Aircraft Make: PIPER
Aircraft Model: PA46
Event Type: Incident
Highest Injury: None
Flight Phase: LANDING (LDG)
AFTER LANDING THE AIRCRAFT RAN OFF THE SIDE OF THE RUNWAY. MANASSAS, VA
PHILBURTO CONSULTING LTD: http://registry.faa.gov/N747TH
The Mansassas Volunteer Fire Company and other local units responded to the Manassas Regional Airport for a plane crash Thursday evening.
According to a department spokesperson, a single engine aircraft missed the runway.
Several reports indicate that the plane’s nose gear may have malfunctioned.
“The pilot was the only person onboard the aircraft, but did not receive any injuries and refused treatment,” they said.
Firefighters secured the aircraft’s fuel and determined no hazards present.
State police have taken over the investigation of the incident.
Tonight members of MVFC along with other City Fire and Rescue units responded to the Manassas Regional Airport for a plane crash.
Original article can be found here: http://bristowbeat.com
NTSB Identification: CEN14LA476
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, September 03, 2014 in Cortez, CO
Aircraft: PIPER PA-46-350P, registration: N747TH
Injuries: 2 Minor.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On September 3, 2014, about 1238 mountain daylight time, a Piper model PA-46-350P airplane, N747TH, was substantially damaged while landing at the Cortez Municipal Airport (CEZ), Cortez, Colorado. The commercial pilot-receiving-instruction and his flight instructor sustained minor injuries. The airplane was registered to and operated by Philburto Aviation, LTD, under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local instructional flight, which had departed shortly before the accident.
The flight instructor reported that the purpose of the flight was for the pilot to receive flight instruction toward satisfying his insurance company's annual currency requirements in the accident airplane. The flight instructor stated that on a previous flight, completed earlier that morning, they had completed several visual flight rules (VFR) flight maneuvers before deciding to conduct takeoff-and-landings at CEZ. The flight instructor reported that following several uneventful landings, they decided to perform a simulated loss of engine power following a takeoff from runway 21 (7,205 feet by 100 feet, asphalt) and return for a downwind landing on runway 3.
The flight instructor stated that during initial climb from runway 21, upon reaching 1,200 feet above ground level (agl), he reduced the engine power lever to flight idle and feathered the propeller. Following the simulated loss of engine power, the pilot-receiving-instruction reduced airplane pitch and rolled into a 45-degree bank left turn back toward the airport. The flight instructor reported that the pilot-receiving-instruction maintained best-glide airspeed (90 knots) throughout the left turn and rolled wings-level when the airplane was heading toward the runway 3 identification numbers. The flight instructor stated that, upon rolling wings level, the airplane appeared to be lower than he had expected as it glided toward runway 3. The pilot-receiving-instruction reportedly stated that he thought they would need to increase engine power in order to reach the runway; however, the flight instructor still thought there was sufficient altitude remaining to safely land on the runway and told the pilot to continue without an increase in engine power. The flight instructor reported that he ultimately decided to abort the maneuver as the airplane crossed over the runway 3 threshold at about 40 feet agl. He stated that despite the airplane having sufficient altitude remaining to land on the remaining runway, he thought it would be safer to abort the simulated engine failure and recover under powered-flight. The flight instructor reported that he took control of the airplane, advanced the engine power lever to the full forward position, and increased airplane pitch to arrest the descent; however, he did not perceive an increase in thrust from the engine after increasing the engine power lever. Without an increase in engine thrust, the airplane's airspeed decreased rapidly and the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall about 30 feet above the runway. The airplane impacted the runway, about 500 feet from the approach threshold, before it slid to a stop off the right side of the runway in a grassy area. The flight instructor reported that the engine continued to operate following the accident, and that he secured it by pulling the condition lever to the full aft position. The main wing spar and fuselage were substantially damaged during the impact sequence.
The flight instructor reported that he did not recall advancing the propeller control when he decided to abort the maneuver, and as such, the perceived lack of engine thrust was likely because the propeller remained feathered after he advanced the engine power lever. Additionally, the flight instructor reported that neither he or the pilot-receiving-instruction remember extending the landing gear following the simulated engine failure; however, both pilots recalled seeing the landing gear position lights illuminated during the maneuver. The flight instructor postulated that the airplane's landing gear had not been retracted after takeoff, which resulted in a reduced climb gradient due to the additional aerodynamic drag of the extended landing gear, and as such, the airplane entered the maneuver farther away from the airport than anticipated. Furthermore, with the landing gear extended, the airplane experienced a reduction in glide performance following the simulated loss of engine power.
The flight instructor reported that the accident could have been prevented had he maintained a safe flying airspeed after he took control of the airplane. Additionally, the flight instructor believed that his delayed decision to abort the maneuver had resulted in an insufficient margin of safety.
At 1253, the CEZ automated surface observing system (ASOS) reported: wind 220 degrees at 12 knots, visibility 10 miles, clear sky, temperature 29 degrees Celsius; dew point 1 degrees Celsius; and an altimeter setting of 30.07 inches of mercury.
The two people on board this plane were transported to Southwest Memorial after the Piper Malibu plane crashed at the south end of the Cortez airport September 3, 2014.
Two people involved in the small airplane crash at the Cortez Municipal Airport Wednesday afternoon walked away from the crash.
“There were no serious injuries,” said Montezuma County Undersheriff Linda Carter.
However, one of the two aboard was transported to the hospital, “as a precautionary measure,” Carter said.
According to Carter, both people involved in the crash were pilots, and one was undergoing a recertification process and practicing “touch-and-go” landings at the time of the crash.
“Something went wrong,” she said.
The airplane, a 1999 Piper Malibu, sat on the runway Wednesday surrounded by airport and county officials.
Carter said there was a small fuel spill, and the scene would be secured until investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board arrived. The NTSB investigates all airplane crashes.
Cortez Mayor Karen Sheek said emergency fire crews were quick to respond to the scene, adding that they performed their duties professionally.
“Both passengers walked away with only minor injuries,” said Sheek. “That’s what’s important.”
Sheek said Wednesday’s 4 p.m. Great Lakes Airlines flight into Cortez from Denver had been canceled, and the airport would remain closed for the remainder of the day.
“Great Lakes hopes to resume commercial flights starting Thursday morning,” said Sheek.
- Source: http://cortezjournal.com