STONE LAKE, WI, USA
N6596D
Cessna 172N
The pilot stated that he used a slightly higher final approach airspeed to compensate for any possible wind gusts. After the aircraft touched down, a wind gust lifted the aircraft back off the runway surface. The aircraft settled back to the runway and the pilot immediately applied brakes, raised the flaps, and held the nose off the ground. The pilot reported that the braking action of the aircraft was minimal due to hydroplaning. The pilot stated that a go-around was not possible due to the length of runway remaining and a tree line that was present at the end of the runway. The aircraft traveled off the end of the runway where it impacted a deep rut in the terrain. The nose gear of the aircraft dug into the rut causing the aircraft to nose over. Post accident inspection of the airplane revealed evidence of reverted rubber on both the left and right main landing gears.
On June 29, 1998, at 1500 central daylight time, a Cessna 172N, N6596D, piloted by an airline transport pilot, sustained substantial damage when it impacted the terrain during landing on runway 33 (2450' x 60', dry, turf) at a private airport, near Stone Lake, Wisconsin. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The 14 CFR Part 91 personal flight was not operating on a flight plan. The pilot and three passengers reported no injuries. The flight departed South St. Paul Municipal Airport, near South St. Paul, Minnesota, at time 1330. According to the pilot's written statement, the pilot checked weather prior to departure by utilizing a computer generated weather service and also by making a telephone call to the airport manager of the intended destination. The pilot stated that the takeoff from the South St. Paul Municipal Airport and en route portions of the flight were uneventful and normal. Upon arriving in the area of the destination airport, the pilot obtained weather information from the Hayward Airport Unicom, 25 miles northeast of the destination airport. Radio contact was also obtained with the airport manager at the destination airport. The pilot stated that the wind was out of the west to northwest at a velocity of 15 knots. The pilot stated that he entered a left-handed traffic pattern for runway 33. The pilot stated that he used an approach speed which was slightly higher then normal to compensate for any possible wind gusts. After the aircraft touched down, a wind gust lifted the aircraft back off the runway surface. The aircraft settled back to the runway and the pilot, "immediately applied brakes, raised the flaps, and held the nose off the ground." The pilot reported that the braking action of the aircraft was minimal due to hydroplaning. The pilot stated that a go-around was not possible due to the length of runway remaining and a tree line that was present at the end of the runway. The aircraft departed the prepared runway surface, at the end of the runway, and impacted a deep rut in the terrain. The nose gear of the aircraft dug into the rut causing the aircraft to nose over. The pilot stated that he shut-off the fuel and electrical systems and evacuated everyone from the aircraft. The airport manager/owner stated he thought the pilot had enough runway left to get the airplane stopped after it touched down a second time. In a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) report, subsequent to the accident, it was determined that the aircraft was hydroplaning at the time of the accident. According to the FAA accident report, there was evidence of reverted rubber on both the left and right main landing gears.
the lack of effective braking due to hydroplaning. Contributing factors to the accident were the trees off the end of the runway that made a go-around not possible and the ditch off the end of the runway.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
