Aviation Accident Summaries

Aviation Accident Summary ERA15LA238

Palmyra, PA, USA

Aircraft #1

N732VN

CESSNA T210

Analysis

According to the private pilot, following the personal flight and during the approach, he observed that the windsock was indicating light wind and that it was favoring the use of runway 31. He reported that, during the landing attempt, it felt as if "the braking had little effect," so he released the brakes and then reapplied them. However, he believed that there was insufficient runway remaining to safely stop, so he applied full engine power to attempt a go-around. The airplane lifted off, but it subsequently settled into the corn field at the departure end of the runway, which resulted in damage to the wing and engine mounts. The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions or abnormalities that would have precluded normal operation, and a postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no preimpact anomalies. An observation from a recording station 5 miles north of the airport indicated that the wind was from the southwest at 6 knots around the time of the accident, which could have resulted in about a 2-knot tailwind. According to the Pilot's Operating Handbook, with a 2-knot tailwind, the airplane would have required about 1,700 ft to land, and the runway had about 1,655 ft of available landing surface. The high temperature at the time of the accident would have decreased the airplane's climb performance by about 20 percent. It is likely that the pilot did not establish a proper airspeed for the go-around and that the high temperature decreased the airplane's climb performance, which resulted in a stall/mush during the attempted go-around.

Factual Information

HISTORY OF FLIGHTOn June 14, 2015, about 1445 eastern daylight time, a Cessna T210M, N732VN, was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain following an aborted landing attempt and subsequent go-around maneuver at Reigle Field (58N), Palmyra, Pennsylvania. The private pilot was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight, which was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The flight originated from Bloomsburg Municipal Airport (N13), Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania about 1415. According to the pilot, prior to his departure he checked the weather and determined that the flight would be in visual flight conditions. Prior to landing he observed the windsock, at the airport, and a flag, mounted at the top of a rollercoaster, at a nearby amusement park. Both indicated that the wind was "light" and favoring the use of runway 31. During the landing attempt, he stated that "the runway was hot" and it felt as though the "braking had little effect," he released the brakes and applied braking again. However, he felt that there may not have been enough remaining runway to safely stop and applied "full power" to begin a go-around maneuver. During the initial climb the airplane was not performing as he thought it should and the airplane subsequently impacted the ground at the departure end of the runway and came to rest in a cornfield with its right wing and then nosed into the ground. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical problems or abnormalities with the airplane. The pilot did not report where the airplane first contacted the runway. According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector that responded to the accident location, the airplane impacted the ground and came to rest, approximately 300 feet from the departure end of the runway, in a muddy cornfield. Examination of the airplane revealed the right wing spar was damaged and the engine had separated from the airframe. No preimpact malfunctions were noted that would have precluded normal operations. PERSONNEL INFORMATIONAccording to pilot and FAA records, he held a private pilot certificate with rating for airplane single-engine land and multiengine land. His most recent third-class medical certificate was issued on March 4, 2015. He had accumulated about 819 total hours of flight experience, and of those hours, 310 total hours were in the accident aircraft make and model. AIRCRAFT INFORMATIONAccording to the pilot and FAA records, the airplane was issued a standard airworthiness certificate on March 16, 1977. It was powered by a Continental TSIO-520-R9, Serial number 294452-R, 310-hp engine and driven by a McCauley propeller. The airplane's most recent annual inspection was recorded on October 9, 2014, and at that time it had accrued 2,903 hours total time in service. The engine had accrued 870 hours of time in service since the most recent overhaul. METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATIONThe 1458 record weather observation at Muir Army Airfield (MUI), Annville, Pennsylvania, located approximately 5 miles north of the accident location indicated wind from 240 degrees at 6 knots, visibility 10 miles, scattered clouds at 4,900 feet above ground level, temperature 29 degrees C, dew point 21 degrees C, and a barometric altimeter of 30.03 inches of mercury. The recorded weather 1 hour before and 1 hour following the accident, indicated variable winds between 4 and 6 knots. The density altitude calculated was about 2,000 feet. The recorded weather at other airports within 17 miles of the accident location revealed calm winds to wind from the southwest at 9 knots. AIRPORT INFORMATIONAccording to the pilot and FAA records, the airplane was issued a standard airworthiness certificate on March 16, 1977. It was powered by a Continental TSIO-520-R9, Serial number 294452-R, 310-hp engine and driven by a McCauley propeller. The airplane's most recent annual inspection was recorded on October 9, 2014, and at that time it had accrued 2,903 hours total time in service. The engine had accrued 870 hours of time in service since the most recent overhaul. ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONCessna T210 Pilot Operating Handbook Section 5 "Performance" provided a landing distance table and certain conditions that had to be met, one of those conditions was "zero wind." The table also contained "Notes" at the top of the performance chart. One of the notes stated "Decrease distances 10% for each 10 knots [of] headwind. For operation with tailwinds up to 10 knots, increase distances by 10% for each 2.5 knots." The chart provided two columns of information the first column was ground roll and the second column was the "total to clear 50 ft [foot] obs [obstacle]." The chart only provided performance numbers for the maximum landing weight of 3,800 pounds, the pilot reported the weight at the time of the accident was 3100 pounds. At the maximum weight and recorded temperature, 1,560 feet of runway would have been required in a "zero wind" condition. FAA Airplane Flying Handbook Chapter 5 "Takeoffs and Departure Climbs" states in part "…under conditions of high-density altitude, high temperature, and/or maximum gross weight, the airplane may be able to become airborne at an insufficient airspeed, but unable to climb out of ground effect. Consequently, the airplane may not be able to clear obstructions, or may settle back on the runway…" Density Altitude FAA Pamphlet FAA-P-8740-2 "Density Altitude" defines density altitude as "pressure altitude corrected for non-standard temperature variations." Density altitude can affect aircraft performance. As density altitude increase, air density decreases, which results in decreased aircraft performance. According to the Koch chart on page 3 of the pamphlet, based on the conditions at the time for the accident, 30 degrees C and pressure altitude of about 400 feet, the airplane's climb rate would have been reduced by about 20 percent.

Probable Cause and Findings

The pilot's delay in conducting an aborted landing and his subsequent failure to establish a proper airspeed during the attempted go-around on a hot day, which resulted in the airplane’s inability to climb and a subsequent stall/mush.

 

Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database

Get all the details on your iPhone or iPad with:

Aviation Accidents App

In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports