SAVANNAH, GA, USA
N9868
GRUMMAN G-164A
DURING THE TAKEOFF ROLL, THE PILOT REPORTED A VIBRATION IN THE TAILWHEEL ASSEMBLY. HE CONTINUED THE TAKEOFF PROCEDURE BUT ELECTED TO RETURN TO THE AIRPORT FOR A PRECAUTIONARY LANDING BEFORE DISPENSING OR DUMPING THE 1500 POUNDS OF CHEMICALS. AT TOUCHDOWN THE TAILWHEEL ASSEMBLY COLLAPSED AND SEPARATED FROM THE AIRFRAME. THE PILOT LOST CONTROL OF THE AIRPLANE AS IT SKIDDED TO A STOP ON THE RUNWAY. EXAMINATION OF THE AIRCRAFT FAILED TO DISCLOSE A MATERIAL FAILURE OR SYSTEM MALFUNCTION. ACCORDING TO THE OPERATOR, THE PILOT HAD NOT MADE A LANDING WITH THE AIRPLANE IN A HEAVY OR LOADED CONFIGURATION WITHIN THE LAST TWENTY FOUR MONTHS. THE OPERATOR HAD NO FORMAL EMERGENCY DUMP POLICY TO PREVENT LANDING WITH CHEMICALS ONBOARD DURING AN EMERGENCY.
On June 2, 1994, at 1716 eastern daylight time, a Grumman G-164A, N9868, landed hard and ground looped on runway 09 at the savannah International Airport, Savannah, Georgia. The public use flight operated under 14 CFR Part 91, with no flight plan filed. Visual weather conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The airplane sustained substantial damage and the pilot was not injured. The aerial application flight departed Savannah at 1710 hours. According to the pilot, during the previous takeoff, he felt a vibration in the tailwheel assembly. He elected to continue the takeoff procedure, but returned to the airport for a precautionary landing. Due to changing weather conditions at the airport, the pilot selected runway 09 for the landing (see attach pilot/operator aircraft accident report). During the landing attempt, the tailwheel broke off and was located several hundred feet west of where the airplane came to rest. Examination of the aircraft failed to disclose a mechanical problem with the airplane. The examination of the tailwheel assembly also failed to reveal a mechanical problem (see attached FAA Inspector's Statement). According to flight operation personnel from the county commission, they had no formal emergency dump procedure for onboard chemicals. The pilot elected to land with 1500 pounds of chemicals onboard. According to the same flight operation person, most spray missions usually ended with the complete dispensing of all chemicals. The pilot estimated that he had not landed with a heavy load within the last two years.
THE PILOT'S IMPROPER LANDING FLARE WHICH RESULTED IN A HARD LANDING. A FACTOR WAS THE OPERATORS FAILURE TO PROVIDE A FORMAL EMERGENCY DUMP PROCEDURE.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
