The flight instructor reported that during a Civil Air Patrol evaluation flight in Fallbrook, California, he decided to demonstrate a power off landing to the pilot being evaluated.
The flight instructor reported that when the Cessna 182 touched down within the first 400′ of the 2,160′ runway, the brakes were ineffective during the landing roll.
The pilot witness who observed the landing from the left seat reported that he observed heavy braking, some swerving, a loss of control, and the airplane exited the left side of the runway near the departure end of the runway.
During the runway excursion, the airplane nosed over and sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, empennage, and the right wing lift strut.
In a Civil Air Patrol online system, the pilot witness reported that over the runway threshold the airspeed was 84 knots, the altitude was 20′, and the airplane touchdown zone was 1/2 to 2/3 down the runway, with 1,000′ of runway remaining.
The local flight school provided video surveillance of the landing. The video showed the airplane still airborne while in the camera frame, which was about 700′ past the runway threshold. The airplane subsequently moved out of camera view and was still airborne. The video did not show the airplane touch down on the runway.
In a post-accident examination four days after the accident by the FAA, both brakes were found to be functional.
In a post-accident inspection almost two weeks after the accident by the repair mechanic, it was revealed that the left brake was working, but the right brake was “full of air.” The mechanic reported that when the airplane was upside down air can enter into the hydraulic system, so “all bets are off.” The mechanic further reported that there were no flat or bald spots on the tires.
Probable cause: The flight instructor’s failure to go-around and the subsequent long landing and his failure to maintain directional control, which resulted in a runway excursion.
NTSB Identification: GAA16CA449
This August 2016 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.
We had an instructor around here who was giving a bi-ennial review, who reached down and shut the fuel off over an airport about 25 miles from home without the guy getting the review knowing. He got his plane down safely at that airport. When the pilot saw what had happened, he kicked the instructor out of the plane and left him there. That instructor was lucky the pilot didn’t whip his butt besides. That is why I was wondering if the instructor on the CAP plane had done the same stupid thing and that was why there was no go-aaround.
Where were his flaps at??
Brakes are seldom effective when there is light under the mains.
If it was a true power off landing demostration, seems to me it would be pretty hard to do a go-around like the probable cause states.
Being only a demonstration, the engine hadn’t actually failed. It was available for a go-around.
You just push that big black knob on the left to the firewall and pull back on that black yoke thingy in front of you when the airspeed is in the green. Oh. Add 10 degrees of flaps.
There should be some comments on this one. Whatever CAP has been in the past, the flight program no longer seems to be worth the money.
There should be some comments on this one. Whatever CAP has been in the past, the flight program does not seem to me it is money well spent.