The flight instructor was flying the Piper PA-34-200 and demonstrating a short-field landing during the instructional flight in Spring, Texas.
The CFI reported that, after the plane touched down about 90 mph, the right brake pedal went full forward, and the brakes were not slowing the airplane.
He pumped the brake pedal several times to build pressure in the lines but was not successful. The pilot receiving instruction checked his brake pedals and confirmed that the right brake was not working.
The CFI then shut down both engines when the airspeed was about 60 mph and subsequently lost directional control of the airplane.
The airplane then drifted off the left side of the runway and hit a ditch, which resulted in substantial damage to the lower aft fuselage and lower forward empennage.
An examination of the brakes the day after the accident did not reveal any problems with the right brake, however, it could not be determined whether the brake system had been serviced or repaired following the accident.
A photograph of skid marks on the runway showed that the skid marks for the left main landing gear (MLG) tire seemed to be darker than the skid marks for the right MLG tire. The evidence indicates that the right brake likely lost effectiveness during the landing, which resulted in a loss of directional control, however, the reason for the brake’s loss of effectiveness could not be determined.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the loss of right brake effectiveness during landing for reasons that could not be determined, which resulted in a loss of directional control.
NTSB Identification: CEN14LA220
This April 2014 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.
90 Mph with full flaps on final is the appropriate speed for the short or soft field landing as stated in my PA-34-200 manual from the Seneca i have owned since 1989. You do not want to get slower than 90 because Vmc is 80 mph. I use to land my Seneca on the 2,000 ft runway at St. Augustine using the full flap 90 mph profile, but you had to touchdown on the numbers. Usually stopped in the first 1,000 ft. Of course you needed some braking to accomplish this, but not to the extent you left rubber on the runway.,
We have a flight school PA-28-181 Archer II that has similar problems time to time. No leaks detected, but line gets mushy and one side of braking is reduced over 50% to no pressure. It go’s in to school owned FBO for repairs and I never hear of what is problem, other than they bled the system for air. Checking brakes well during taxi helps find issues at times but can rear its head during normal landings. I used the techniques described in this tread of using reverse rudder on little braking side and the full 3800 runway to slow for controllable ground maneuvering. Wonder if there are AD on this issue? Any other pilots experiencing this in other Piper’s?
After realizing that they had no right brake at touch down, they should of gone around and come back and did a real soft field landing, and not at 90 mph, more like 70 mph. more control would of been available at that time. Everything would of been a lot better instead of trying to salvage an already bad cituation. Another poopy incident.
90 MPH touchdown in a Seneca is way too fast and there would have been little brake/tire adhesion at that speed anyway.
I’ve had two brake failures in twins where an O ring in a piston burst and on landing I found that I had no braking on one side – I immediately added power and went around. I then contemplated my options, and in both cases I chose to divert to an airport with a very long runway and landed short field, raised the flaps immediately and used the remaining brake/tire to slowly stop the aircraft.
This example of this instructor is deplorable – he just screwed up, and should not be a flight instructor. He didn’t know the plane, and did a lousy job.
Sorry but this accident would appear to have been due to pilot error with possible contribution from a soft right brake but the latter is highly suspicious given no anomaly could be found with the brakes the day after the accident. Why would you service the braking system after an accident in which you’re attributing the cause to faulty brakes? Would be best to leave as is so the investigator can confirm it. Sounds more like someone was a little too heavy footed on the left brake. What happened to the nose wheel steering for directional control which combined with only one brake should be sufficient to slow the airplane to taxi speed and ultimately bring it to a complete stop. A short field landing with a touchdown speed of 90 mph sounds like it was way too fast to begin with.
This points out a training point requirement for airplanes with toe brakes; what do you do if one brake fails? Answer, get off the one that still works and steer with the rudder (if still effective) and/or the nosewheel. As it slows, gently use the remaining brake to slow without losing directional control. In fact, practicing NOT using brakes is another learning point.
In my 1967 PA28 Cherokee, nosewheel steering is directly tied to the rudder pedals via push-pull rods. There is NO toe brakes in the airplane, only a Johnson bar hand brake which distributes braking pressure equally to both wheel brakes. At slow speeds, turning the airplane is like driving a car without power steering. Later Cherokees had springs to help reduce the pressure required. Either way, it’s a direct connection. I infer that the PA34 would be the same way?
Cessna singles use compression springs inside of hollow tubes. Steering is NOT direct. I say that steering is a “suggestion” to the NLG of what you want it to do when weight is upon it (unlocking it). Still, it is possible to steer the airplane without using brakes. Either way, brakes merely shorten the roll.
In this instance, it’s obvious that someone stomped the still operating brake and sent the airplane into a ditch. Steering could have been assisted by differential thrust but — in this case — shutting them down likely saved the engines given that the airplane departed the runway?
Mighty suspicious that the brakes were “working” the day after the accident.
7000×100 feet of asphalt available, 5 knots wind 45 degrees from the left, why wouldn’t the nose wheel steering keep them out of the ditch – even if they did only have one brake?? Not used to using the pedals much?
I once had a similar problem when I was doing my PPL. After a landing the airplane stereed to the left even while barking and the harder I brake the leftier it got so I stereed to the right with rudders but I couldn’t avoid going outside the airport and ended up on the dirt patch. Fortunately nothing happened to the airplane aside from a left side brake failure. The A&P mechanic told me that the left side brakes frozed due to surface tension and had an uneven braking action making the airplane somewhat uncontrollable during the roll. So even with one good brake and steering, the airplane can become uncontrollable as it happened to me and the Piper.
90, way too fast for short field landing, too fast, stood on brakes, lost it, another lack of basic skills.
90 MPH touchdown in a Seneca is way too fast and there would have been little brake/tire adhesion at that speed anyway. The stall speed of a Seneca is 62 kts (71.3 MPH). In ground effect even lower!
I am certain, after consideration of the article, that these two had no braking adhesion and were simply skidding down the runway and misinterpreted this as brake failure. The instructor is incompetent – absolutely incompetent.
He is just one of a dramatically increasing population of increasingly incompetent CFI, a lot of things could have been done differently, but a quick brake check on final is something nobody teaches anymore but may have helped. Incompetent CFI’s turn out incompetent pilots, that sadly go on and become even more incompetent CFIs, contributing to the ever tightening spiral that is GA.