What reportedly happened: The airplane encountered a wind gust on takeoff roll, which lifted the right wing and caused the airplane to roll left.

The airplane then lifted off the ground about 2-3 feet, and the pilot aborted the takeoff. The airplane touched down on the left landing gear as it was drifting to the left, and the gear collapsed. Then, the right landing gear collapsed, and the left wing struck a runway light as the airplane exited the side of the runway.

The pilot said that the firewall, left wing spar, and an engine mount were damaged.

The pilot reported that there were no mechanical anomalies with the airframe or engine. He also stated that he should have been more aware of the possibility of sudden wind gusts and wind shear during takeoff.

Probable cause: The pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane during takeoff in gusty wind conditions.

NTSB Identification: CEN12CA278

This May 2011 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

What reportedly happened: The pilot of the experimental, amateur-built, tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that he performed a straight-in approach and subsequent landing with a gusting crosswind.

As the airplane slowed, and the tail dropped, he applied full aft elevator control input. He applied brakes and then initiated a turn onto the taxiway.

He stated that during the turn a gust of wind caught the right wing, tipping the airplane onto the left wing and causing the left aileron hinge to scrape on the runway. The airplane then bounced two times on the left main landing gear. The airplane came to a stop.

The post-accident examination revealed that the left landing gear mounting box and the adjacent fuselage structure was bent and the left wing was buckled. The damage was consistent with the left main landing gear being subjected to an excessive side load.

The pilot stated that the accident could have been prevented by either slowing the airplane down prior to exiting at the chosen taxiway or continuing to the next available taxiway.

Probable cause: The pilot’s decision to exit the runway while still traveling at an excessive speed and his subsequent loss of directional control.

NTSB Identification: WPR11LA216

This May 2011 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

What reportedly happened: According to the pilot and pilot-rated passenger, the airplane’s engine lost power while in level flight. The pilot switched fuel tanks and attempted to restart the engine without success.

During the forced landing, the right wing hit a tree at the edge of the field.

Both the pilot and pilot-rated passenger reported that the flight began with about 70 gallons of fuel on-board. The pilot reported that about 60 gallons remained (30 gallons in each tank) when the power loss occurred. After the accident, the left wing fuel tank was nearly full, and about 40 gallons of the 44.5 gallons of usable fuel was drained from that tank. There was no fuel in the right tank because it was ruptured and the right wing separated. The fuel selector was found positioned to the right fuel tank.

A subsequent examination of the airplane, including a thorough inspection of the fuel system, was conducted and no pre-impact anomalies were found.

A functional test of the engine was performed, and no defects in operation were noted. The most recent fueling of the airplane was performed during the airplane’s annual inspection about two months prior to the accident when the airplane was filled with the maximum usable fuel. Based on fuel consumption figures obtained from the engine manufacturer the amount of time recorded on the hour meter, and the engine’s performance during the post-accident engine run, it is likely that the fuel supply in the right wing fuel tank was exhausted, which led to the loss of engine power.

Probable cause: The pilot’s improper fuel management, resulting in a loss of engine power.

NTSB Identification: CEN11FA340

This May 2011 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

What reportedly happened: The airplane was one of several involved in a Young Eagles event that day to introduce students to general aviation. According to witnesses, the airplane began its takeoff roll at the approach end of runway 17, which was 3,550 feet long. The airplane swerved as it slowed, and then overran the departure end of the runway and down an embankment. Skid marks began approximately 712 feet prior to the end of the runway.

The pilot declined to be interviewed, and did not provide a written statement. According to FAA records, he had approximately 2,300 total hours of flight experience, of which 1,700 hours were in the same make and model as the accident airplane. This included 12 hours of flight time in the 30 days prior to the accident.

After the accident, weight and balance calculations revealed the estimated weight of the airplane at takeoff was 3,830 pounds, which was 230 pounds above the maximum allowable gross weight. The accelerate/stop distance calculated for the airplane’s takeoff weight was 2,483 feet. Based on the length of the runway and the calculated accelerate/stop distance, the pilot should have been able to abort the takeoff in time to avoid an overrun.

