The pilot in the homebuilt Jungster 1 reported that about 30 minutes into the flight, the oil pressure gauge needle entered the yellow (caution) arc.
He made a precautionary landing at the nearest airport, which was Boone County Airport (6I4) in Lebanon, Indiana. However, he decided to land on the grass on the right side of the asphalt runway.
Before landing, he overflew the grass surface to evaluate its condition, and he performed a touch-and-go to further assess the surface condition. The third approach and the landing were normal, but during the landing roll, the main landing gear wheels encountered “a soft patch of muddy soil,” and the airplane nosed over, sustaining substantial damage to the empennage.
The pilot reported that the only mechanical malfunction that occurred was specific to the oil pressure gauge.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s selection of unsuitable terrain for landing, which resulted in a nose-over.
This pilot was a 35K hour 737 captain but maybe new to tailwheel? He had time to do three landings, despite mechanical concern, this runway must have been questionable. A better choice is only 9 miles east: Indianapolis Executive. (3X wider; 100 feet vs 30 feet and similar 36/18 orientation) Additionally, maintenance is available. Was pilot narrowly focused on only grass as a landing option?
This April 2019 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.
Folks, please don’t be too critical. Here is my perspective as I was the only one who witnessed the accident and I was the one who unbuckled his seat belt to let him crawl out of the overturned aircraft. He was trapped, and could not free himself. Imagine the panic that each of us would have felt at that point.
As for the so called “unauthorized” landing beside the paved runway – normally that would have actually been his best/smart option. When learning to land a taildragger, it is much better to practice on grass before attempting hard surface to minimize the tire adhesion which can lead to a ground loop. Also, at that airport, the hard surface is very narrow and the parallel grass runway is much wider. Insurance companies don’t like to insure grass runways (I know because I live on one) because of this very thing – uncertainty of condition from day to day from wet, soggy to groundhog holes. So, of course it was not authorized, because it would otherwise be an uninsured liability.
The bottom line problem here was a soggy spot in the runway, exactly at the point that the aircraft weight, lift condition, and momentum ganged up on him.
To be clear, I don’t know the guy and never actually talked with him, but if you had a immanent engine failure (or thought so) in an airplane that was very tricky to land, and you saw a grass runway, what would you do?
Yup, landing on the grass next to the runway can be hazardous.! Why not land on the runway ? This aircraft doesn’t have huge tundra tires that can wear quickly with landing on a paved runway..
The 35,000 hour pilot only had 2 hours in this aircraft, but should have enough experience to know better.
We have a few pilots that land in the grass at my home field. The airport management says that the only authorized landing surface is the paved runway. But, they continue to land between taxiways, where there is about 2,500 ft of mowed grass.
JimH, I agree with you as far as the risk of landing outside of a designated runway (or taxiway if necessary).
In this case I can understand that the high time (nosewheel-) pilot has felt uncomfortable landing a small taildragger with narrow mlg on a hard surface runway, possibly with some crosswind, too.
My experience is that most very low time pilots don’t have problems with the transition from nosewheel aircraft to taildraggers. Very experienced pilots with whom I’ve flown, however, needed relatively long to feel comfortable in a taildragger.
I can understand this pilot’s attempt to find a less challenging very well. With a low oil pressure light his risk assessment may have been biased.