This could happen to anybody. Kinda gives me the willies thinking about a high speed taxi brake failure.


NTSB Identification: SEA05LA144.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, July 16, 2005 in Prospect, OR
Aircraft: Cessna 180, registration: N2944C
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.

On July 16, 2005, at approximately 1220 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 180, N2944C, was substantially damaged when it veered off the runway (west side) during landing roll and nosed over at Prospect State Airport, Prospect, Oregon. The private pilot, the sole occupant in the airplane, was not injured. The pilot/owner was operating the airplane under Title 14 CFR Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the cross-country personal flight which originated at approximately 1200. A flight plan had not been filed.

The pilot said that he flew to Prospect, Oregon, to attend a fly-in. Witnesses said that the airplane performed a "low pass down runway 20 to the south." One witness said that the pilot made a "pulling turn up, 180 degree turn to land on runway 02." Several witnesses said that the pilot landed "long and fast"; the pilot performed a wheel landing on runway 02. The pilot reported that the wind was calm. One witness said that the wind was "about 5-7 MPH out of the South." Another witness said that the wind was approximately 10 Knots from the south (180 degrees).

The pilot reported that during the landing roll, the airplane's tail wheel "shimmied violently" and the airplane departed the left side of the runway. He said that the ground was soft, and the airplane flipped over damaging both wings and the left wing strut. The pilot reported that the airplane had recently come out of an annual inspection, and a post-annual taxi test revealed that the right brake needed additional servicing. Maintenance personnel said they immediately serviced the right brake. The pilot perform a second brake check while taxiing, and immediately departed. During the accident sequence, the pilot said he believes that the right brake failed.

Photographs taken by the responding Jackson County Sheriff personnel show two equally black skid marks veering left off runway 02, and the extension of those marks continue in the gravel and grass to the nosed over airplane. The aircraft recovery personnel said that once the airplane was "up righted," they found that both brakes worked normally.

The density altitude at the accident site was calculated to be approximately 4,790 feet.

Did anyone onboard here witness this exhibition? Hopefully it weasn't one of us, cuz based on the brief narrative it sounds to me like the "bonehead factor" played a large part in this one. Low pass down 20, then a hammerhead 180 to land (with a tailwind) on 2?
Was there a "hey y'all, watch this" call on the CTAF frequency?

Eric

On second thought, maybe I'm being too harsh. Except for the downwind landing, this was one of those fly-in maneuvers where we'd all probably say "wow, that was pretty cool" if it had turned out OK.
But it didn't. Bummer.

The reason I looked this one up is because he is from Grants Pass, my parents told me about it when it happened because they know the guy. Story I heard was that one of his brakes locked up or disintegrated, thereby becoming useless. With full braking effort if one fails, or one locks up the outcome is the same. Might be bonehead factor too, I dunno. But, given the sensitivity to diff braking in a tailwheel aircraft, thought you guys would find this interesting.

Z

There are a few "descrepencies" that are found in the accounts and story that would make me tend to think it was a combination of mostly pilot error(s) (isn't it always )

One observer says the pilot made a wheel landing yet the pilot talks of tailwheel shimmy. From my experience I have found most tail wheel shimmy occurs at a fast ground roll with a lot of weight on the wheel and leaf spring causing an over camber condition. Hardly what you'd find upon touch down of the tailwheel after a wheel landing. The fact that there were two skids marks would seem to indicate both brakes were functioning at some point in the roll/skid out. I wonder if the plane went straight over or went onto a wing first as is normal in most ground loops. The best analogy I have heard about ground loops is the "tripping" over the outside gear once that wheel has locked up in an effort to straighten the planes path. I guess "failure to maintain directional control during roll out" will be sufficient...

In any event, looks like another pilot earned the right to be nicknamed "Oops". I have a friend who earned this right by crashing during his first landing of a newly-purchased single-seat airplane. I haven't let him live it down....but he grins & bears it in fine fashion-- I gotta respect him for that.

Eric

N6EA wrote:There are a few "descrepencies" that are found in the accounts and story that would make me tend to think it was a combination of mostly pilot error(s) (isn't it always )

Yeah, "tailwheel shimmy" is a good one.... just like "carb ice" for an off-airport landing gone bad, which turns into a forced landing for the FAA & the insurance company. "Sun in my eyes" , "landing gear collapsed","fuel leak"..... all classics.

Eric

I was at this fly-in. Great one I may add. You will not find a better steak anywhere, and the search and rescue folks that put this on are some great people.

I did not witness the oops first hand, but by all account from a couple of posts the story rings about right. I happened to be mowing moms lawn at the time. My Cousin calls on the phone and says a cub just crashed! What? I says. Jump in the old beater car and head down there and procede to let the cuz know the difference between Cub and Skywagon.

Good thing no one got hurt! Just bruised ego a bit. Course "Been there, done that"

I have found theat the older you get the easyer it is to get distracted. I joined the dead stick club a few years back and it was all my fault. My wife was with me and was not amused. At a fly in I will share some of the stupid details. It can happen to any of us especially when we get a bit to comfortable.

Use your check list and do not land downwind unless it is up hill.

