FTW02LA188

Factual narrative

On June 21, 2002, approximately 0430 central daylight time, a Cessna 182Q single-engine airplane, N5327N, was substantially damaged following a hard landing at the Midland International Airport (MAF), Midland, Texas. The airplane was registered to and operated by a private individual. The student pilot, sole occupant of the airplane, was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal cross-country flight. The flight originated from Carlsbad, New Mexico, at 0130 mountain daylight time. In a telephone interview with the NTSB investigator-in-charge (IIC), the pilot reported that prior to her arrival she attempted to obtain the MAF weather from the Automatic Weather Observing System, but was unsuccessful. She then contacted the Fort Worth Air Route Traffic Control Center, which reported the wind at MAF from 140 degrees at 12 knots. Arriving at her destination, the pilot stated, "I flew around the airport a few times to get my bearings." She reported the runway lights were dim and that she tried to increase the intensity with "the pilot controlled lighting," but was unsuccessful. The pilot also stated the lights on the interstate highway, which borders the airport, were confusing to her. The pilot then attempted to land on runway 10, but due to the wind "rocking the wings," she aborted the landing. The pilot stated, "I ended up landing on runway 16R with a hard bounce. I gained a little bit of altitude and proceeded to land smoothly." The pilot further reported that she touched down on the nose gear and right main gear at about the same time. The pilot then taxied the aircraft to parking. She further stated that she believed the damage to the airplane was not due to a hard landing, but might have occurred when the airplane was towed into the hangar after she left. In a written statement to the IIC, the airport operations supervisor who was on duty at the time of the accident conducting a runway check by automobile, reported hearing the pilot call in on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) 30 miles out, 10 miles out and 5 miles out. The pilot advised the operations supervisor that she would be landing but was having a difficult time locating the airport. The supervisor stated, "I had a visual on her and guided her to the airport. She still could not make sense of where she was, and I maintained radio contact to help her get her bearings and keep her calm. I got her lined up with runway 10/28, but she aborted the landing as she had a hard time keeping her wings level." The supervisor further stated that the pilot circled the airport a few more times before he was able to get her lined up with runway 16R with his flashing lights. The supervisor reported, "She landed on her first attempt, but I did not see the landing due to topographical limitations. She then requested that I give her progressive taxi instructions." The supervisor stated that after the pilot parked the airplane he didn't see anything wrong with it, "But I was not looking for damage either." After exiting the airplane the pilot told the supervisor that the two highways were confusing to her, and that "this was the hardest landing I ever had." In a written statement provided to the IIC, the line service manager, who was tasked with towing the airplane to its parking place in a nearby hangar, revealed that the pilot told him that she had a "hard landing." The line service manager stated that when he pulled the tug up to the airplane, he noticed it had a flat tire and that the nose wheel fairing was broken. He further stated that after seeing the damage he called his supervisor and said, "I'm not moving it until you look at it." The line service manager then went home. The line service manager's supervisor, an airframe and powerplant mechanic, reported in a statement to the IIC that, "When I pulled up to the aircraft I noticed the nose tire was flat and the nose wheel fairing was damaged. I went to get the tug and an air tank. I aired the tire up. It held air, so I hooked the tow bar up from the pilot's side of the aircraft, then to the tug. I backed the tug to the hangar and then pushed the aircraft into the corner of hangar #1." The mechanic reported that upon unhooking the tug from the copilot's side of the aircraft, he noticed wrinkles from the firewall to the doorframe on the right side of the aircraft. After removing the upper and lower engine cowlings for inspection, the mechanic stated that he noticed the firewall was deformed where the nose trunnion attaches to the firewall. On June 28, 2002, an initial on-site examination by an FAA operations inspector revealed the aircraft had sustained substantial damage during the hard landing. A subsequent on-site examination by an FAA airworthiness inspector concluded the damaging force to the aircraft was in an aft and upward direction consistent with a hard nose wheel landing. The inspector further stated that the damage was not consistent with any sort of side load that could have been applied by improper ground handling, even if the brakes were applied or the wheels were chocked. The pilot commissioned a private firm to conduct an examination of the damaged airplane. The firm concluded that the damage to the aircraft was the result of sudden and dramatic side loads on the nose gear during ground movement operations, and not damaged due to an in-flight hard landing. MAF air traffic control tower personnel reported that all runway lighting is set to medium intensity, and that the airport has no pilot controlled lighting. As reported on the Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident Report form (NTSB form 6120.1/2) the pilot stated in the Recommendation section, "As a student pilot, I need more practice landing at night at unfamiliar airports, controlled and/or uncontrolled." At 0353, the MAF weather reporting facility indicated wind 160 degrees at 11 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, sky clear, temperature 24 degrees C, dew point 16 degrees, and an altimeter setting of 30.19 inches of mercury. The student pilot, arriving at her destination, flew around the airport several times to get her bearings. With the runway lights dim, she tried increasing the intensity with the pilot controlled lighting, but was unsuccessful. FAA control tower personnel reported there was no pilot controlled lighting installed at the airport. The pilot also stated the lights on the interstate highway, which borders the airport, were confusing to her. She attempted to land on runway 10, but due to the wind rocking the wings, she aborted the landing. The pilot subsequently landed on runway 16R "with a hard bounce" and taxied to parking. The airplane was then towed and secured in a hangar, at which time damage to the airplane was observed. An inspection of the airplane by an airframe and powerplant mechanic revealed the firewall had been deformed where the nose trunnion attaches to the firewall. An initial on-site examination by an FAA inspector revealed the aircraft had sustained substantial damage during the hard landing. A second FAA inspector who examined the aircraft concluded the damaging force was in an aft and upward direction consistent with a hard nose wheel landing, and not consistent with any sort of side load that could have been applied by improper ground handling. A private firm, commissioned by the pilot to access the damage, concluded the damage was the result of sudden and dramatic side loads on the nose gear during ground movement operations, and not damaged due to an in-flight hard landing. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12