Probable cause: The pilot’s delay in aborting the takeoff, which resulted in a runway overrun. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s inadequate preflight planning and excessive loading of the airplane.

NTSB Identification: ERA11FA293

This May 2011 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

What reportedly happened: The student pilot and flight instructor were practicing a simulated forced landing to a runway. According to the instructor, the airplane touched down firmly, then veered to the right during the roll out.

The instructor noted that the right wing was lower than the left wing and his initial thought was that the right tire was flat. After coming to a stop, the airplane would not move forward without an excessive application of engine power.

The post-accident examination of the airplane revealed that the right main landing gear had collapsed

Probable cause: The flight instructor’s inadequate supervision of the landing, which resulted in an inadequate flare and subsequent hard landing.

NTSB Identification: CEN11LA390

This May 2011 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

What reportedly happened: The pilot heard an unusual sound as he retracted the landing gear after takeoff and the amber gear warning light was illuminated.

He referenced the emergency procedures and made two unsuccessful attempts to manually extend the gear. After engaging the autopilot, the pilot then checked the hydraulic reservoir in the cockpit and found it was empty.

At the advice of an air traffic controller, the pilot added a quart of engine oil in the hydraulic reservoir and attempted another manual gear extension, but was still unable to extend the gear.

He made a low pass by the control tower and a controller informed him that no landing gear were visible. He then attempted to make a gear up landing, however, according to airport personnel, the Cessna’s nose gear was down and the main landing gear retracted.

The airplane skidded on its belly and the left horizontal stabilizer was damaged.

According to a representative of the repair facility that fixed the airplane, an o-ring in the nose gear actuator piston had failed. In addition, a seal in the emergency extension system had also failed. Once the failed o-ring and seal were replaced, the landing gear functioned normally.

Probable cause: Failure of the landing gear to fully extend due to a failed o-ring in the nose gear actuator piston and a broken seal in the emergency landing gear extension system.

NTSB Identification: CEN11LA357

This May 2011 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

What reportedly happened: The student pilot was flying solo and attempting to land. He aborted the first landing due to low level turbulence associated with wind coming over nearby trees.

He elected to land beyond the trees on his next attempt, but about 5 feet above the runway, the airplane turned sharply to the right, descended and crashed.

The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage.

The pilot said there were no mechanical anomalies with the airplane, and that he should have selected another airport where the wind was not a factor.

Probable cause: The pilot’s inadequate compensation for wind conditions.

NTSB Identification: ANC11CA036

This May 2011 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

What reportedly happened: The 14,500-hour pilot obtained weather information via the internet before the flight. The information included advisories for convective activity and scattered thunderstorms along the intended northwesterly route of flight.

The pilot reported that the takeoff and the climb to cruise altitude were normal with intermittent periods of light turbulence. About 100 miles northwest of the departure airport, he observed weather ahead on the airplane’s on-board weather radar and requested from the en route air traffic controller a 45° westerly course deviation. A course deviation was granted, but because of a potential conflict with a climbing airplane, the pilot was instructed to turn no more than 30° west of his previously established heading.

The pilot complied with the instructions, then determined that he would need an additional 30° to 45° course deviation to avoid weather ahead. The pilot made at least two additional attempts to contact the controller, but received no response.

Post-accident review of air traffic control recordings indicates that the pilot’s transmissions were likely blocked, as one of them was made while another pilot was transmitting and the other was made while the controller was speaking to yet another pilot.

The pilot made an additional course deviation, and the airplane encountered moderate to severe turbulence lasting about two minutes. The pilot continued to the destination airport, landing without further incident. Subsequent examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the wing spar, likely due to the turbulence encounter.