Tim

Why is a brake failure always accompanied by a head shoved up an ass? I've made like 39,000 landings now with probably 30,000 in taildraggers with something like 12,000 downwind and a hundred or so tailwheel shimmies. We always land towards the loading equipment and depart away from it unless it just gets REAL aggressive, like over 20-25, and that's only when fertilizing because we'd quit by tenish when spraying. I've even landed with partial brakes at least 100 times and no brakes at least five or six (mostly in Dromaders, three without reverse!). I've ended up off the runway once out of all that. That time I knew it would happen due to the fact that I give a brake pump on the final and the tailwheel locked slightly left facing on that particular plane so I elected to fly to the nearest airport instead of the strip I was flying off of to land. I set it up to set the tail down PAST the ditch, on the left side of the runway, facing slightly right. So as I arced left slowly I made it to the right side of the runway then back to the left and rolled out into the grass no problem.
The tailwheel shimmie thing I can see, A LITTLE. They can take you by surprise and provide a bit of directional challenge. I can't say that I've never depended on brakes to help out during a tailwheel shimmie, in a 12,000# and larger airplane. They get so violent they have broken longerons in the fuselage (not me personally, luckily). In my time flying my 185 with no tailwheel lock hooked up and landing with quartering tailwinds frequently while hauling jumpers I can't say I never felt like a lack of brakes was going to make me shoot off the runway.
Oh yeah, the TWO skid marks are peculiar as well.
I can't say that next week I won't go smokin' off the runway and flip my Thrush over on the infield but for all of the operational brakes landings I've made I see an awful lot of "brake failures" when some idiot raises my insurance rates. Here's a hint for the knuckle head from one who's flown at least a day with a "soft" brake (not to mention just flying Goodyear's on the 195 which are always soft until the second pump!) to keep going; when you know you are having brake problems i.e. getting secondary service, set yourself up for success. Roll a longer final, INTO the wind, on a large ruway, give a brake pump short final, if one goes to the floor....go around and further plan your plan thinking about wind, turning tendancy of the plane upon setting the tail down, the need to touchdown shorter than normal should the need for a burst of power to straighten out further down be neccessary, making sure that the good brake side of the runway is clear if possible should you need to EASE the good brake on to slow down and go off that side slightly (also time that one BETWEEN ruway lights).
The ground always gets soft when you dig two trenches with the brakes locked while panicing as you wheel off into the abyss. I just want some dude to actually say "my head was in my ass, I made some bad decisions, and I didn't handle the result worth a crap. Because if I hear of another "brake failure" I'm gonna petition the feds to start a congressional inquest into brake manufacturers q.c. and maintenance facilities maintenance procedures.

lowflyin,

Well said. I'm a bit skeptical as well. That said, I can tell you about a brake "unfailure", I guess you'd call it.

Certain Super Cub clones are being built with non vented brakes. I was unfortunate as to get in one of them, giving a spring tune up to a guy. It was -20 F. Heater in that plane (which is very effective, I might add) blows pretty much right on the left brake master cylinder. Duh. Shoulda caught that on pre flight.

First takeoff is fine. First landing is fine. Pavement, grooved for drainage of water. VERY sticky. Pilot does a nice landing. Same for the takeoff.

Right after takeoff, I noted that the left tire slowed, then stopped well before the right. Hmmmm. Not good, but not ready to panic just yet.

Second mistake.

Second landing was beautiful, right on centerline, right on the spot, and straight as a string.

A hundred feet into the landing, the airplane went hard left. As in REALLY hard left. Full right rudder and hard right brake had no effect. Round and round we went.

That left brake master cylinder, which is the very small volume type, warmed up, and applied the left brake for us. One landing heated the disc up enough to make it really stick.

Now, the mechanics who installed the gear come out to clear the runway, and haul the plane into their hangar.

Next day the FAA comes by to look at the plane, and voila--no problem with the brakes. Course nobody heated the left brake master cylinder up to see if the brake would bind, and it probably wouldn't have, being in a warm hangar to start with.

I got a 709 ride out of the deal. I don't particularly give a rip on that, the ride was with a very experienced tailwheel guy, and he was very decent about the whole thing-in fact it was a fun flight. He spent most of the ride trying to convince me that the pilot in the front had stood on a brake. I don't buy it.

There are ways to have brake problems. And, if you fly one of these things with unvented brakes, in cold weather, be VERY careful about having mechanics set the brakes up tight for you. You may go round and round. Everyone likes nice tight brakes, but if you warm them up in flight......they can bite. In that case, however, there was only ONE black skid mark on the runway, not two. The second one started halfway round, but too late.

Watch out for them booster brakes.

I can tell you that one of the most experienced tailwheel guys I ever knew had a student in a 180 put it on its back by putting his size 14's high on the rudder pedals, and pressing real hard. One thing no instructor can fix is two size fourteens on the brake pedals hard.

