Narrative:

I was giving instruction in small aircraft on a cross country flight inbound to mkc. ATIS information copied the surface winds as two zero zero at one five KTS, peak gust to two two KTS. Our aircraft was instructed to land on runway 19 to hold short of runway 21. The student established his final approach at 65 KTS. As he was high on the approach, we discussed increasing the rate of descent to allow a landing that would enable holding short of runway 21. The student reduced power. Then he established a slip to align the airplane with the landing runway. This resulted in a higher rate of descent and it appeared that the airplane would land short of the intended T/D point. I instructed the student to increase power to adjust the rate of descent. The aircraft was near the runway. The airspeed was still approximately 65 KTS, but the wind near the ground was rough and appeared to be quite variable. The descent rate increased dramatically. I instructed the student to further increase power as I applied aft elevator near the runway. After landing on runway 19, my student said he thought he heard something during the landing. I assumed that we may have touched the runway with the tie down ring, but checked the controls visibility and functionally and found no indication of a problem. The tower asked if we had hit a threshold light. I replied that I did not think so, but would go back and check. I returned to the approach end of runway 19 and saw that the center threshold light was damaged. As I had not noticed this damage previously, I assumed it likely that I had damaged it. I taxied clear of the runway to inspect the airplane closer. I did discover scratches on the skin and a slight indentation just forward of the tail tie down ring. My opinion was that the aircraft was airworthy and after completing a report for the airport management, returned to topeka, ks. After returning to topeka, I also asked aircraft maintenance to check the aircraft which he did and he also agreed that the aircraft was airworthy. I believe that the variability of the wind and gustiness was a factor in the high sink rate that we encountered just prior to landing. Shortly after landing, I heard the tower advise another aircraft that he was not certain of the accuracy of the tower's wind instruments as the wind seemed to be greater and more variable than reported.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GASMA HIT REIL LNDG AT MKC DURING CROSS COUNTRY TRAIN FLT.

Narrative: I WAS GIVING INSTRUCTION IN SMA ON A CROSS COUNTRY FLT INBND TO MKC. ATIS INFO COPIED THE SURFACE WINDS AS TWO ZERO ZERO AT ONE FIVE KTS, PEAK GUST TO TWO TWO KTS. OUR ACFT WAS INSTRUCTED TO LAND ON RWY 19 TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 21. THE STUDENT ESTABLISHED HIS FINAL APCH AT 65 KTS. AS HE WAS HIGH ON THE APCH, WE DISCUSSED INCREASING THE RATE OF DSCNT TO ALLOW A LNDG THAT WOULD ENABLE HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 21. THE STUDENT REDUCED PWR. THEN HE ESTABLISHED A SLIP TO ALIGN THE AIRPLANE WITH THE LNDG RWY. THIS RESULTED IN A HIGHER RATE OF DSCNT AND IT APPEARED THAT THE AIRPLANE WOULD LAND SHORT OF THE INTENDED T/D POINT. I INSTRUCTED THE STUDENT TO INCREASE PWR TO ADJUST THE RATE OF DSCNT. THE ACFT WAS NEAR THE RWY. THE AIRSPD WAS STILL APPROX 65 KTS, BUT THE WIND NEAR THE GND WAS ROUGH AND APPEARED TO BE QUITE VARIABLE. THE DSCNT RATE INCREASED DRAMATICALLY. I INSTRUCTED THE STUDENT TO FURTHER INCREASE PWR AS I APPLIED AFT ELEVATOR NEAR THE RWY. AFTER LNDG ON RWY 19, MY STUDENT SAID HE THOUGHT HE HEARD SOMETHING DURING THE LNDG. I ASSUMED THAT WE MAY HAVE TOUCHED THE RWY WITH THE TIE DOWN RING, BUT CHKED THE CONTROLS VIS AND FUNCTIONALLY AND FOUND NO INDICATION OF A PROB. THE TWR ASKED IF WE HAD HIT A THRESHOLD LIGHT. I REPLIED THAT I DID NOT THINK SO, BUT WOULD GO BACK AND CHK. I RETURNED TO THE APCH END OF RWY 19 AND SAW THAT THE CENTER THRESHOLD LIGHT WAS DAMAGED. AS I HAD NOT NOTICED THIS DAMAGE PREVIOUSLY, I ASSUMED IT LIKELY THAT I HAD DAMAGED IT. I TAXIED CLR OF THE RWY TO INSPECT THE AIRPLANE CLOSER. I DID DISCOVER SCRATCHES ON THE SKIN AND A SLIGHT INDENTATION JUST FORWARD OF THE TAIL TIE DOWN RING. MY OPINION WAS THAT THE ACFT WAS AIRWORTHY AND AFTER COMPLETING A RPT FOR THE ARPT MGMNT, RETURNED TO TOPEKA, KS. AFTER RETURNING TO TOPEKA, I ALSO ASKED ACFT MAINT TO CHK THE ACFT WHICH HE DID AND HE ALSO AGREED THAT THE ACFT WAS AIRWORTHY. I BELIEVE THAT THE VARIABILITY OF THE WIND AND GUSTINESS WAS A FACTOR IN THE HIGH SINK RATE THAT WE ENCOUNTERED JUST PRIOR TO LNDG. SHORTLY AFTER LNDG, I HEARD THE TWR ADVISE ANOTHER ACFT THAT HE WAS NOT CERTAIN OF THE ACCURACY OF THE TWR'S WIND INSTRUMENTS AS THE WIND SEEMED TO BE GREATER AND MORE VARIABLE THAN RPTED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.