The pilot reported that during a high-speed taxi test at the airport in Waldron, Missouri, the Quad City Aircraft Challenger II unexpectedly became airborne.
He lowered the nose to get back on the ground. The nose landing gear struck the ground and came through the floor of the airplane.
The airplane bounced back into the air, came back down to the left, and hit the ground again.
The fuselage and the left wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot sustained a broken leg.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s improper landing flare during the rejected takeoff that resulted in a hard landing and nose landing gear collapse.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This December 2020 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.
Uber is way safer insofar as arriving in one piece is concerned, however, these days nothing and no one is safe.
Kind of a strange cooment. Millions of millions fly and percentage of deaths compared to UBER is insignificant. I guess it’s how you look at things.
He is an Uber driver..😜
Uber isn’t safe.
The driver’s can be convicted sex offenders (no background check is done on them), and they are usually completely uninsured (your normal auto insurance doesn’t cover when you are working “for hire”)
Although the airframe is aircraft grade aluminum, all the covering is Stits fabric so it’s conceivable that the nose gear could come through the “floor”. Some Challenger varieties have a Dacron material for covering but most use the Stits covering. We built our Challanger II in 1998/99, it’s still going strong, and a joy to fly from our 800 foot pasture strip no less. By the way, pastures are not near as smooth as paved airport runways. The Challenger is a well-designed aircraft and quite well-proven since first coming on the scene around 1984.
Jim H
If you can’t land an aircraft, you shouldn’t be flying an aircraft. Obviously an inexperienced pilot who was untrained and should never have been in the cockpit.
All aircraft have structural limits. Compared to motor common motor vehicles, aircraft are relatively more fragile and less tolerant of operator incompetence and error.
As described, this incident appears to have resulted from poor pilot techniques and / or poor instruction, not inadequate aircraft structural integrity. Unforseen environment factors, especially wind may have been contributing factors.
Aircraft design is a delicate balance between structural integrity and durability, performance and cost.
When you drive a ny nosewheel into the ground it usually does damage. They’re not meant to land on the nose. Learn to land.
Where did you get your aeronautical degree
I’ve yet to find the phrase “pilot error” in an NTSB accident report. It’s an imprecise term and flying safely demands better. Hence the precise and often arcane terminology used in aviation. “Pilot error” *is* used frequently in non-aviation media – and clickbait headlines.
Drive a taildragger. Problem eliminated
The Challenger is a PUSHER type airplane with high mounted engine. When throttle is suddenly closed, the airplane wants to immediately nose up. You have got to be mentally prepared AHEAD OF TIME and be spring loaded to push stick forward in order to not stall the airplane when power is lost. I suspect this is what happened here. Of course a bit more dual instruction might help, as the Challenger is a two-seater; but even so, this is such a light aircraft that the change in center of gravity with addition of second pilot / instructor can cause the same thing.. Gotta’ KEEP NOSE DOWN at any cost.
MUST pay strict attention to WEIGHT & BALANCE using simulated PILOT(s) WEIGHT with aircraft LOADED and ready for flight to insure CG is within allowable range in all configurations. I used water jugs to simulate pilot weight when computing W & B in my single place Kolb many years ago.
Jerry King
It blows me away how flimsy airframes are designed and constructed. We read of nose wheel collapses frequently. Those assemblies should be able to accept any hard landing without failing. It came all the way through to the cockpit? What’s that airplane made out of, balsa wood? Sheesh!
/J
It’s a compromise. Adding strength adds weight which decreases performance. All aircraft will function just fine if the universal technique is followed to lower the nose wheel to the runway gently.
Ah, but therein lies the rub. There would be no car accidents if all drivers payed strict attention to their driving without distractions, drugs and alcohol. How’s that work out for society? Not well. That’s why seatbelts and airbags save lives, plus strong in-door bracing against the T-bone style collision, bumper force absorbtion, etc., et.al. All incorporated over the decades to protect people from collisions. Why not in GA airplanes?
Adding strength adds weight? Ain’t necessarily so. Some aluminum choices are extremely strong while being light weight. I have an extension ladder that I effortlessly carry with one hand, but which is incredibly hard and strong. I have a 350-pound friend who climbs it with no noticeable bending or other deformation. So, while I’m not a metallurgical or aeronautical engineer (I’m electrical), don’t tell me those smart guys can’t design landing gear assemblies and what they’re attached onto to safely and repeatedly withstand a hard landing without collapsing. I speculate the real reason is keeping cost down and profit up and the scrappage rate high calling for replacement airplanes. Cynical? Yep. I live in the real world. Regards/J
This airplane is made out of ALUMINUM.
I know that. There is a wide variety of ‘aluminum.’ The designer chooses which variety suits the purpose. Unlike steel, aluminum can be mad beefier without contributing significantly more weight. I would think the insurance companies would be clamoring for stronger wheel assemblies since those accident reports are often accompanied by descriptions of damaged props, wings and fuselage. If landing gear could survive hard landings, the airframe and prop could be saved and insurance claims much lower in value. Time will tell. /J
Airplanes have had their share of improvements to make them safer – airbags, stronger seats, parachutes, etc. You made me think of the Cessna Cutlass with those landing gear struts that look like stiff spaghetti. For the horsepower, I think it is one of the best performers ever made. Now if the landing gear had been made accident proof, what would that have done to overall sales, cost to insure, maintenance, and performance. Would it be the number one seller, or disappear from the market, or no change? Is it realistic to make all airplanes unbreakable and thereby eliminate the need for hull insurance, or keep the current system? I don’t think things will be changing any time soon.
Lol if you drive the nosewheel into the ground thats what happens.
If taxi properly you would have never gotten Airborne taxiing is a very very slow speed. Phonto