ERA17LA134

Factual narrative

On March 21, 2017, about 2056 eastern daylight time, a Beech 95-B55 airplane, N62RF, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident in Islip, New York. The pilot was uninjured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. According to the pilot, he decided to perform three night landings at Long Island Mac Arthur Airport (ISP), Islip, New York, each to a full stop with a taxi back, to maintain currency. To allow time for his night vision to adjust and be sure the airplane was properly configured, he contacted air traffic control (ATC) for clearance to depart the traffic pattern with an assigned transponder squawk code and requested direct to the Calverton VOR/DME (CCC). He then departed ISP, flew the published hold at CCC, communicated with ATC when inbound, and was vectored to the final approach course for runway 24 at ISP. As a backup, he had also loaded the instrument landing system 24 approach into his GPS to aid in situational awareness. He stated that once on final, he prepared for landing using his “written checklist," and “[e]verything with the approach and completed checklist appeared normal." He then did his "GUMPFs" check (of the gas, undercarriage, mixture, props, and flaps) several times. He stated that the airplane touched down normally on the runway, then dropped and skidded to a stop. Following the accident, the airplane was observed on the runway on its belly with no landing gear extended. The airplane was recovered from the runway by lifting it and manually extending the landing gear. Examination of the airplane revealed that underside of the fuselage displayed extensive areas of ground down, scraped, and torn sheet metal. The examination also revealed substantial damage to the forward spar carry through and the left side keel beam. The pitot tube and left engine exhaust tips, both propellers, the nose landing gear door, the left and right main landing gear doors, and the left and right wing flaps were also damaged. No evidence of damage to the landing gear system linkages and retraction rods was noted. Operational checks of the landing gear system were performed using the airplane’s electrical power and the manual gear extension system. During the operational checks, the landing gear were able to retract electrically, during which the indicator lights went from green to an in-transit indication. Due to damage, the landing gear could not be extended with the gear motor but were able to extend manually. All indications operated properly. The landing gear horn sounded when required, and the indicator lights indicated green when the landing gear were down and locked. During a postaccident interview, the pilot stated that he thought he had “three green lights which indicated that his landing gear was down and locked.” He stated that, on September 24, 2016, a similar incident involving the landing gear had occurred at a different airport, during which he conducted a flyby of the tower to confirm his gear were down; after touchdown and rollout, the indicator lights indicated the gear were down and locked. According to a mechanic at the pilot’s maintenance provider, regarding the previous incident, the pilot stated to him that he had flown the airplane to Nantucket Memorial Airport (ACK), Nantucket, Massachusetts, and did not get the three green landing gear light indicators, so he did a flyby of the tower; they confirmed his wheels were down, so he landed. He did not have the airplane checked and flew back to ISP. The mechanic asked him if he had the navigation lights on, and the pilot said yes. The mechanic then explained that with the navigation lights on, the landing gear indicator lights would dim. Maintenance personnel jacked the airplane up, cycled the landing gear, and checked the indicators; all systems functioned correctly. During a subsequent interview regarding the accident flight, the pilot advised that the winds were 230° at 5 knots, so there was no crosswind, and that he landed right on the runway centerline. He further stated that, “[u]nfortunately, the gear was not under the airplane” and that it was “[m]y fault.” The pilot was planning to perform practice night landings at the airport, and after initially departing, was returning to the airport after conducting some practice instrument maneuvers. He stated that once he was on final approach to the runway, he prepared for landing using his “written checklist" and that “[e]verything with the approach and completed checklist appeared normal." He then did a check of the gas, undercarriage, mixture, props, and flaps several times. He stated that the airplane touched down normally on the runway, then dropped and skidded to a stop. Following the accident, the airplane was observed on its belly on the runway; the landing gear were not extended. Examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the forward wing spar. No evidence of damage was noted to the landing gear system linkages and retraction rods, which would have been evident if all three landing gear had collapsed. Operational checks of the landing gear system revealed that the landing gear system was functional. During a follow-up interview, the pilot stated that he landed right on the runway centerline but that “[u]nfortunately, the gear was not under the airplane” and that it was “[m]y fault.” Given this information, the pilot’s failure to lower the landing gear before touchdown resulted in the gear-up landing. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.

• — Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Use of equip/system-Pilot
• — Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Configuration-Incorrect use/operation
• — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Lack of action-Pilot