upon what you reported. Engine tear down may be prudent.

he said the engine was torn down and it sounds like he is waiting for parts to come back from getting checked/ approved for service

Hey Patrick, what are you doing with the prop blades? wall hangers?
 
I missed that. Good news on the engine.

As for the nose gear, can you go to the point of impact and see if there is an obvious sign of the nut catching. When I converted to the new nose gear assembly, I reinforced the area at the bottom and sides of the forward nose gear fairing with several layers of kevlar or similar.

The notion, right or wrong, is that I want to preclude the nut at the bottom of the nose gear from catching on anything and acting as a pole vault. Thus the kevlar "may" act as a skid protected that nut.

Whether it works or would work in a similar event as you had is unknown. As of today, I still cannot imagine how it would make anything worse. Of course that would not reveal itself until something happened..as which point you have your "Ah ha!" moment.
 
Last edited:
Glad no one got hurt, Patrick. I'm based over here at St. John's (SJN) and I am always dealing with amazing wind conditions.. (Had to go around many a time).. Think I have seen you & your bird there..?? Anyway, best of luck on bebuilding.. If you need any help, feel free to ask...
Sheldon
 
I missed that. Good news on the engine.

As for the nose gear, can you go to the point of impact and see if there is an obvious sign of the nut catching. When I converted to the new nose gear assembly, I reinforced the area at the bottom and sides of the forward nose gear fairing with several layers of kevlar or similar.

The notion, right or wrong, is that I want to preclude the nut at the bottom of the nose gear from catching on anything and acting as a pole vault. Thus the kevlar "may" act as a skid protected that nut.

Whether it works or would work in a similar event as you had is unknown. As of today, I still cannot imagine how it would make anything worse. Of course that would not reveal itself until something happened..as which point you have your "Ah ha!" moment.

Whether or not the nut becomes the pivot point depends on the angle of the airplane at impact. In a normal landing with the mains on the ground, it probably can't catch the nut. If the mains are in flight, it probably will.

My nearest most recent serious screw up was in trying to salvage a tail wind landing with too much airspeed the result of a steep final angle. The nose gear touched first and that was the beginning of a mandatory go around. It did not bend or break anything but I could feel the NG strut spring back and forward during the event.

This configuration (-A model) requires a landing on the mains in a nose high attitude keeping the NG off as long as possible. The NG is not designed to be banged on (like a 152 or Cherokee) for any reason. A nose gear prang on at high speed is as critical as the pogo event with a tail dragger. It is very tricky to salvage and a go around is a good idea.

I've been doing some work with establishing just how slow I can safely fly final so as to land nose high on the mains all the time. My beast stalls at 51 KIAS with flaps so I've been using 60 on final with good results. The AOA has been calibrated to that stall speed and is a great help as it does call for slightly higher speed when heavier.

Which brings the discussion to the landing at KFLG. It sounds like it was one of those days when I would have kept the hangar door closed. I've been in situations where it was most difficult to get the airplane down to a reasonable speed for landing before hitting another gust that launched it again and in a few seconds its out of the gust on the verge of a stall, 10 feet in the air. This is not much fun in a light airplane.
 
Last edited:
My normal speed on final is 85 mph. Perhaps high but I can land on the mains and keep the nose off for 10-15 seconds or more. I never have timed it. I just don't wait until it drops on its own.

My worst landings are with crosswinds over 15 knots or so. They just never seem to be as smooth so I am not as adept at landing under those conditions.
 
FLAPS??

Most of my landings are on my short airstrip which usually requires moderate braking immediately after touch down so I have got into the habit of retracting the flaps as soon as the mains are on the ground. This kills lift and firmly plants the mains and takes weight off the nose. Would retracting the flaps in this manner be a good idea when landing in gusty conditions even on long runways as it would take a stronger gust to lift the aircraft during the roll out and if it did lift, it would be less likely to pitch nose down.
Just a thought. :confused:

Fin
9A
 
Last edited:
Since my home strip is 1500', I do short field landings fairly often. My procedure is to always "dump" the flaps at touchdown. With manual flaps, it is immediate.
 
