The pilot reported that during the landing roll on dry grass at the airport in Ellinwood, Kansas, the Luscombe 8A’s brakes “locked up” and “over we went.”
The airplane, which came to rest inverted, sustained substantial damage to the left-wing lift strut.
The pilot reported to the FAA after the accident that the brakes worked better than he expected, and that there were no pre-impact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the brakes and that both wheels spun freely.
A post-accident examination of the accident site showed no signs of previously disturbed terrain where the airplane came to rest inverted.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s improper brake application during the landing roll, which resulted in a nose-over.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This December 2021 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.
Having learnt to fly on tail draggers over 60+ yrs ago when we had to master the traits of this configuration before going solo I’ve never had any landing problems. The techniques taught in the De Havilland Tiger Moth days have stood me in good stead for the last almost 70 decades. No.1 rule in any configuration has to be to set up your approach and landing to minimise any brake usage – Tiger Moths didn’t have any brakes – so there was always a compelling reason to do this and when moving on to the likes of the P18’s etc the no brakes on landing was always what you aimed for and a ground loop (usually plenty of room on most airfields/airstrips) – it only required the application of one brake – so your momentum was dissipated in this manoeuver, but under no circumstances use brakes without also applying full UP elevator first. This technique also saves on bent props and any unauthorised repositioning of the nose landing on the likes of C 172’s etc. Paul.
This unfortunate accident reminds me that I need to fasten my belts whenever I am taxiing. I have been wearing a helmet when operating my Taylorcraft, as even these old planes can hurt us.
Pretty hard to flip on grass with drum heel brakes, toe disk brakes may be. Pilot probably caught some air/gust under the elevator and over she goes.
As a tailwheel pilot, I was taught to never touch the brakes (outside of an emergency) until the stick is buried in your chest, tailwheel down, and only the minimum required. Unless it’s an incredibly short field (sub 1000 ft) you shouldn’t need brakes on grass except for sub 5 MPH turns for parking. You are flying until the engine is off.
The Luscombe came equipped with mechanical drum brakes. We’ve lost a few airframes because those brakes sometimes do lock up hard. This is pretty much an “uncommanded” brake application. Just a little push on the heel pedals to check the brakes and next thing they are full on and won’t come off.
The age of these original brake systems – some as old as 85 years means that many aircraft are flying with brakes that aren’t in a 100% state of repair, simply because parts are, at best, minimally available. The cost to convert to hydraulic brakes is quite a shocker. I have hydraulic heel brakes on my Luscombe. Some Old Wives Tales say that a Luscombe with hydraulic brakes is a recipe for disaster – I don’t agree. A pilot with tons of experience with mechanical brakes who transitions to hydraulic brakes would be a greater risk. I’ve found braking action with the hydraulic brakes to be smooth and very predictable, but I have many hours of experience with hydraulic brakes. I find hard runways shorter than 800 feet will require some braking to shed forward energy.
Good points, it would have been helpful to know what style brakes were installed as well as what type of landing was made (3 point or wheel landing).
I personally prefer not to wheel land on grass without larger tires…
Well, that spar AD is now taken care of …
Even the simplest non-challenging maneuver (in the air or on the ground) can .”bite” if you’re not on the ball regardless of how simple and mundane the effort is. My go-to standard is and always will be: if the plane is moving and/or the prop is turning then then you’re flying, even if you’re on the ground.
I have a friend who was injured in a taxi accident at OSH. He stopped abruptly to avoid an aircraft in front of him, and his Luscombe went up on its nose. He wasn’t wearing a seat belt or shoulder harness because he was not planning to fly, just move the plane from one parking spot to another. He got thrown into the instrument panel and suffered facial lacerations. After that, I always strap in securely, even if just taxiing my Swift from the hangar to the fuel pumps.
Agree and reinforce that idea! I ALWAYS attach my car seatbelt even if just backing out of the garage. I know of cases where cars have been T-boned in the driveway by a neighbor and other incident where you wouldn’t imagine there’d be a problem. Always buckle up. Better safe than sorry!
Regards/J
FAR 91.107[2] requires the use of the seat belt if the aircraft is to be moved; taxi, flying and landing.