C206 PLT DRAGS TAIL AT SMALL ARPT; DOES NOT DISCOVER DAMAGE UNTIL AFTER NEXT FLT AND STILL ELECTS TO FLY ANOTHER FLT WITHOUT NOTIFICATION OF HIS COMPANY.
Synopsis
C206 PLT DRAGS TAIL AT SMALL ARPT; DOES NOT DISCOVER DAMAGE UNTIL AFTER NEXT FLT AND STILL ELECTS TO FLY ANOTHER FLT WITHOUT NOTIFICATION OF HIS COMPANY.
Narrative
TAIL STRIKE INCIDENT AT CENTER ISLAND; WA; ON JUN/XA/00. TIME: XA15. I WAS DISPATCHED TO FLY 3 PEOPLE FROM ANACORTES; WA (74S); TO A PVT AIRSTRIP ON CENTER ISLAND; WA; AS A CHARTER FLT FOR A PART 135 OPERATOR. I HAD ABOUT 25 HRS IN THE CESSNA 206; THE TYPE ASSIGNED FOR THIS FLT. I HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY FLOWN INTO THIS ARPT IN A C206; BUT I WAS FAMILIAR WITH IT FROM A NUMBER OF FLTS IN A C172. THE WX WAS WINDY AND GUSTY; WITH A STRONG (ESTIMATED 15 KT) EASTERLY XWIND; LNDG DIRECTION S. THE FIELD HAS TALL TREES ON ALL SIDES; IS ABOUT 80 FT WIDE AND 1500 FT LONG; AND IS TOO SHORT TO MAKE A SUCCESSFUL GAR LIKELY; ONCE COMMITTED TO LAND. I BOUNCED ON LNDG; AND TRIED TO FORCE THE AIRPLANE DOWN; AND INDUCED A SERIES OF PLT INDUCED OSCILLATIONS; DURING WHICH THE TAIL STRUCK THE GND. I DID NOT REALIZE THIS HAD HAPPENED; AND MADE A WALKAROUND TO INSPECT THE GEAR; NOT NOTICING ANYTHING WRONG. I THEN FLEW TO WALDRON ISLAND; PICKED UP 2 PAX; DELIVERED THEM TO ANACORTES; AND RETURNED TO FRIDAY HARBOR; WA (FHR); FOR THE NIGHT. I DISCOVERED THE DAMAGE TO THE TAILCONE UPON TYING DOWN THE AIRPLANE. THE TIEDOWN RING WAS BENT; AND THE FIBERGLAS TAILCONE WAS CRACKED. I BELIEVED THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS AIRWORTHY; BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE AS AN A&P MECH; AND THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE; PER THE NTSB. AS MY ACR'S OFFICE WAS CLOSED; AND WAS NOT OPEN YET THE FOLLOWING MORNING; I DID NOT RPT IT AT THAT TIME. I FLEW TO EASTSOUND ARPT THE FOLLOWING MORNING WITH 5 PAX; AND TOOK 2 ON TO ANACORTES. THE AIRPLANE WAS WRITTEN UP THERE FOR MAINT. I WAS TERMINATED FOR THE INCIDENT; AND THE FAILURE TO RPT IT PER COMPANY PROC. OBSERVATIONS: THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED AT THE END OF A LONG DAY; DURING WHICH HIGH WINDS HAD BEEN A CONSTANT FACTOR IN THE 18-20 LNDGS THAT HAD BEEN MADE. FATIGUE MAY HAVE BEEN A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR; THEREFORE. ADDITIONALLY; FLYING INTO A FIELD WITH LITTLE OR NO POSSIBILITY OF A SAFE GAR MAY HAVE LED ME TO OVERREACT ON THE INITIAL BOUNCE; RATHER THAN RECOVERING IN THE USUAL MANNER; BY ADDING PWR AND ALLOWING THE AIRPLANE TO SETTLE BACK ON THE RWY; WHICH; I THOUGHT; WOULD NOT LEAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO STOP.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.