EMB-505 flight crew reported unstable approach and temporary loss of control over landing threshold. Crew reported they struck a light with a wing while performing the go around.
Synopsis
EMB-505 flight crew reported unstable approach and temporary loss of control over landing threshold. Crew reported they struck a light with a wing while performing the go around.
Narrative
During approach to ZZZ airport landing runway XX the conditions were very gusty and turbulent. The majority of the approach was well stabilized and my captain was doing a great job calling out any transitory deviations and trends. By my estimation; around 100ft AGL I could feel the plane start to sink at a higher rate but myself and the CA noted the airspeed not changing. I added power and pitch to arrest the descent but the descent continued. I would estimate the stall warning activated around 30ft AGL and maybe 100ft past the threshold. I called for the go around and we executed the go around. At no time did I ever think we came into contact with the ground or any object. We came around for a second attempt. The conditions remained the same but we did not get sink like the first attempt and were able to make a normal landing. The next day the Captain let me know that he found a dent on the inboard section of the wing; at the time I didn't think anything of it. Two days after the landing I was notified that it was suspected that we may have hit a light with the wing of the aircraft". Identification: The stall warning system activated.Cause: The cause of the events were the very gusty and turbulent conditions paired with no vertical guidance at the airport of intended landing (no visual/PAPI nor an a published approach to back up the visual). The approach to runway XX comes in over flat land then a highway and then the airport. As soon as you reach the airport environment there is a hard tree line to the left. With the wind being a quartering left headwind; I suspect we lost a significant amount of headwind as we descended below the tree line and that is when the excessive sink and more turbulent air began. Response: We executed a go around in reaction to the stall warning activation. Suggestions: Could have initiated the go around a little earlier; when we initially felt the aircraft begin to sink."
Second reporter narrative
We initially began the approach high and fast. I reminded PF to correct prior to 500' and they acknowledged as they were correcting as well. PF flying asked me to turn on the PAPIs for the runway which I attempted to do but got nothing (only XX was NOTAMd out). At this point we only had an OBS set up for lateral guidance but nothing for vertical guidance as there were no approaches to this runway. At 500' we were stable with around 700-900 fpm descent and vref +10 from the cockpit indications. Below 500 feet until 100 feet we continued down within airspeed differing from vref +10 from -5 to +5 with occasional gusts adding +10 however those were momentary and very short. At approximately 100 agl (below tall tree line) the airplane began descending rapidly. PF corrected with power; more than usual; in these conditions but we were still sinking. Immediately the aural stall" warning went off and PF immediately called for a go around (appeared we were still 20-30 agl above runway threshold). At this moment the stall warning went off I was watching the speed indicator and it never went below vref bug or the DSB (Dynamic Speed Bug) from what I could tell in the conditions. This sequence of events happened very fast. We executed the go around per SOP and landed without any other issues. Post flight walk around revealed nothing wrong or abnormal with the aircraft as the go around was low to the ground (<100' agl)Identification: Aural warning "stall" indication followed by a go around. I looked up afterwards if this was a required report but did not see go around was however I should have reported the stall warning. Safety reached out to us and requested we file separate reports.Cause: Very challenging weather conditions with gusty winds both head on and crosswind casing turbulence and winds shear. We had no vertical guidance and in these conditions we had no baseline to help us become stable sooner and continue down. Response: We set ourselves up for a more challenging approach given there be no vertical guidance on a day where it would have helped create a baseline for the weather and gusty conditions. Given the rapid and transient airspeed indications and change of vertical speed we should have executed the go around sooner.Suggestions: I suggest having vertical guidance with challenging approaches on severe weather days. Fatigue also plays a roll and I should have noticed we were descending faster than usual which dictates we were on a higher glide path than acceptable. This should be a good sign to go around."
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.