Santa Barbara, CA, USA
N200AL
Kittleson Quickie Q-200
On the landing rollout, the airplane veered off the runway into the grass median and the airplane came up on its nose; when the airplane fell back onto its landing gear, the tail cone was damaged forward of the vertical stabilizer attachment. The pilot said he made a steeper than normal approach in an almost direct 12-knot crosswind that resulted in a higher ground speed during the landing and landing rollout than he was accustomed to. The pilot attributed his uncoordinated approach and landing to unfamiliarity with the airport, landing with a more aft center of gravity, accepting a landing clearance that resulted in a crosswind landing, and a loose tail wheel.
On May 1, 2005, about 1400 Pacific daylight time, an experimental Kittleson Quickie Q-200, N200AL, departed runway 15 on the landing rollout, came up on its nose, and then came to rest on its main landing gear at Santa Barbara Municipal Airport (SBA), Santa Barbara, California. The pilot operated the airplane under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The private pilot, the sole occupant, was not injured; the airplane sustained substantial damage. The cross-country personal flight departed Laughlin/Bullhead International Airport (IFP), Bullhead City, Arizona, about 1050 mountain standard time, with a planned destination of SBA. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed. The pilot submitted a written report. The pilot reported that he was cleared to land runway 15L at Santa Barbara, and the reported winds were from 230 degrees at 12 knots. He was unfamiliar with the airport and made a steeper approach than he normally would to compensate for his unfamiliarity and buildings on the approach end. The pilot stated that he lost directional control on the landing rollout due to a faster than normal landing ground speed. The airplane skidded sideways off to the left side of the runway into a grass median where it came to a sudden stop and came up on its nose. The airplane then fell back onto its main landing gear, and the tailcone was damaged forward of the vertical stabilizer attachment. According to the pilot, the area that was damaged in the accident, forward of the vertical stabilizer attachment, had been identified as a structural weak point by the kit manufacturer. The pilot reported that he landed with a 75-percent aft center of gravity, which he was unaccustomed to. He normally landed at a 50-percent forward center of gravity. The pilot further indicated that on the landing rollout he felt a "wobble" in the tailwheel. When he inspected the tailwheel area, he found a "loosening of the channel in which the bolt that secures the tailwheel on the tail spring travels." The pilot indicated that with a loose tailwheel there would be a reduction in controllability during a high-speed taxi. The pilot attributed the accident to three areas: 1. Landing in a gusty crosswind condition 2. Landing with a more aft center of gravity than he was accustomed. 3. Wobble in the tailwheel. In the section of NTSB Form 6120.1/2 entitled RECOMMENDATION (HOW COULD THIS ACCIDENT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED), the pilot wrote: "reduced acceptable crosswind component when tail dragger aircraft is loaded to CG in rear 1/2 of envelope."
the pilot's inadequate compensation for the crosswind condition and failure to maintain directional control.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
