text
stringlengths 0
3.21k
|
|---|
In contrast, terrain beneath either a departure path straight out from runway 27L, or a right-hand traffic pattern, remained at approximately the airport elevation for several miles. |
A Go-Pro camera and a handheld GPS were recovered from the airplane, and sent to the NTSB Recorders Laboratory for data download. |
Neither device contained any data from the accident flight, and both were returned to their respective owners. |
According to the pilot, a cart that housed an auxiliary power unit was positioned near the helicopter and used to start its engine. |
After engine start, ground personnel did not remove the cart from the helipad. |
The pilot reported that shortly after lift off to a hover, to perform track and balance checks, the tail rotor struck the forward portion of the cart. |
The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the tail boom and tail rotor. |
The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation. |
The pilot's failure to maintain clearance from the cart while hovering. |
Contributing to the accident was the failure of ground personnel to remove the cart from the helipad. |
The accident airplane was the second of two airplanes, traveling as a flight of two, en route to a remote wilderness lodge in an area of mountainous terrain. |
The accident pilot stated that as the flight entered a mountain pass, the two airplanes became separated due to heavy snow showers. |
He said that visibility deteriorated to a point that it was difficult to discern topographical features while in the pass, and he elected to turn around. |
The pilot reported that during a descending left turn the airplane collided with an area of snow-covered up-sloping terrain, sustaining substantial damage to the wings, fuselage and empennage. |
The pilot said there were no preaccident mechanical problems with the airplane and that the airplane was recently equipped with a 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitter, which aided rescue crews in finding the accident site quickly. |
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:The pilot's decision to enter adverse weather conditions, resulting in a loss of visibility and collision with terrain during a turn to reverse direction. |
The pilot reported that before landing on an unimproved airstrip, he tried to identify the wind direction using a ribbon located at the high point along the airstrip that was above the treetops. |
He also over flew the airstrip both ways at about 1,500 ft to verify what the ribbon was showing. |
During the landing, the airplane was not aligned with the airstrip, and the left main landing gear touched down first, which imposed a significate side load to the left main landing gear assembly. |
After the landing, the pilot noticed that he had landed with a quartering tailwind. |
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and right-wing rear spar. |
The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. |
The pilot’s improper landing flare while landing off-airport with a tailwind. |
The pilot reported that, while flying in mountainous terrain around 9,500 ft mean sea level (700 to 1,200 ft above the ground), the airplane encountered a downdraft. |
He added that he immediately turned away from the mountainside in a right turn, added full power, selected 10º of flaps, and pitched the nose up to maintain the airplane's maximum angle-of-climb airspeed (Vx). |
Subsequently, the airplane was unable to climb, and it then impacted wooded, snow-covered terrain along the mountainside. |
The fuselage and both wings sustained substantial damage. |
The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. |
The calculated density altitude near the flightpath was about 10,339 ft. |
According to the Federal Aviation Administration Koch Chart, the airplane would have experienced a 50% decrease to the normal climb rate. |
The high-density altitude conditions likely contributed to the airplane's inability to establish a climb. |
The pilot's decision to maneuver the airplane over mountainous terrain in high-density altitude conditions, which resulted in the airplane's inability to maintain altitude or establish a climb. |
The pilot reported that while en route to his destination, the wind at the destination airport was reported as 180 degrees magnetic, at 19 to 22 knots, gusting 25 to 28 knots. |
The pilot reported that he added 5 knots to the "normal speed" of 70 knots for approach to "help compensate" for the gusts. |
About 20 feet above the ground, the airspeed "suddenly dropped" to 60 knots, the pilot added full power in an attempt to go-around, the left wing "abruptly lifted", and according to the pilot, "all remaining altitude was quickly lost". |
The airplane's right wing impacted the ground and the airplane cart-wheeled. |
The pilot reported there were no pre-impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. |
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, empennage, and both wings. |
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:The pilot's failure to maintain airspeed control during the landing in gusty wind conditions, resulting in an abnormal runway contact, and collision with terrain. |
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that shortly after touchdown, he "lost directional control" to the right, attempted to correct with left rudder and brake inputs, but was unsuccessful. |
The airplane continued to veer off the runway to the right, ground looped, and the left wing impacted the ground. |
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. |
The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. |
The pilot's failure to maintain directional control during the landing roll, which resulted in a ground loop. |
The pilot reported that during cruise flight, the engine momentarily started to run rough before he heard a loud bang followed by a separation of a portion of the propeller blade. |
The pilot shut the engine down and performed a forced landing to open desert terrain, during which the airplane impacted vegetation, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing. |
Postaccident examination of the propeller blade revealed a chordwise fracture across the propeller about 12 inches from the hub. |
