During a pilot competency checkride in Belgrade, Montana, while on downwind in the traffic pattern, the pilot reported that the examiner requested a zero flap, power off, 180° approach and landing.
As the Pilatus PC-12 arrived at the threshold, the pilot noted higher than normal airspeed and a greater than normal approach angle of attack.
He increased the angle of attack until the stick shaker activated and then performed a go-around.
During the go-around, the tail struck the runway, but the pilot reported that he did not remember feeling the tail touch the runway.
After the go around, he completed the maneuver without incident.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the rudder during the tailstrike.
Probable cause: The pilot’s improper use of pitch control during an instructional maneuver, which resulted in a tail strike during landing.
NTSB Identification: GAA15CA174
This July 2015 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.
I don’t care what a DPE “want’s”. if it’s unsafe, which asking someone to do a power-off, zero flap landing in a high performance turbine aircraft is, I’m going to say “not no”, but “hell no”. He can then explain to his chief, his “judgement”, in failing me for such a stupid request.
There has to be more facts to this incident, because no reasonable person would make such a request.
Hummmmm on the second try he did it and WITH substantial damage to the rudder.
This is a maneuver a commercial rated pilot should be able to do. I think I would have questioned the examiner on his reasoning for a no flap approach though, hard to imagine an emergency situation in an airplane of that class where ALL electrical power would fail. Not to say it couldn’t, but it would be exceedingly rare, much less likely than an turbine engine failure in that class of airplane which is so rare an occurance as to be statistically nearly insignificant.
I blame the pilot for not recognizing the risk involved and questioning the authority but I put a lot of blame on the examiner too, not for calling for the maneuver but for not recognizing early enough that the approach was flawed and calling for a go around before the airplane hit the ground. He could be dead instead of dumb.
geebigs:
Yes, a contributing cause was the examiner. Let me tell you a little story.
Many years ago in the Canadian prairies, there was a military training facility where one went to get a multi-engine rating on the Beech 18.
Contrary to regulations, one instructor used to give engine failures by retarding a throttle on take-off at quite low altitudes.
One night, he gave an engine failure to a pilot shortly after take-off. The aircraft promptly rolled upside-down and crashed on the runway. The occupants never got out.
The supposition was that the student panicked and stuffed in the wrong rudder.
Regardless of who did what, a contributing factor was the instructor lining up all the holes in the piece of Swiss cheese, and then pulling the trigger.
When I was an examiner for Transport Canada, we never pulled an engine below 500 feet. (I should amend that; “not on take-off”. I’ve pulled an engine on final approach below that…)
So, yes… I fault the examiner in this situation.
No such thing as a ‘contributing factor’ from a passenger request. Even if the DPE asks you to do something unsafe it’s still the PICs (you) responsibility to refuse to do it.
The entire premise of a checkride is to determine if a pilot has the flying skills and good judgement to be safe. So by definition if the maneuver was unsafe then it was the PICs responsibility to refuse to do it. And if the PIC accepts the request then it’s the PICs job to fly the maneuver with skill and success.
The DPE is a passenger.
You say the premise of the checkride is to determine of the pilot has the flying skills to be safe but then determine it is the student or rated pilot taking the check ride who determines if the requested maneuvers are unsafe? Sorry, doesn’t compute.
I said “premise of a checkride is to determine if a pilot has the flying skills and good judgement to be safe.”
1. flying skills to be safe 2. judgement to be safe.
The DPE is not responsible for the flight. The PIC (student or rated pilot) is….
The DPE is responsible for determining if the pilot is safe and demonstrates good judgement, otherwise the check ride would consist of the answer to one question, on the ground, ” do you fly safely and use good judgement”. Only one answer, yes. Checkride over and you passed. I don’t think thats the way it works.
The PIC is responsible for the safe execution of a flight.
The DPE is there to JUDGE whether the candidate PIC on the checkride is flying skillfully, safely and making good judgements.