The airplane was equipped with a next generation radar receiver, weather radar, and a lightning strike indicator. The pilot was likely aware of areas of significant weather ahead of him, as well as the less significant weather to the northeast and south well before the encounter, and he was definitely aware of the clear weather through which he had just flown. Nonetheless, the pilot continued to fly toward his destination, and toward the significant weather, which resulted in the airplane’s encounter with the turbulence.

Probable cause: The pilot’s in-flight decision to continue toward his destination, through known significant weather, when safer alternatives were available.

NTSB Identification: ERA11LA330

This May 2011 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

What reportedly happened: The pilot held an instrument rating and was flying the airplane for the owner, who did not hold an instrument rating, from the departure airport, where instrument meteorological conditions prevailed, to another airport, which was reported as under visual flight rules.

Forecast weather conditions along the route of flight called for areas of mountain obscuration and precipitation, including snow.

The pilot filed an IFR flight plan and was issued an IFR clearance. About 44 minutes into the flight, the pilot canceled the IFR clearance and continued the flight under VFR. About 16 minutes later, the pilot amended the flight’s destination to an airport that was along the route of flight, but closer than the original destination.

About 19 minutes after that, the air traffic controller told the pilot that radar service was terminated. About 1.5 hours after radar service was terminated, the airplane crashed in mountainous terrain at an elevation of about 6,400 feet MSL.

The wreckage and the damage was consistent with controlled flight into terrain.

The accident site was located along the route of flight beyond the amended destination and about 20 miles short of the original destination, indicating that the pilot had overflown the amended destination and may have been attempting to reach the original destination.

About 30 minutes before the accident, light rain and mountain top obscuration were reported in the vicinity of the original destination airport. At the time of the accident, the original destination airport was reporting cloud layers with bases about 6,300 and 6,800 feet MSL. Investigators speculated that given the forecast and reported weather conditions, it is likely that the pilot encountered IMC and was unable to see the terrain prior to the airplane colliding with it.

The toxicology report for the pilot showed positive results for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and trimethoprim, an antibiotic used to treat infections. However, it could not be determined from available samples when the amphetamine and methamphetamine had been ingested, and, therefore, whether they would have impaired the pilot’s performance.

Review of the pilot’s medical records indicated that he had diabetes, and, one day prior to the accident, he had been treated for a skin infection. It is possible that the pilot was distracted by his medical condition and that this may have impaired his performance and contributed to his decision to continue the VFR flight into deteriorating weather conditions.

Probable cause: The pilot’s continued VFR flight into instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in a controlled collision with terrain.

NTSB Identification: WPR11FA241

This May 2011 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

What reportedly happened: The pilot and four passengers departed on a cross country flight. According to witnesses on the ground, during the takeoff roll the airplane went off the left side of the runway before lifting off in a very nose-high attitude.

Once aloft, it headed toward a row of trees on the east side of the airport. The airplane climbed over the trees, turned to the south, and then quickly rolled right and crashed to the ground and burned.

The post-accident examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.

The pilot’s logbook indicated he had about four hours experience in the accident airplane, and, according to his logbook entries, he had not flown since June 12, 2010, after receiving instruction in the airplane, so he did not meet the FAA’s recent experience requirement for the required number of takeoff and landings to carry passengers.

The airplane’s estimated gross weight at the time of the accident was about 243 pounds over its approved maximum takeoff weight.

Given the witness accounts of the airplane swerving off the runway during the takeoff roll, and of its subsequent nose-high attitude and rapid roll prior to impact, investigators determined that it is likely that the pilot lost control during the takeoff roll and then applied excessive nose-up pitch to become airborne. Once airborne, he failed to attain sufficient airspeed to avoid an aerodynamic stall, and the airplane descended out of control to the ground.

Probable cause: The pilot’s loss of control during takeoff, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s lack of experience in make and model, his lack of currency in FAA required takeoffs and landings, and his excessive loading of the airplane.

NTSB Identification: ANC11FA037

This May 2011 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.