MTV

I know a guy who put a (borrowed!) 170 on it's back, and is convinced that "there was something wrong with the STOL kit, so the tail kept flying after the wing was stalled". He swears he never touched the brakes, doesn't know where those two black skid marks on the runway came from. Quite a coincidence that they end right where the 170 up-ended, how 'bout that! Not the first or the last (non-owned) taildragger he's screwed up either-- a 709 checkride in a tailwheel airplane is exactly what is needed here, but unfortunately it hasn't happened yet. He's still flying borrowed airplanes around, some people are just slow learners I guess.

Eric

Mike,
Roger that. I'm with ya, and that is my point. You are a fellow worker in this class of airplane and how many hours/days/flights/etc. do you fly before some wierdness happens? My experience is that quite a bit of time passes to get to that one landing/experience. Which brings my confusion. How do these guys that fly 50-150 a year and have 1500-4000 total have all these problems?
You rarely hear of a Cherokee 140 or Katana have a brake failure but man those 180/185, husky, stinson, etc. always seem to have them especially when the guy lands downwind, long on 1500' of grass or when it was "gusty". I'm assuming the same guststhat the ATIS, AWOS, ASOS, or windsock told him/her about BEFORE he/she turned final!

lowflyin,

Yep, that tricycle gear anomaly is an interesting one, alright.

I figure I've been absolutely saved by brakes probably once, maybe twice. As you, I've flown several airplanes with almost no hint of brake effectiveness. Our old Super Cubs used to run Goodyear Airwheels on 4 inch wheels with expander brakes. I used to stand on the brakes prior to touchdown, since they didn't really do much anyway, couldnt' hurt.

MTV

I did have abrake failure in the 182B. When I was leaving for a trip I notice that the left brake was useless while taxing. Took off and landed at SIY that is an old military base here in nor cal that had plenty of room. Landed slow and had to add power to get the plane to the mechanics hanger. Bled the brakes and continued on my way. So you see it does happen in a nose wheel plane now and then.

Oh and by the way, to join the dead stic club my head was way up there. Will admit that. And after we got on the ground my wife's foot was right up there with it.

Tim

I had a brake cylinder blow out on landing in my Savannah. It is a trike, and pretty much it was a non event. The plane swerved to one side before I realized the other side had failed, but the inherent stability of the trike allowed it to straighten out when I got off the good brake. I can really appreciate the difficulty of keeping a tail dragger under control in such a case.

I also had a flat tire on landing one time. It pulled like crazy to the flat side once my speed was down to the point that most of the weight was on the wheels. Some opposite brake kept things balanced, but I had to use a lot of throttle to get it to taxi. Once I got it off the runway, I parked it in the grass and walked for an air pump. I don't know if I could have taken off or not.

tom

I had a failure sometime back. I was landing on a 450ft gravel bar on the Kogaluktuk with 3 hunters and gear in my M5 Maule, I rolled 150ft hard on the brakes when a rigid line snapped on the landward side. The choice was to let go the left brake and head into the trees to shear the wings, or to go left into the river and lose an engine etc.
Something automatic kicked in and I hit the left brake again along with left rudder and a hefty burst of power to groundloop towards the river 30ft away, the right wheel dug in the gravel ,right wing went down and dug it's own trench but I kept the power in to blow that tail around till I was 180deg when the right wing hit my rubber boat tyed on the beach, and bounced me upright. No prop strike, a torn wingtip (fibreglass kit fixed it) a torn aileron tip but well flyable (patched later), gravel between wheel rim and tyre, and a happy bunch of German hunters with a story to tell. I was able to remake a brakeline flare with a 16 penny nail and split the fluid from the other brake to get brakes on both sides. A couple sheet metal screws borrowed from a fairing got the aileron useable.
I highly recommend changing rigid aluminium brake lines to braided stainless flex ones.
Jeremy

Damn, Jeremy--that sounded like some BIG fun . Excitement like that one can do without, but as you say, I'll bet the German hunters are still talking about that one.

MTV

I love stories like "Maules.com" wrote about. Human ingenuity is truely driven by necessity. McGiver should never have been taken off the air.

tom

maules.com wrote:I had a failure sometime back. I was landing on a 450ft gravel bar on the Kogaluktuk with 3 hunters and gear in my M5 Maule, I rolled 150ft hard on the brakes when a rigid line snapped on the landward side. The choice was to let go the left brake and head into the trees to shear the wings, or to go left into the river and lose an engine etc.
Something automatic kicked in and I hit the left brake again along with left rudder and a hefty burst of power to groundloop towards the river 30ft away, the right wheel dug in the gravel ,right wing went down and dug it's own trench but I kept the power in to blow that tail around till I was 180deg when the right wing hit my rubber boat tyed on the beach, and bounced me upright. No prop strike, a torn wingtip (fibreglass kit fixed it) a torn aileron tip but well flyable (patched later), gravel between wheel rim and tyre, and a happy bunch of German hunters with a story to tell. I was able to remake a brakeline flare with a 16 penny nail and split the fluid from the other brake to get brakes on both sides. A couple sheet metal screws borrowed from a fairing got the aileron useable.
I highly recommend changing rigid aluminium brake lines to braided stainless flex ones.
Jeremy

Jeremy always has a way of shameing me into getting those little items fixed that I put off.

Jeremy, if you could provide the part # for the flexible lines, I'll order a pair today.

Thanks in advance,

Mark