ERA23LA299

Factual narrative

On July 7, 2023, about 1451 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 182Q, N759HD, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Richmond, Virginia. The private pilot and one passenger were not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The pilot stated that the morning before the flights he obtained and extensively reviewed weather products consisting of METARS, Terminal Area Forecasts, and Daily Forecasts for all intended airports. In preparation of the first flight he performed a standard preflight inspection of the airplane with a checklist and then departed on two separate, uneventful flights. After landing at each airport he obtained abbreviated weather briefing data. Before departing on the accident flight, he requested and received an IFR clearance from Ingalls Field Airport (HSP), Hot Springs, Virginia, to Richmond Executive-Chesterfield County Airport (FCI), Richmond. The flight departed and before arrival he cancelled his IFR clearance and proceeded under VFR while performing a practice RNAV approach to runway 15. The pilot reported that he made a straight-in approach. He added one notch of flaps when he arrived at the final approach fix (FAF), but he did not recall if he added another notch of flaps when he arrived at the decision height (DH). He stated that he typically maintains 90 knots until the DH and then gradually slows to 70 knots until landing. He reported that while in ground effect the winds were 5 to 10 knots with no turbulence and he had at least one notch of flaps extended. During the flare to land the airplane abruptly pitched up without command and then nosed down, bouncing the airplane off the nose. The pilot added full throttle to abort the landing after the bounced landing and climbed to the traffic pattern altitude (he did not recall hearing the stall warning horn, but the event happened quickly). He performed a right turn instead of a left turn due to the location of a rain cloud on the left side of the runway. He remained in right traffic for runway 15 and, when preparing to flare, a wind gust pushed the airplane across the runway. He performed another go-around but, because the rain cloud was no longer on the left side of the runway, he made standard left traffic for runway 15. The pilot landed uneventfully and taxied to the ramp. Postaccident examination of the airplane was performed by a Federal Aviation Administration airworthiness inspector. He reported that the nose landing gear was partially attached to the firewall and was pushed forward away from the firewall at an angle, and the bottom mounting points for the nose landing gear were broken. He also reported that the floor by the rudder pedals was “wrinkled” and the rudder torque tube was bent. There were no discrepancies with the aileron, rudder, or elevator primary flight controls. The rudder and elevator trims were both neutral. Archived wind information was not available from the accident airport but wind at an airport about 11 nautical miles northeast of the accident airport about 3 minutes after the accident was from 230° at 8 knots. A convective SIGMET, which implied updrafts and downdrafts, severe or greater turbulence, severe icing, and low-level wind shear, was issued for the accident airport area at 1255, or about 44 minutes before the accident flight departed. The convective SIGMET indicated a developing line of thunderstorms with tops to 42,000 ft. Weather radar data showed thunderstorms and rain showers all around the area, including right near the accident airport. A review of the weather radar near the accident airport going back to 1230, which was about 1 hour 9 minutes before the accident flight departed, revealed thunderstorms and associated convective weather. The pilot and one passenger were on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan, but the pilot cancelled the IFR clearance near the destination airport and proceeded under visual flight rules (VFR) even though there were nearby thunderstorms with associated convective activity. He reported that during the approach and while in ground effect, the winds were 5 to 10 knots with no turbulence, and he had at least one notch of flaps extended. During the flare to land the airplane abruptly pitched up without command and then nosed down, bouncing the airplane off the nose. The pilot added full throttle to abort the bounced landing and climbed to the traffic pattern altitude. He performed a right turn instead of a left turn due to the location of a rain cloud on the left side of the runway. He remained in right traffic for the runway and, when preparing to flare, a wind gust pushed the airplane across the runway. He performed a go-around but, because the rain cloud was no longer on the left side of the runway, he made standard left traffic for the runway. The pilot then landed uneventfully and taxied to the ramp. Postaccident examination of the airplane’s flight controls revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Based on this information, it is likely that while flaring to land, the airplane encountered low-level wind shear associated with a forecasted nearby thunderstorm. The airplane then descended and landed hard on the nose landing gear, substantially damaging the airplane’s fuselage. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.

• — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Delayed action-Pilot
• — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Info processing/decision-Understanding/comprehension-Pilot
• — Environmental issues-Conditions/weather/phenomena-Wind-Windshear-Decision related to condition
• — Environmental issues-Conditions/weather/phenomena-Convective weather-Thunderstorm-Decision related to condition