Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 72.7; Flight Crew Total 2676.1; Flight Crew Type 226
Confusion; Distraction
Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Aircraft
This training flight began mid afternoon local time. The aircraft is a Cessna 182RG. The purpose of the flight was to evaluate the flight performance of a student intending to take a checkride to add a Commercial Single-Engine Airplane rating to the student's license. The student holds a commercial helicopter rating as well as a single-engine private pilot license with both complex and high performance endorsements. The student has been training with another instructor at my company; I was being used to evaluate his progress. The preflight was conducted by the student while I was not present. At the beginning of the flight; the student was told that he was to be the pilot-in-command of the flight and that I was going to evaluate his performance and provide verbal instruction as necessary. The flight began with a short-field takeoff which was performed to PTS standards. Several commercial maneuvers were evaluated and the student performed each maneuver well within PTS standards with most to near perfection. I advised the student to return to the airport to evaluate his landing performance and make the first landing using a short-filed landing technique and to set the wheels down on the 1;000 FT markers. ATC advised a right downwind entry for a specific runway and the student made the proper entry onto the downwind; lowered the landing gear; visually and verbally assured the gear were down as well as acknowledge a green light indicating the gear down and locked. I personally; both visually and verbally; checked the gear down as well being able to see the right main gear below my window in its proper gear down location. ATC advised for us to change to a right downwind entry for a different runway and the student maneuvered the aircraft accordingly. We were advised that we were number three for landing. The number one aircraft was on very short final approaching the numbers while the number two aircraft was visualized on the left downwind for the same runway abeam our aircraft. The student maintained a visual with the number two aircraft and maneuvered accordingly to provide spacing for a stop-and-go landing. On final; the student made several s-turns to assure adequate spacing at the proceeding aircraft flew a very slow approach. Spacing was adequately maintained and the proceeding aircraft had returned airborne following a touch-and-go leaving us plenty of time for our landing. The student configured the aircraft properly with gear down; flaps full-down; and IAS at approximately 65 KTS on final with a slightly steep approach as is usually done to simulate an obstacle of 50 FT along the approach path. The approach was stabilized; aligned with the center-line; with proper corrections for the slight crosswind and was aiming perfectly for the intended landing spot. As the student rounded out and entered the flair; I watched out the right window to see that the aircraft would land at the intended spot. As the white paint of the 1;000 FT markers came into view; the main gears touched down in the white paint as intended. Immediately there was a loud bang; I looked forward; and noticed the nose of the aircraft was dragging on the ground. The propeller was stopped and the tips were curled and damaged. The aircraft skidded to a stop and the student advised ATC that we were 'down on the runway.' The student properly shut down the aircraft and we removed our seat-belts and exited the aircraft. The FAA was notified accordingly and company reporting policies were followed. Neither of us was injured and no medical care was sought. During the flight; I never touched the controls and felt that the student's flying was very good. Even on very short final; I never felt the need to provide either verbal or physical correction of the student's actions. The student and I discussed what happened and neither of us understood why the nose gear had collapsed as it had. On future flight; I will assure that students are using the proper configurations; airspeeds; and techniques for landings to be sure this instance never occurs again. The damage to the aircraft is still being evaluated by the Company Maintenance Department.
A C182RG nose landing gear collapsed during landing with all indications normal up to the point of the collapse.