ML7 PLT HAD A GND LOOP ON LNDG.

Narrative

THE FLT WAS CONDUCTED UNDER VFR FROM PAO TO MYF ON JUL/XA/99 IN A MAULE MX7-180 WITH 1 PLT AND 2 PAX ON BOARD. THE CONDITIONS ON ARR WERE DAYLIGHT VFR WITH THE WINDS RPTED FROM 210 DEGS AT 10 KTS. MYF TWR CLRED THE PLT TO LAND ON ACTIVE RWY 28L. A NORMAL APCH WAS DONE TO FLARE; AND THEN TOUCHDOWN IN A 3-POINT ATTITUDE NEAR THE APCH END OF THE RWY (THIS ACFT NORMALLY LANDS IN A VERY SHORT DISTANCE). UP UNTIL THIS POINT; THERE WAS VERY LITTLE DRIFT FELT DUE TO THE RPTED XWIND. ON ROLLOUT; THE PLANE FIRST EXPERIENCED A GUST FROM THE R; BUT WAS MINOR AND CORRECTED IMMEDIATELY. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE GUST FROM THE R WAS A STRONGER; MORE PERSISTENT WIND FROM THE L. L AILERON AND FULL R RUDDER WERE APPLIED WHILE THE ACFT WAS STILL ON CTRLINE. THE ACFT BEGAN TO LEAN TOWARDS THE R; SIDE-LOADING THE R MAIN WHEEL. THE ACFT BEGAN TO DEVIATE FROM THE CTRLINE OF THE RWY IN A SLIGHT L-HAND TURN; AND A SKIDDING SQUEAL WAS HEARD FROM THE R MAIN GEAR. THE TURN TO THE L INCREASED IN SHARPNESS INTO AN UNCTLABLE GND LOOP SIT. AS THE ACFT TURNED THROUGH APPROX THE 90 DEG POINT; THE R WINGTIP SCRAPED THE GND MOMENTARILY AND CONTINUED TO A COMPLETE STOP; UPRIGHT; AND 180 DEGS FROM TOUCHDOWN HDG WITH ENG AT IDLE AND ALL ON ONBOARD UNSCATHED. THE ACFT CAME TO A REST AT THE INTXN OF RWY 28L AND TXWY C (THE FIRST TXWY). AFTER SHUTDOWN; THE VISIBLE DAMAGE WAS TO THE R WINGTIP CAP; AND THE R MAIN WHEEL. THE R MAIN WHEEL EXPERIENCED SEVERE DEFORMATION OR BUCKLING; LIMITING THE ACFT'S ABILITY TO ROLL. THERE WAS NO VISIBLE FABRIC DAMAGE; AND NO PROP STRIKE OCCURRED. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) THE ACTIVE RWY (RWY 28) PRESENTED AN ALMOST DIRECT XWIND. WHEREAS; THE WINDS FAVORED ANOTHER AVAILABLE RWY (RWY 23). 2) ALTHOUGH THE PIC DID HIS PRIMARY TRAINING AND SOME 150 HRS IN TAILWHEEL ACFT; HE ONLY HAD 10 HRS IN MODEL. 3) THE FATIGUE AND CONDITION OF THE MAIN GEAR ARE UNDETERMINED. IT IS NOT CLR IF THE DEFORMATION OF THE R MAIN WHEEL WAS CAUSE OR RESULT OF THE RESULTANT GND LOOP. HUMAN FACTORS: PERCEPTIONS; JUDGEMENTS; AND DECISIONS OF WHICH RWY TO USE WERE ULTIMATELY THE PLT'S RESPONSIBILITY; AND NOT ATC'S. THROUGH A LACK OF INITIATION OR LAZINESS; THE PLT ACCEPTED THE ASSIGNED RWY EVEN THOUGH ANOTHER RWY FAVORED THE WINDS. HE COULD HAVE MADE A REQUEST FOR THE OTHER RWY (RWY 23); LIMITING THE EXPOSURE TO THE XWIND. OTHER FACTORS TO THINK ABOUT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTE TO INACTION ON THE PLT'S PART ARE THE LENGTH OF THE FLT (4 HRS IN THIS CASE); AND TEMP (80 DEGS F).