The fracture origin area exhibited a small pit, consistent with progressive crack growth from a flat fracture surface in the area identified as the origin. |
The pit was likely initiated by corrosion, as it exhibited evidence of chlorine-containing salts. |
No maintenance logbooks were located for the propeller, and its total time in service and most recent inspection were not determined. |
The in-flight separation of a section of a propeller blade due to a fatigue crack, which resulted in a forced landing. |
On September 14, 2019, about 1125 mountain daylight time, an experimental, amateur-built Sidewinder airplane, N492AC, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Tucumcari, New Mexico. |
The commercial pilot was not injured. |
The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. |
The pilot reported that, during cruise flight at 11,500 ft mean sea level (msl), the engine momentarily started to run rough. |
He then heard a loud bang, followed by a portion of propeller blade separating from the fixed-pitch propeller assembly. |
The pilot shut the engine down by moving the mixture handle to the idle cut-off position and turning off the magneto switch; the engine continued to windmill during the descent and was “still very wobbly.” The pilot performed a forced landing to open desert terrain, during which the airplane impacted vegetation, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing. |
Review of photos of the airplane revealed that one of the propeller blades was separated about 12 inches from the hub. |
Examination of the propeller fracture surface revealed that the fracture origin area exhibited a small pit. |
Further examination with a scanning electron microscope revealed fracture features consistent with progressive crack growth from a flat fracture surface in the area that was identified as the origin. |
The fracture features were consistent with a fatigue fracture originating from the pit. |
Energy dispersive spectroscopy of the origin area revealed chlorine-containing salts, which were consistent with a corrosion-initiated pit. |
No propeller logbooks were located during the investigation. |
It could not be determined when the propeller was last inspected or overhauled, or its total time in service. |
The pilot was landing the airplane on a 3,500-ft-long runway and reported that the airplane was “long and fast” during the approach. |
The airplane floated down the runway before eventually touching down. |
Seeing that the end of the runway was approaching, the pilot applied the brakes. |
After the nose landing gear touched down, the airplane veered off the runway to the left. |
As it departed the runway surface, the propeller struck the ground and the airplane nosed over. |
The airplane’s fuselage, left wing, and vertical stabilizer were substantially damaged. |
The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. |
The pilot’s failure to maintain directional control during the landing, which resulted in a runway excursion and subsequent noseover. |
The student pilot reported that, during the approach to land, the airplane was high, and as she descended, the airspeed increased. |
She added that, during the touchdown, the airplane bounced three times, and the nose landing gear collapsed. |
The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. |
The student pilot's improper approach and landing flare, which resulted in a porpoised landing. |
The single-engine tailwheel-equipped airplane was destroyed by post impact fire when the airplane impacted a metal carport type structure during takeoff roll from a private grass airstrip. |
No witnesses observed the airplane’s takeoff roll and impact with the metal structure. |
One witness reported that he heard the airplane during the takeoff roll and that the engine sounded like it was operating normally prior to impact. |
The airplane was departing to the south and the wind was from the west at about 10 knots. |
The on-site investigation revealed that there was a single tire imprint about 445 feet long which led from the right side of the runway centerline to the impact area on the metal structure. |
The airplane wreckage was located about 85 feet past the metal structure. |
Ground scars that were consistent with propeller strikes were found between the metal structure and the airplane wreckage. |
The inspection of the airframe and engine revealed no pre-impact anomalies. |
The pilot who owned the airplane was in the rear seat, but he was not a certificated instructor pilot. |
The pilot rated passenger did not have a tailwheel endorsement to fly the airplane as required by the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61. |
The airplane owner’s handbook stated, “Solo operation of both models is normally from the front seat although rear seat operation is entirely feasible.” The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:The pilot's failure to maintain directional control during a crosswind takeoff. |
HISTORY OF FLIGHT On October 31, 2009, at 1159 central daylight time, a Piper PA-18-135, N1198C, was destroyed by post impact fire when the airplane impacted a metal carport type structure during takeoff roll from a private grass airstrip near Sikeston, Missouri. |
The pilot and pilot rated passenger received fatal injuries. |
The 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 personal flight was departing the airstrip with Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as the destination. |
Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. |
No flight plan was filed. |
No witnesses observed the airplane’s takeoff roll and impact with the metal structure. |
One witness reported that he heard the airplane during the takeoff roll and that the engine sounded like it was operating normally. |
When he heard the airplane hit the metal structure, he ran to the accident site. |
As he was running toward the burning airplane, a fuel tank exploded. |
He was able to pull the pilot from the rear seat of the aircraft, but the fire prevented the extraction of the pilot rated passenger from the front seat of the airplane. |
PERSONNEL INFORMATION The 55-year-old pilot held an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane multi-engine land rating, a commercial certificate with an airplane single-engine land rating, and a private pilot certificate with an airplane single-engine sea rating. |