Final Report on Pell City 182 crash March 23, 2002

[diverdriver 5]

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020326X00398&key=1

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident/incident as follows.

the pilot's failure to properly recover from a bounced landing resulting in exceedance of the design limits and collapse of the nose gear assembly. A factor in the accident was the pilot's decision to continue flight with a known equipment deficiency."

Full report: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20020326X00398&ntsbno=MIA02LA069&akey=1

On March 23, 2002, about 1722 central standard time, a Cessna 182F, N3486U, registered to Alabama Skydiving, Inc., operating as a Title 14 CFR Part 91 parachute jump flight, sustained a hard landing and a nose gear collapse at Pell City, Alabama. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The airplane sustained substantial damage and the commercially-rated pilot, the sole occupant, was not injured. The flight originated about 10 minutes before the accident.

According to the pilot, prior to the accident flight, the aircraft performed normally in all aspects. Beginning his fourth parachute drop flight of the day, after a takeoff roll of about 3,000 feet and 5 to 10 feet above the 5,002 foot runway, he detected less than normal elevator authority with two parachute jumpers aboard. He decided to continue the takeoff because he had confidence in the power of the engine, and because of the lack of available runway remaining for an abort. Having climbed to release altitude, (3,500 feet, agl) and releasing his jumpers, on return to the field, he decided his best alternative was to use power to control the nose attitude. During his landing flare, he added power to raise the nose and touch down on the main wheels, but the touchdown was hard and the aircraft started a porpoise. The third touchdown was hard enough to collapse the nose gear and cause an excursion off the left side of the runway.

According to an FAA inspector, the pilot stated that he had to ask for help manipulating the yoke in pitch during the takeoff rotation. The inspector examined the flight controls for interference and found none. He found full flight control continuity and authority from stop to stop, and observed no damage to or malfunction of the flight control system.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

The third touchdown was hard enough to collapse the nose gear and cause an excursion off the left side of the runway.

Quote

The inspector examined the flight controls for interference and found none

Don't you just love the FAA terminology....

[flyhi 24]

Quote

cause an excursion off the left side of the runway.

Almost makes it sound like fun. "Come on everyone, we're going on an excursion. Get your surf boards and sun tan lotion."

Shit happens. And it usually happens because of physics.

[Dutchboy 0]

Quote

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020326X00398&key=1

"According to an FAA inspector, the pilot stated that he had to ask for help manipulating the yoke in pitch during the takeoff rotation. The inspector examined the flight controls for interference and found none. He found full flight control continuity and authority from stop to stop, and observed no damage to or malfunction of the flight control system.

That's a new one: "Help me rotate this thing and get it off the ground!". Was the skydiver who helped him pulling on the second yoke that wasn't installed? Could a skydiver realistically provide assistance during takeoff? I don't think so.

[diverdriver 5]

That is from the pilot statement. You mean to say that a jumper back to dash couldn't put a hand up and push the control yoke aft? I think they could very easily do it, if asked to do so.

Chris

[Frogger 0]

I was there and witnessed the landing. (decided not to go on the load because I wasn't finished packing and didn't want to ask them to wait.)

1st) The jumper that helped is a licensed pilot. I think he knew what to do.
2nd) I don't know what the "inspector" looked at. There was no elevator control on that plane when I saw it (after its "excursion").
Frogger

[diverdriver 5]

So you would say that the final NTSB report is incorrect. At what point would a pilot with pitch control problems decide to continue into the air? Doesn't sound quite right to me.

Quote

The jumper that helped is a licensed pilot. I think he knew what to do.

Ummm.....I don't think I would continue into the air with a pitch control problem at all.

The report says that 3,000 feet down the runway is when he found the problem with 2,000 feet remaining. 2,000 feet in a 182 is a lot of distance to get it stopped again. This still doesn't sound right.

This jumper who's a pilot....is he a pilot for the DZ? How much time does he have? The report doesn't say how much experience the accident pilot had. I wonder about that too. There definitely could have been more info.

Quote

2nd) I don't know what the "inspector" looked at. There was no elevator control on that plane when I saw it (after its "excursion").

So the elevator came off the plane during the accident?

And the pilot said they took 3,000 feet for takeoff roll......huh? A 182 with two people on board that takes 3,000 feet to accelerate to 5 to 10 feet above the runway has something seriously wrong.

Chris Schindler

[Dutchboy 0]

Quote

That is from the pilot statement. You mean to say that a jumper back to dash couldn't put a hand up and push the control yoke aft? I think they could very easily do it, if asked to do so.

Chris

I suppose they could do that if asked. I'm with you though, 3000 feet is way too long to take off a lightly loaded 182. The could have easily stopped in half the remaining distance.

There are some pretty poor commercially rated pilots that I've seen out there. They manage to fly well enough to pass the checkride, but aren't generally safe or even careful without an examiner and/or instructor in the plane.

[billvon 2,433]

>Ummm.....I don't think I would continue into the air with a pitch
> control problem at all.

Well, depends on the situation. Let's say you try to rotate, and there is unusual resistance in the yoke. You pull harder, there's a "thunk" and the plane rotates and begins climbing at some stabilized airspeed (i.e. elevator now "stuck" at a reasonable climb attitude.) What's the best approach - fight the yoke and risk getting it stuck in a rapid descent attitude, attempt a landing immediately, or get the jumpers out and then attempt a landing? I would think a lot could be said for releasing the jumpers before attempting a landing with marginal pitch control. At best a lighter load will stress the landing gear less during a no-flare landing; at worst you will reduce the number of fatalities during a serious crash.

[diverdriver 5]

Bill....if I went to rotate and encountered a greater than usual resistance I would abort immediately. There is nothing in flying that you have to force. If it doesn't feel right, it probably isn't so don't force it. 3,000 feet to get to 5-10 feet? Come on. There is something going wrong way before. 5,000 foot runway....3,000 feet to 5-10 feet and 2,000 feet remaining. Plenty of time to abort and save EVERYONE. Remember, he never said the elevator got stuck. It was just a greater than normal force. This is an abort no questions asked. The saying goes....I'd rather run off the runway at 30 knots than hit the trees at 60 knots. Meaning...an abort with overunning is prefered to going airborne....losing an engine, flight control, etc......and coming down in the trees at the far end at full speed.

Did he do a "box" movement of the controls before the takeoff for "free and correct" movement? That is recommended before every takeoff.

Chris Schindler