What happened
On May 14, 2016, a Cessna 310Q, registration PT-KLS, departed from Amarais Aerodrome (SDAM) in Campinas, Brazil, bound for Pirassununga. The aircraft was carrying a pilot and one passenger for a private flight. Shortly after takeoff, the crew noticed that the nose gear had failed to retract, a condition confirmed by both cockpit indications and ground personnel.
In an attempt to rectify the issue, the pilot performed a landing gear cycling procedure. However, while the main landing gear successfully locked, the nose gear remained extended. Due to this mechanical failure, the pilot decided to abort the mission and return to the origin aerodrome. During the subsequent landing at SDAM, the nose of the aircraft, the fuselage, and the propellers made contact with the runway. The aircraft sustained light damage, but both occupants were uninjured.
The investigation
CENIPA investigators examined the landing gear assembly and identified a fracture in the nose gear actuation rod. Analysis of the fractured component revealed that the break was caused by an overload applied to the material. The investigation found no evidence of fatigue or corrosion at the fracture site.
Review of the aircraft's logbooks showed that the aircraft had performed only three flights in 2016 prior to the incident. These previous flights were instructional in nature, specifically involving touch-and-go landings. One flight in March 2016 included three landings, and another in April 2016 included seven landings. While no hard landings or gear malfunctions were recorded in the logs, the investigators noted that the structural failure was consistent with cumulative stress from previous operations.
Findings
- The primary cause of the failure was an overload applied to the nose gear actuation rod, likely occurring during previous instructional landing maneuvers.
- The aircraft was within weight and balance limits, and all required airworthiness documentation and maintenance records were up to date.
- Meteorological conditions at the time of the accident were favorable for flight.
- The runway surface was in good condition and did not contribute to the accident.