This is an excerpt from a report made to the Aviation Safety Reporting System. The narrative is written by the pilot, rather than FAA or NTSB officials. To maintain anonymity, many details, such as aircraft model or airport, are often scrubbed from the reports.
I departed with one passenger to ZZZ on an IFR flight plan in an Cirrus SR22. The flight was uneventful until on a five-mile final when I heard the Tower clear a “heavy” cargo plane to take the runway for departure.
As we got closer to the runway, we noticed that the heavy cargo plane was just getting off the runway as we were on short final. With traffic behind us in the pattern, I continued the approach, opting to land slightly below the glideslope on the first third of the runway so as to avoid any potential wake turbulence put off by the departing aircraft beyond its rotation point.
While in the landing phase of flight, approximately one foot off the ground and near stall speed for a normal landing, we encountered sudden turbulence that caused the plane to destabilize, resulting in a brief touchdown followed by a balloon and a subsequent stall that caused the aircraft to bounce on the runway.
As I saw we were losing directional control, I added full power to initiate a go-around maneuver, regained stability, and completed a left traffic pattern. We came in shortly after another Cirrus on short final and had a normal smooth landing.
It was not until after taxiing to the FBO and performing engine shutdown that I noticed the tips of the props were frayed as the obvious result of a prop strike on our initial attempt.
It is my opinion that the cause of the turbulence encountered on the runway was the jet blast from the departing heavy jet rather than wake turbulence as we landed well before its point of rotation.
While I do not have a copy of the Tower’s audio, I do not recall any warnings from the Tower. Apparently, the “heavy” jet took an extended amount of time to take the runway after being cleared and departed less than a minute before our touchdown.
Since we could not see the plane delay taking the runway from a distance due to haze, the Tower should have warned us to avoid wake turbulence and jet blast during our approach. This would likely have prompted a decision to break off our approach at a safe altitude to allow the jet blast to dissipate, and follow trailing traffic to an uneventful landing.
At 120 knots approach speed, our ETA to land on a five-mile final was approximately 2.5 minutes. Had the Tower held the “heavy” cargo jet for the additional few minutes, substantial loss of property and the potential for loss of life could have been avoided.
In hindsight, as PIC I could have made the decision to break off on short final and abort the landing when I noticed the heavy cargo plane had departed so shortly before we were to land. I trusted the Tower to provide safe and adequate separation for our arrival and it could have cost us a lot more than a prop strike. I will not make that mistake again.
Primary Problem: Environment
ACN: 1808423
Opted to land below the glideslope? That probably should be more than highlighted. We land after the heavy’s touchdown, right? The tower did what they do – passed the warning.
After the heavy’s touchdown but this one was departing so landing should be before it’s rotation/liftoff. To me jet engines cause a tremendous amount of turbulence and when operating on the ground, one should maintain very careful distances and positions (i.e. stay in a streamlined position pointing to the jet). I think the pilot’s analysis was correct – it probably would have been better to allow more time for turbulence from the jet’s engines to subside.
Many aircraft owners who have had an experience with the terrible, expensive and dangerous effects of bent metal on our airplane immediately do a mental back track to determine what happened. The very nature of our being directs our thinking to the external possibilities. After the complete picture has been imagined many times, we consider the actions we were attributable for. This pilot, as I have and also many others, will have a clearer and accurate opinion after some time.
The pilot has lots of reasons for encountering a prop strike that are not very valid. Tower was not going to issue a wake turbulence caution, there was no wake turbulence from this aircraft in the flight path. The heavy engines are well outside the centerline of the runway, and it was going to rotate well down the runway, but the pilot elected to leave the glide slope and made a full stall landing. A touchdown in the touchdown zone and a few extra knots on landing, might have been a more prudent decision.
91.3
Perhaps more of just a situation rather than fault. I think wake turbulence and jet blast are inclusive and I’ve never heard the latter called out. Perhaps landing behind a heavy along with diminished visibility a 90 knot approach would have been in order.
Doing a go-around late would bring the cirrus right into the vortices generated by the “heavy “ in front of it unless a turn would be made immediately…not an easy decision to make…
Neil, that’s logical but is actually unlikely. The vortices are caused by a combination of speed and lift, and the heavy would have caused vortices at the rotation, but not prior. If the Cirrus had gone around he would have been above the vortices.
We don’t know what the aircraft type of the heavy, but a takeoff roll would be at least 5,000′ and the Cirrus landed below the glideslope.
I rode in a loaded 747-100 freighter departing Pago Pago and it used the entire 10,000′ runway. Assume the heavy in this case was light, then assume a 5,000′ roll. If it was loaded, then guess a roll of 7,000′. If you were operating a Cirrus and did a go around you would already have speed so the runway used might have been 1000′, if flaring at 1,000′ then the go around roll might have taken the Cirrus to the 2,000′ mark, way short of the vortices.
There seems to be more to this than meets the eye?