This message responds to the request of
spokes2112 for an adjustment of the ruling concerning his arrival at LGTT on 10-25-14. He asks for a one-hour penalty rather than a 15 minute penalty. And, having asked for a mid-air crash penalty, he also asks that the corresponding normal complete re-flying of the leg be substituted by a flight from a nearby field under the same conditions as the original incident.
I took the wire, along with the associated police report and witness accounts, up to Miss Nellie. She seemed a bit surprised at the request, but took the reports and got on the phone to Slipstick Williams and his accident investigation team. Several hours later, she sent down the following response.
Tell the young man that his request has received considerable attention. A careful reassessment of the claim and the associated materials led to a second investigation of the incident. The facts suggest the following.
The pilot intended to land at Athens Tatoi (LGTT) at night (at 18:55 GMT or 21:55 EEST local summer time) on October 25, 2014. [This is the Jaap van Hees 1934 scenery, located slightly to the west of modern LGTT.] The aerodrome has a relatively short hard runway with faint outline lighting. In darkness, the aircraft approached the field downwind from the southwest, flying northeast not quite parallel with the runway, and made a slow and gentle descent (59-62kts and -66 to -280fpm) for about 30 seconds as it neared the grounds. Then, in the last five seconds, the descent increased (to -385fpm and to -468fpm) and the aircraft hit Tatoi's southwest hangar.
The airport stands at 784 feet asl. The aircraft was last flying at 835'. Our on-scene forensics suggest that, a second later, it clipped the top of the hangar at 827'. (There will be minor differences of perhaps 6 feet in actual altitude and that of the aircraft's center point.) The airspeed, just before the crash, was consistent with a landing attempt. However, the contact occurred 0.1nm from the runway (though only one hundred feet from the grass field).
The police report notes that eyewitnesses believed that the pilot may have been disoriented. Our investigation, which includes reports from those listening in on radio chatter, corroborates in the sense that the pilot's description immediately afterwards indicated complete surprise. His comments suggested that he was circling to land and hit the hangar in complete darkness. The direction of the flight was across the runway rather than on line with it. (Although the grass field accommodates directional flexibility for landing.)
The sudden descent and drop in altitude further indicate disorientation. The aircraft was flying downwind just at or just below stall speed. The vertical flight path, with its sudden departure, is consistent with either a sudden downdraft or an accelerated/turning stall. In either case, the pilot was exhibiting poor judgment if his intent was to execute a landing pattern in darkness.
The evidence is technically consistent with a completed flight with a crash on landing. Had the pilot safely landed at the crash point, it would have been registered a valid leg. (The Duenna usually allows more than a mile leeway in what it counts as "on airport".) The hard evidence of airspeed and direction and descent speed are consistent with a final approach for landing. The verbal reports, however, indicate some pilot disorientation in the middle of a landing pattern.
For purposes of the penalty to be assessed, this incident illustrates a not-quite-standard version of a "crash-on-landing." The rule's intent is to recognize a crash when making a landing after a long leg has been (almost) fully completed. The relatively modest penalty aims to minimize the "racing cost" of a single incident that can arise from the first mistake on landing. (The penalty is 15 minutes for the first incident, 30 minutes for the second, and one hour for further incidents.) The rule also covers hitting a tree or a berm on the threshold or a crash landing a few hundred yards short of the field. This incident is to be distinguished from a crash due to running out of fuel, or flight into a mountain, or breakup in midair due to structural stress on the airframe. (Or, as one analyst suggested, hitting a duck.) For example, crashing into a mountainside 10 miles from the destination is a full-penalty mid-air crash. Crashing into a hangar on the field is a crash-on-landing.
The Committee acknowledges that the pilot believes that he was not landing and that a new flight, from a nearby field under the same conditions and the same fuel load, would constitute a demonstration of a completion to a safe landing.
The Committee recognizes that the pilot is likely to have been executing a pattern rather than actually landing. His maneuvers at low altitude show poor situational awareness and poor airmanship. However, the pilot had fully completed the leg's distance and was in the process of landing, for which pattern work is integral. The incident occurred on the field. It is covered by the intent of the crash-on-landing rule. There is no need to invent a new solution to the problem.
Ruling. The pilot's request is denied. The previous ruling stands. The pilot is deemed to have crashed on landing. The penalty is 15 minutes for the first such pilot error.
Thus, we regret to inform the pilot that his special request is not accepted.
(When I got back down to the staff room, one of the smart guys there observed that, while the Committee could not impose a different penalty, the pilot could. He could simply start his Duenna and record an additional 45 minutes on the clock before actually taking off on the next leg. Personally, I would recommend that the pilot abide by the Committee's ruling and not attempt to take matters into his own hands.)