Thanks for all the good wishes. Yes, the engine is fine. I'm the builder and could make that determination myself but I got an A&P to tear it down for me so I wouldn't be tempted to accept the unacceptable. This guy has advised me numerous times during the build and keeps me on the straight and narrow. As for the prop, I will wait and see what the shop says. I've got help up here so the rebuild is not a big deal; mostly it's the wait for a new engine mount. In the meantime, I'll work on the -10. Now, if any of you have small children who are talented rivet buckers... ;)

I see you guys are already speculating about cause but, seriously, until I've finished dealing with the FAA and AIG I don't want to discuss it in a public forum. Afterward, I will give you my narrative and we can armchair fly it to our heart's content.

Lastly, to Todd, hopefully I will become a fellow alumni with your wife next Spring. Go, 'Jacks! :D
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the good wishes. Yes, the engine is fine. I'm the builder and could make that determination myself but I got an A&P to tear it down for me so I wouldn't be tempted to accept the unacceptable. This guy has advised me numerous times during the build and keeps me on the straight and narrow. As for the prop, I will wait and see what the shop says. I've got help up here so the rebuild is not a big deal; mostly it's the wait for a new engine mount. In the meantime, I'll work on the -10. Now, if any of you have small children who are talented rivet buckers... ;)

I see you guys are already speculating about cause but, seriously, until I've finished dealing with the FAA and AIG I don't want to discuss it in a public forum. Afterward, I will give you my narrative and we can armchair fly it to our heart's content.


Lastly, to Todd, hopefully I will become a fellow alumni with your wife next Spring. Go, 'Jacks! :D

That's sound thinking. Luckily for me I was on the ground minding my own business when it done blown up. I was a driver not a pilot at that point. But I have my theory that I will hold off on also. I told it to the NTSB though.
 
Bummer

Patrick,

Sorry to hear about your incident, I wish you a quick repair. Its been a very windy spring around here, particularly in northern AZ.
 
Last edited:
I see you guys are already speculating about cause but, seriously, until I've finished dealing with the FAA and AIG I don't want to discuss it in a public forum.

This is the reason many other threads have had "speculative" posts have been deleted in the past.
 
This is the reason many other threads have had "speculative" posts have been deleted in the past.

It's in our nature to speculate. It is inappropriate when it's fatal, but ALL of us speculate about the causes of aircraft accidents. And by the way, NTSB reports also speculate and are not entirely factual.

We're all just trying to stay 500ft above Murphy at all times.
 
until I've finished dealing with the FAA and AIG

Pat,

Sorry for your mishap, it could have been far worse and I truly have felt your pain. The day will come when you quit reliving it and you quit trying to figure out what you could have done differently. You survived and the plane is repairable. It could happen to any one of us on any given day.

After my accident I found dealing with the FAA and AIG were non events.

The FAA asked a few questions and looked at documents as did the AIG adjuster. Then they walked away and AIG sent me a check.
 
Ok, as promised, I will now talk more about the incident. I just passed my flight re-exam today and the insurance (Global through Falcon, thanks guys) has been great and approved everything.

The incident is as I previously described. I don't think I did anything particularly bad but I should have held the nose wheel off longer. The last gust didn't pick me up very far but that nose gear is not designed to support the entire weight of the aircraft and the impact was enough to roll it right up. I could probably have done a no-flap landing, too, reducing my workload and keeping my speed up as I passed through Flagstaff's notorious tree-top-level wind shear. What it really boils down to is that I was complacent, saved a landing and then blew it on the roll-out. As I said before, I don't blame the nose gear; I've landed plenty of times without problems - just don't expect the design to give you Cessna-like margins.

The engine was torn down by an A&P IA, rather than trusting myself, and had no damage. The prop is being repaired; it will lose about 1/2" each blade. The engine mount was a total loss; all the tubes around the gear mount were bent or cracked. The firewall was ripped and four of the angle pieces needed to be replaced but the perimeter weldments were fine and the center attach points sheared from the floor stiffeners at the rivets, saving the floor, stiffeners, and the attach pieces.

After removing the firewall and bent stiffeners, I took the opportunity to do a little "if I had only known" work. I had placed the ignition boxes side-by-side which made it impossible to work on, either to get a driver on the connectors or on the mounting screws. Turning one box over and dropping it 3 inches solved both problems. I also drained the right tank and plumbed it for the AFP purge return - somehow I had the idea that the purge was supposed to go overboard until Don set me straight. Finally, I installed a Show Planes flap positioning system and wired it to the flap switch.

