Louisville, KY, USA
N9773U
Grumman AA-5A
The pilot/owner and the flight instructor completed a local training flight without incident, and then they returned to their home airport. On final approach, air traffic control asked that they perform a go-around due to traffic on the landing runway. During the subsequent traffic pattern, the pilot surrendered the flight controls to the flight instructor. The instructor performed the approach and landing, but immediately after touchdown, the airplane veered left, departed the runway, crossed a grass apron, and struck railroad ties that bordered a runway under construction. Examination of the wreckage by the FAA revealed no mechanical deficiencies with the airplane, its brakes, or its landing gear. Both the flight instructor and the pilot reported there were no mechanical deficiencies with the airplane. According to the flight instructor, "The airplane flew very nicely. Always does."
On June 5, 2001, at 1808 eastern daylight time, a Grumman American AA-5A, N9773U, was substantially damaged during landing at Bowman Field (LOU), Louisville, Kentucky. The certificated private pilot/owner and the certificated flight instructor (CFI) were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local instrument training flight that originated at Bowman Field at 1610. An instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for the flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91. During a telephone interview, the pilot said he had been flying since 1982, but started training for an instrument rating in August 2000. The pilot said that, beginning in September 2000, he had received 37 hours of instruction from the CFI who was on board the airplane. He said he was happy with the instruction he had received to date. The pilot said they completed preflight planning and inspections, serviced the airplane with fuel, and departed on their training flight. He said they completed the training and returned for landing at Bowman Field. The pilot stated they returned to Bowman Field under visual flight rules and that they were cleared for a straight-in landing to Runway 19. On final approach, the pilot was instructed to do a go-around due to traffic on the runway. He said that on the downwind leg, he surrendered the flight controls to the CFI. In a written statement, the pilot said: "The Tower instructed us to turn right and fly a right downwind/base approach. On right downwind about mid-field, we were cleared for landing by Tower. [CFI] suggested that we do a short-in landing and I said OK. At this point [CFI] took control of the aircraft. I asked him if he wanted to do the landing and he said yes. I then said 'It's your plane'. "[CFI] made a smooth touchdown but upon rollout, the plane immediately veered to the left and went off the runway into the grass. We hit some railroad ties that were blocking/across the closed runway/taxiway (I can't remember which). Upon hitting the railroad ties, my left main landing gear broke off, debris flew up over us, and we kept sliding to the left on the left wing and elevator skidding across another grass area until we hit some other railroad ties blocking another closed taxiway. We then came to a stop on top of a railroad tie. I shut off the engine and gas. I called the tower and told them that we were fine/not injured. I then shut down all the electronic equipment in the plane. The time was approximately 6:10PM. [CFI] and I were not injured in any way and we got out of the plane and waited for the airport authority." In a telephone interview, the CFI stated the purpose of the flight was to provide instrument flight instruction to the pilot/owner. He said runway 01/19 was in use temporarily, due to construction on the airport's remaining runways and taxiways. "I didn't touch the flight controls until landing. At touchdown, the airplane veered left. There was a series of railroad ties blocking the closed runways and taxiways. Before I could get the airplane to respond, I struck the railroad ties that were blocking the runway." The CFI was asked if he had his feet on both pedals during the landing. He responded: "That was my intention because the aircraft steers with brakes, but I can't be 1,000 percent sure. I don't know if it's something I did or didn't do." The CFI was asked if he tested the brakes and steering prior to departure. He said: "I didn't touch the flight controls until landing. [The pilot] tested his and he didn't have any trouble. We made a lot of left and right turns." The CFI explained that he follows a routine when he takes over the flight controls. He said he would place his feet on the rudder pedals, make pedal inputs to confirm rudder response, and then test the brakes with his toes. When questioned whether he had any physical restrictions that would hinder or restrict his ability to reach or manipulate the flight controls, the CFI stated: "No, I don't." A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aviation safety inspector examined the airplane in a hangar at Bowman Field on June 6, 2001. In a telephone interview, the inspector stated that examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical discrepancies. He said he tested the brakes on the right side, and they functioned as designed. The left main landing gear was separated from the airplane, but visual examination revealed no discrepancies in the brakes or landing gear. The CFI held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land, multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. He also held a flight instructor certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land, multi-engine land, and instrument airplane. The CFI reported 2,862 hours of flight experience, 76 hours of which were in make and model. The pilot held a private pilot certificate with a rating for airplane single-engine land. He reported 435 hours of flight experience, 317 hours of which were in make and model. The pilot said he had 82 hours of flight experience in the accident airplane. The pilot said there were no mechanical deficiencies with the airplane. He said, "It performed beautifully. It was running fine. I'm convinced it wasn't anything mechanical." The CFI was asked about the performance and handling of the airplane on the day of the accident. He said: "The airplane flew very nicely. Always does. I've never had any problems in the 35-odd hours that we've flown and I've landed that airplane numerous times." At 1817, the winds reported at Bowman Field were from 210 degrees at 9 knots.
The flight instructor's failure to maintain directional control after landing.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
