A review of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data revealed that the Mooney M20J departed Castroville Municipal Airport (KCVB) in Texas destined for West Houston Airport (KIWS), in Katy, Texas.
After overflying KIWS at about 1,075 feet GPS altitude, the airplane turned left onto a downwind flight pattern leg for landing on Runway 15.
About 650 feet GPS altitude the airplane turned final and descended, at which point the ADS-B data ended.
The responding FAA inspector documented the accident site, which revealed that the airplane had collided with a tree, impacted terrain, and came to rest about 500 feet short of the runway.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and empennage.
Due to the serious injuries sustained in the accident, neither the pilot nor the passenger could recall the events of the accident flight.
A post-accident examination of the engine and airframe revealed no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
Additionally, data recovered from multiple devices that contained non-volatile memory revealed no anomalies with recorded engine parameters and that all flight parameters were consistent with controlled flight.
Historical sunrise and sunset times for the Houston area for the day of the accident listed the sunrise as 0704, the sunset as 1807, and the end of civil twilight as 1831.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s failure to maintain a proper glidepath while on the final approach segment of the traffic pattern in dark night conditions.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This February 2022 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.
The RNAV (GPS) 15 plate says “VGSI Angle 3.70/TCH 43” – that’s a 43-foot threshold crossing height and plenty of clearance for a 50′ obstacle 300′ short of the threshold (unless your plane is a lot longer than a Mooney). Fly the PAPI and aim for the touchdown zone, esp. at night. It’s a 4000′ runway, so why aim for the numbers?
Looking at the AFD for kiws; the departure notes from rwy 33..a number of tall trees.!
WEST HOUSTON (IWS)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
AMDT 4 20SEP12 (12264) (FAA)
TAKEOFF OBSTACLE NOTES:
Rwy 15, road and vehicle beginning 74’ from DER, 60’ left of centerline, up to 15’ AGL/123’ MSL.
Road and vehicle beginning 342’ from DER, 6’ right of centerline, up 15’ AGL/123’ MSL.
Building 177’ from DER, 398’ left of centerline, 18’ AGL/126’ MSL.
Light pole 942’ from DER, 453’ right of centerline, 39’ AGL/145’ MSL.
Trees beginning 307’ from DER, 26 left of centerline, up to 58’ AGL/165’ MSL.
Trees beginning 130’ from DER, 117’ right of centerline, up to 100’ AGL/208’ MSL.
Rwy 33, trees beginning 168’ from DER, 9’ left of centerline, up to 70’ AGL/179’ MSL.
Trees beginning 66’ from DER, 3’ right of centerline, up to 75’ AGL/184’ MSL.
Doing some measurements on Google Maps, trees on the golf course that align with the runway and the pond in the photo of the accident report are about 600ft from the runway and 1200ft from the PAPI. Entering a base of 1200 in an online calculator with a 3° slope, that puts the slope at a 63ft altitude at the point where the trees are.
If that’s anywhere near reality, an airplane may not have safe clearance over the tree when on the PAPI glideslope. It reminds me of an obstacle on a hill at Danbury, CT for runway 26. I was approaching on the glideslope and watching the red flashing lights on that obstacle (which is a tower and is on the sectional). Even though I was on the glideslope, I appeared to be on a possible collision course with the obstacle – the trajectory appeared so close I adjusted to fly higher than the glideslope lights until safely past the obstacle.
A few years later (now quite a few years back) a pilot from Maryland arriving at night collided with that tower (fatal accident). The lights on the tower were out of service and there was a notam posted. It left me with the impression that on some runway approaches, red over white on the VASI provides only a miniscule clearance over obstacles.
Runway 15 has a PAPI, right of the runway, 3.7 degrees glide slope !
So, at 3.7 degrees , 500 ft from the threshold, the aircraft would be at about 33 ft agl….well below the 50 ft trees on the golf course…assuming the the pilot was aiming for the threshold since there was no aiming point markings.
Another poorly implemented approach, and the golf course would probably not agree to remove the trees on the approach path.
He crashed 500′ short, well before the tree in the airport info so maybe the aircraft info was incomplete? From the photo the aircraft was right of centerline. The Foreflight 3D view shows trees at ~750′ on the centerline and right of centerline. Still too low of an approach.
Why consult the airport info beforehand when you can just deal with it when you get there? They’re luck they lived. RIP a good airplane.
Regards/J
According to the NTSB, the “probable cause” of the accident was: “The pilot’s failure to maintain a proper glidepath while on the final approach segment of the traffic pattern in dark night conditions.”
A tragic event that happens way too often.
Since neither occupant has any memory of the flight, we have no idea of what was going on in the cockpit leading up to the crash.
That includes details of exactly what the seriously injured 61-year-old, ATP-rated PIC, did or did not do, while preparing for this flight.
Hopefully, they have since recovered enough to provide those details. In the meantime, I am willing to withhold my judgment and give the PIC the benefit of the doubt.
For someone who disdains “rocks being thrown,” you seem to have no problem throwing a few yourself.
Looking at the airport info;
– Trees, 220 ft Left ft of center, 50 ft high, 289 ft from end, 1:1 clearance slope
– Nstd Npi Markings Due to Rwy Len. No Aiming Point.
So, if he was left of the centerline and was aiming at the threshold marks , he would be about 15 ft agl at 290 ft,and would hit the trees, but the aircraft was 500 ft from the threshold, so flew much lower than a 3 degree slope.!
Sad, that it looks like he didn’t review the airport info., esp for a night landing.
Pilots rarely look at the details concerning obstructions. They can be found on the airport master record and on some third-party providers such as Sky Vector but not in the Chart Supplement or on Foreflight. If a pilot consults the Chart Supplement they will only see “trees” as the obstruction.