Read the PTS. The DPE is not the PIC on the flight. The DPE is a passenger. If the DPE asks you as PIC to do something you are unable to do or worse, something potentially unsafe and you attempt to do it it’s on you, not the DPE.
The PIC must also refuse any ATC instruction if deemed unsafe.
“The DPE is there to JUDGE whether the candidate PIC on the checkride is flying skillfully, safely and making good judgements.”
That’s what I said. Nobody disagrees about who the PIC is but the DPE is the one who decides what is required to demonstrate your skill. If you tell him you don’t want to do a crosswind landing in 12 knots because you think its unsafe do you think he’s going to pass you? If you decide you don’t want to do what the DPE asks, and I agree with you that you have that right, just be prepared to fail the ride because in the end its his judgement about your skill that matters, not yours.
Some here are blaming the DPE? Laughing.
An Examiner should only ask the PIC to perform this manuever if he or the FAA is willing to pay for any damages incurred. Please don’t defend this, it was a stupid request for a turbine aircraft.
I also think that this examiner should have his head examined.
The power off, 180 to a landing is part of the commercial PTS.
It’s also a good skill for all pilots to practice, just in case the engine fails and the pilot has the skill to actually land off airport on the spot he picked to land.
Understood, Jim; but the PC 12 is not a training aircraft like a Cessna 172 or a Citabria. And asking for that sort of a maneuver on a pilot proficiency check (PPC) is akin to shutting off the fuel on take off on a twin engine flight test.
John
So, this pilot, flying this aircraft, if the engine went to zero thrust, would not be able to make a safe landing on the fist try……
Recurrent training in a C172 would not give the pilot the skills needed to safely land a PC-12..
Jim:
The point being made was that you should no more kill an engine (I mean with the mixture or condition lever) on a twin engine aircraft at, say, 100 feet than you should be fartin’ around doing 180 degree, idle power, no flap exercises on high performance aircraft which have no probative purpose on such an aircraft. If the PC 12, why not the KingAir 200? If the KingAir 200, why not the Cessna Citation CJ?
There is no justification for an inspector to demand that sort of exercise on that type of aircraft.
Au Contraire!! a BFR when having a CPL, the Power Off 180 accuracy approach and landing is fair game in the plane one is using. However, in the PTS, one uses flaps as needed — that was an error on the Examiner’s part (from where I sit) and I would have objected (and will if it is done to me during the CPL practical, citing the PTS).
Approach to landing is NOT the same as turning off the fuel on an engine in a twin during take-off. One is *not* in a nose hi (high angle of attack), hi power, low speed situation (Vmc problem) on approach to landing.
OK. How about a BFR in a King Air 200? Would that pilot be expecting the same sort of a exercise…?
John
Failure of the critical engine (assuming there is one) upon entry into the pattern. Standard situation, Identify, verify, feather. Now fly it to a landing.
If I remember correclty, that is also a PTS for the commercial multi — typically done during the instrument approach one gets an engine failure.
And I think, but not having checked, it is also standard fare for Type Rating in a multi.
It was done to me on my commercial/instrument MEL lo those many years ago. I assume it still is.
Not learning to fly risky maneuvers because they’re risky does nothing to improve pilot proficiency in the long run. Nobody said training isn’t risky and instructors have to be willing to take some risk, its part of the job description.
“During a pilot competency checkride in Belgrade, Montana, while on downwind in the traffic pattern, the pilot reported that the examiner requested a zero flap, power off, 180° approach and landing.”
Although the pilot is ultimately responsible for the aircraft, a phrase was left out of the findings: “Contributing Cause: Examiner”.
As a former examiner from north of the border, I would never have asked a candidate to execute that manoeuver in that aircraft.
Is there a PC12 have a full motion sim that can be flown to touch down? A million dollar (plus) airplane like the one involved in this accident seems a risky way to instruct and demonstrate high risk, low tolerance, high consequence maneuvers.
Lord have mercy, ain’t that the truth