Everett, WA, USA
N4922T
PIPER PA-28R-200
The private pilot had recently failed the practical flight test for his commercial pilot certificate, so he and the flight instructor were scheduled to conduct several flights for the purpose of qualifying the pilot for another practical test. The two flew a dual flight, and, later that same day, the pilot conducted a solo flight in the same airplane. The next day, the flight instructor and the pilot conducted another dual flight in the accident airplane. During their departure from the origination airport, they noticed that the landing gear retraction time was unduly long, and the flight instructor remarked about it to the pilot at that time. They continued the departure, conducted some airwork, and then the pilot performed a landing at another airport. Both the pilot and the flight instructor described that landing as "hard;" however, the flight instructor reported that he had experienced harder landings in that and other airplanes. After landing, the pilots taxied the airplane back for departure, and during the climbout, the landing gear could not be retracted. They cycled the gear to no avail, left it extended, and flew back to the origination airport, where the pilot conducted an uneventful landing. Postflight examination of the airplane revealed that the wing structure near the attach point for the left main landing gear was substantially damaged. Review of the airplane maintenance records revealed that the airplane satisfactorily passed a 50-hour inspection just prior to the dual and solo flights. Review of the airplane flight log revealed that no one other than the flight instructor and the pilot flew the airplane between the inspection and the discovery of the damage. Based on the initial gear retraction anomaly and the flight instructor’s categorization of the subsequent hard landing, it is likely that that landing was not the event that caused the damage. Instead, the damage, which had to have occurred after the 50-hour maintenance inspection, likely happened the day before the damage discovery, and the hard landing during the dual flight was the event that caused the visible external manifestation of the preexisting internal wing structural damage. The fact that the same pilot who made the hard landing flew the airplane solo the day before allows for the possibility that he initiated the damage sequence during the solo flight and either did not know it or did not report it.
HISTORY OF FLIGHT On August 28, 2012, about 1315 Pacific daylight time, substantial damage to the left wing of a Piper PA-28R-200, N4922T, was discovered by the president of a fixed base operator (FBO) when he was refueling the airplane, just subsequent to a flight by two other individuals. Neither of those two individuals, a private pilot and certified flight instructor (CFI), was aware of the damage until it was brought to their attention by the FBO president. The two had just completed an instructional flight that was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no FAA flight plan was filed for the flight, which originated and terminated at Snohomish County airport (Paine Field, PAE) Everett, Washington. The private pilot had recently failed the practical flight test for his commercial pilot certificate, so he and the CFI were scheduled to conduct several flights for the purpose of qualifying the pilot for another practical test. The day before the damage was discovered, the two conducted a dual flight, and later that same day the pilot conducted a solo flight in the same airplane. The next day, the two conducted another dual flight in that same airplane. During their departure from PAE, they noticed that the landing gear retraction time was unduly long, and the CFI remarked about it to the pilot at that time. They chose to continue the flight, and conducted some airwork. As planned, the pilot then performed one landing at Firstair Field airport (W16), Monroe, Washington. Both the pilot and the CFI qualified that landing as "hard," however, they did not notice any visible damage. After the landing, they taxied back for departure, and during the climbout, the landing gear did not retract. They cycled the gear to no avail, selected and left it extended, and flew back to PAE, where the pilot conducted an uneventful landing. The FBO president discovered the wing damage shortly after that flight. PERSONNEL INFORMATION According to information provided by the FBO and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the CFI had a total flight experience of about 1,350 hours, including about 112 hours in the accident airplane make and model. His most recent flight review was completed in March 2011, and his most recent FAA second-class medical certificate was issued in February 2012. The private pilot had a total flight experience of about 269 hours, including about 90 hours in the accident airplane make and model. His most recent flight review was completed in August 2012, and his most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued in July 2009. The pilot was a resident of Japan, and he was in the United States for flight training purposes. A few days after the discovery of the wing damage, the pilot returned to Japan, and NTSB attempts to contact him were unsuccessful. AIRCRAFT INFORMATION The airplane had a total time in service of approximately 4,307 hours. Review of the airplane maintenance records revealed that the most recent maintenance activity included a 50-hour inspection on Monday, just prior to the dual and solo flights. One item on the 50-hour inspection checklist was "Aircraft Exterior – Visually check aircraft exterior for obvious damage or defects;" the corresponding documentation indicated that no anomalies were detected. Review of the airplane flight log revealed that the pilot flew the airplane solo on both the Saturday and the Sunday before the 50-hour inspection, and that no other persons flew the airplane on those days, or on the Monday of the 50-hour inspection. The flight log also indicated that the airplane's only flight on the day that the damage was discovered was the dual flight with the pilot and the CFI. METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION The 1153 automated weather observation at PAE, which was located 12 miles north of W16, included winds from 250 degrees at 10 knots, with gusts to 14 knots. The 1253 automated weather observation at PAE, included winds from 180 degrees at 8 knots, with gusts to 23 knots. AIRPORT INFORMATION According to FAA information, runway 7/25 at W16 was paved, and measured 2,087 feet by 34 feet. Airport elevation was 50 feet above mean sea level (msl). Runway 16L at PAE was paved, and measured 3,000 feet by 75 feet. Airport elevation was 606 feet msl. WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION Examination of the airplane by an FAA inspector revealed that the damage was limited to the left wing structure in the vicinity of the attach point for the left main landing gear (LMLG). The upper wing skin was locally deformed by an underlying spanwise member, and several rivets that joined an upper rib flange to the upper wing skin were fractured or pulled from their holes. Inside the LMLG wheel well, one upper rib flange was fractured, one vertical "L" angle was pulled from its attach points, and one two-piece panel was buckled.
A hard landing likely made by the private pilot on a solo flight that preceded the dual instructional flight during which the wing damage became obvious.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
