Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landing incident; 3 point touchdown with left crosswind. The crosswind conditions were ones that I previously handled at this airfield without issue. Upon touchdown an immediate and significant left turning motion occurred that I was unable to counter resulting in a loss of directional control. The left wingtip contacted high brush lining the down slope along the left side of the runway which then caused an immediate left turn into the brush. The aircraft ended in a nose down position; with wings and forward fuselage in the brush and the tail in the air still within the runway clearing. It was noted by three who immediately responded to the scene; including a CFII and an A&P mechanic; that the tail wheel was free swiveling even though the cockpit tail wheel control was in the locked position. The aircraft with this pilot had immediately prior had two flights to other airports that were uneventful. Prior to takeoff the tail wheel lock was set and confirmed with right/left rudder motion; but it appears to not actually have engaged. At the accident scene; after multiple attempts to position the tail wheel the mechanism did eventually engage without any change in cockpit tail wheel lock control.Later discussion with both the CFII and A&P Mechanic--who each have extensive experience with conventional gear aircraft including those with locking tail wheels--resulted in the following considerations:1. Rudder action alone will not confirm engagement of the tail wheel locking mechanism. That requires both some thrust or momentum and application of each brake individually.2. Their recommendations are that wheel landings are their preference for such as this aircraft in all but ideal conditions; using the following technique.a. Wheel landings provide forward visibility during touchdown and the initial landing roll; providing better confirmation of runway alignment especially on narrow runways whereas 3-point landings depend on peripheral vision during the critical phase of landing flare before the wheels are in contact with the surface.b. Prior to touchdown; feet should be repositioned so toes are on the brake pedals.c. Upon touchdown on the main wheels; taps on the brakes will scrub off speed.d. As the tail comes down the feet position and prior brake use has you prepared for immediate brake action to counter any strong turning tendency which will be experienced if the tail wheel lock was not engaged for any reason.My prior practice favored 3-point landings 2/3 of the time with wheel landing reserved for particularly windy conditions or for general proficiency and fun. I expect my future practice will reverse this with wheel landings 2/3 of the time and 3-point landings reserved for ideal conditions and wider runways or when very short runway lengths dictate.




Synopsis: The pilot of a vintage bi-plane lost control immediately after a three point touchdown in a modest but gusting cross wind. The aircraft caught a wingtip; exited the grass runway and came to rest on its nose. On site assessment suggested the locking tail wheel had failed to lock and may have contributed to the loss of control.