With all the optional stuff out of the way, I used the old firewall to locate the penetrations on the new one. Being able to cut the holes while the firewall was not part of the airframe made the task immensely easier but stainless is still not my favorite material to work with. However, having all the penetrations done and knowing how the wiring and plumbing must go before the engine mount is on makes a much easier task for hooking everything up again. Me and a friend did the riveting in about four hours (all but the perimeter stuff) with each of us doing a spell under the panel. It wasn't fun but wasn't as hard as I had feared; all the effort to cleanly route stuff made it possible to reach all the rivets on the aft side.

The engine mount was one of the later ones and so the new one was built on the same jig (the builder checked the perimeter attach points on the jig to make sure it matched) and fit back on the firewall with no problem. Drilling the two attach points near the gear mount showed that the fit was exact there, too, and shortly thereafter N156PK was back on three wheels. Next came the engine. I am now reattaching all the systems and I shall then match-drill the firewall perimeter and rivet the cowl attach strips back on.

After that, I have to re-bleed the brakes, do minor fiberglass work (plus a whole new left wheel pant and nose-gear fairing) and reattach the prop. While I am at it, I am checking off the tasks for an annual inspection even though the last was only a few hours ago, tach time. Then I'll do an early one next year to get me cycled into a Spring annual.

In summary, I've learned something about my flying habits. I've also, strangely, had fun doing the rebuild (if you have to do it, you might as well enjoy it). It's nice to have taken care of a few things I've wanted to fix but haven't wanted to stop flying to do. It's also much like the initial build, which I must like because I'm doing another kit. I'd rather not have had the incident but it hasn't been all bad.

As part of the re-build process, I will be adding the intersection fairings (at last!) and trying to get the bird ready to go to paint. It's been said before; paint before you fly or you won't want to stop to get it painted.

Dealing with the FAA was not horrible (other than their frustrating communication habits). I'd get a call, letter, or email from them and respond promptly only to hear nothing for days. At one point I gave them a whole week where I could do the re-exam and at the end of the week had still not heard from them. Other than that, though, they were friendly and easy to deal with (it helps to use a sugar instead of vinegar approach) and the exam was totally uneventful. The examiner's debrief was cordial and helpful - I've still got less than 400 hours under my belt so I am willing to listen to anyone with more experience; my ego will survive as long as I do.

Insurance was even easier; I sent pictures and told them what I intended to do. As I got the firewall off and found the extent of the damage, I gave them a parts list and the quote from Vans as well as from the prop shop and the A&P. The adjuster kept saying he'd like to drop in but never managed to; instead he sent another field agent who he said might be interested, "especially if you can show him the -10". We had a nice visit; by that time the new firewall was on and he said the work looked fine. I just have to submit the final invoices once the prop comes back. I am very happy with Falcon and Global, needless to say.

Well, that's about it. Like I said in the initial post, I don't think this one is fodder for the regular gear-collapse discussion but I'm happy to answer questions or comment on other aspects of the incident. I've only got a couple of weeks worth of work left before I can fly again but I've got a family thing to attend so it will probably be early August before it flies and then I need to see about paint.

Oh, last thing. I discovered extensive cracking in the baffles outboard the oil cooler. No idea if this was accelerated in the incident but I have new parts and a plan for reinforcing and bracing around the cooler. I'll do a separate thread for that when I have some pictures.
 
Good job

Thanks for the update.
I'm glad you're getting it together again and that the experiences with FAA and insurance was ok.

Looking forward to your "second first flight" report soon! ;)
 
Ron, the FSDO issues a '709' (I believe the form is actually 44709) letter to inform you that you must take a flight exam to retain your pilot privileges. You haven't lost your license and can keep flying as long as you contact the FSDO promptly to make arrangements for the test. The letter will spell out anything special for the test and, on the day of the test you have to have an 8710 form (application for certification) ready with 'reexamination' checked at the top. In my case, it was a private pilot rating exam with emphasis on landings. In the event, we simply stayed in the pattern and did three landings, the last one power off, less than 20 minutes from engine start to stop. It sounds (and, admittedly, feels) a little scary but if you've passed your private exam in the first place and are current then it shouldn't be a problem.

