Aircraft: Cessna 172RG. Injuries: None. Location: Lexington, Ky. Aircraft damage: Substantial.
What reportedly happened: Upon arrival at the destination airport during an instructional flight, the landing gear did not fully deploy. Only the nose gear and the left main landing gear extended and locked in the down position.
Both pilots reported they attempted to retract the landing gear, however the left main landing gear remained in the down and locked position. The nose landing gear’s position could not be determined.
The flight instructor reported that he performed the emergency gear extension procedure specified in the airplane’s flight manual, but the right main landing gear did not extend or lock into position.
The pilots elected to divert to a nearby airport. During the landing roll, the airplane veered off the runway, resulting in substantial damage to the elevator.
An examination of the airplane revealed that a landing gear pressure hose had ruptured and the hydraulic fluid was depleted. Investigators determined the hose was constructed of material similar to that used in the automotive industry, thus, the hose likely was not an approved airplane part. No logbook entry was provided that disclosed when the hose was replaced or inspected.
Because of the rupture, the lack of hydraulic fluid within the system precluded the right main landing gear from extending and locking as well as the left main and nose landing gear from retracting.
Probable cause: The rupture of the landing gear’s hydraulic pressure hose, which resulted in the depletion of all of the hydraulic fluid, and the inability of the landing gear to raise or lower. Contributing to the accident was the installation of an unapproved hydraulic hose by unknown maintenance personnel.
NTSB Identification: ERA13LA058
This November 2012 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Looks like real bad judgment here. This points out the weakness in the idea that a log book is part of the answer to safety which it isn’t since the log book is only as good as the conscious of the maintainence personnel when all you have to do is simply not log something when a bogus part is replaced. Same with additives in the oil or gas that are not “approved”. No log book entries for those either. As the cliche goes we lock our doors to keep the honest people out because the crooks are going to break in anyway.
To FAR or not to FAR