I asked the FAA rep why I got the exam and he admitted that Scotsdale FSDO tends to issue a lot of 709s. In my case, since there was no apparent mechanical cause, their investigation indicated that I should be re-tested. I was Ok with that except their 'investigation' had not included getting my hours or narrative - it wasn't the conclusion that bothered me but the fact that their work seemed a little sketchy. Still, it wasn't a big deal except for the length of time and the amount of back and forth it took to get the flight arranged. The examiner came up to Flagstaff and I had to provide the aircraft (which the 709 also specified as an RV-6A or similar); most of my preparation involved getting used to the panel in the borrowed RV (thanks to AZTAILWIND and his partner; Brad also did a great job familiarizing me with his bird).
 
Thanks Patrick. I do not recall ever reading of such a test. Good thing it was somewhat perfunctory. I don't think that I would like to take a real private pilots check ride again.
 
The "709 checkride" is issued anytime your airmanship skills are called into question. It usually covers only the limited areas of performance (such as landings) that you have performed in such a way as to call attention to them, but it can include a full PPL checkride.

I have suffered a 709 ride (also at the "request" of Scottsdale) as a result of running over a runway light as I was turning onto the taxiway. My ride took 10 minutes and was simply two trips around the pattern. It was easy (pleasant, even) - but I don't ever want to go through it again.
 
While the ride emphasizes a certain task, you can be busted for any operation required by the flight. So my three landings also included pre-flight, taxiing, communications, etc. However, there was no quiz nor any additional work, such as navigation or anything relating to my multi-engine rating, for example. By the way, my examiner, Jacob Hansen, may work for the FAA but he was great to fly with and I'd happily meet him on a social basis. They're not all bad guys. But I agree with Michael; I'd rather not get another 709.
 
...By the way, my examiner, Jacob Hansen, may work for the FAA but he was great to fly with and I'd happily meet him on a social basis. They're not all bad guys...

My experience as well. They had a hard time finding a guy with the right qualifications to evaluate me in the Hiperbipe, but eventually dug up a guy with a lot of 450 Stearman experience. Even though he told me he was only there to "evaluate" (rather than instruct), he did give me some good pointers that I still carry with me today. He helped make me a better pilot. Overall it was a very good "bad" experience.
 
First Flight Redux

Today I put my RV-6A back into the air. About halfway into the 20 minute flight, my Engine Pod quit talking to the EFIS; landed without problem and found, sure enough, that it was the cable between the EFIS and POD. The DB-9 connector shell in the engine compartment had failed, possibly due to heat. I replaced the plastic shell with a metal one and all is good again. I still have to do the wheel pants and nose gear fairing (as well as the intersection fairings at last!) before I can call it good and finally get her to a paint shop. Other than the Pod problem the flight was uneventful except I had forgotten how good Northern AZ looks as the monsoon winds down. Green and water everywhere.

(note to editor: that's 'winds' as in what you do to a rubber band, not 'winds' as in the invisible guy that steals my VAF cap. ;))
 
Last edited:
Congrats

It must feel great to have it flying again.

Today I put my RV-6A back into the air. About halfway into the 20 minute flight, my Engine Pod quit talking to the EFIS; landed without problem and found, sure enough, that it was the cable between the EFIS and POD. The DB-9 connector shell in the engine compartment had failed, possibly due to heat. I replaced the plastic shell with a metal one and all is good again. I still have to do the wheel pants and nose gear fairing (as well as the intersection fairings at last!) before I can call it good and finally get her to a paint shop. Other than the Pod problem the flight was uneventful except I had forgotten how good Northern AZ looks as the monsoon winds down. Green and water everywhere.
 
Formula 44709

Good to see you have your bird flying again. A nice job on the re-exam too. Never easy having the added pressure of performing for an FAA inspector as opposed to a designee.

Quick clarification on the '709' part, since I saw it earlier in a post. It's pilot slang for Title 49 of the United States Code, Section 44709, usually seen as 49 U.S.C. ?44709, but most commonly referred to as a '709' ride. This section states in part that the Administrator of the FAA may reexamine an airman. If you do a google search on 49 U.S.C. ?44709 you'll get the whole enchilada, and I recommend it since often times its contents are misunderstood or even altogether unknown.

Here's a link to what one can expect if asked to be reexamined under this title. It lays out the guidance for the FAA inspector to conduct the re-exam. Incidentally, it's an excerpt from Order 8900.1, the inspector's handbook.http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=6B5517EC9C4A91258525734F00766681

Ok, that's enough of all that. Go fly safe and have fun!
 
Back
Top