Mastery Flight Training, Inc. 

Beech Weekly Accident Update archives

November 2008 Reports

Official information from FAA and NTSB sources (unless otherwise noted).  Editorial comments (contained in parentheses), year-to-date summary and closing comments are those of the author.  All information is preliminary and subject to change.  Comments on preliminary topics are meant solely to enhance flying safety.  Please use these reports to help you more accurately evaluate the potential risks when you make your own decisions about how and when to fly.  Please accept my sincere personal condolences if anyone you know was in a mishap. I welcome your comments, suggestions and criticisms.  Fly safe, and have fun!

©2008 Mastery Flight Training, Inc.  All Rights Reserved

NEW REPORTS THIS WEEK

There are no new reports of Beech piston mishaps this week.  This is only the third week in 10 years of the Weekly Accident Update when this has occurred.  Hopefully it signals an overall improving safety record; good work, all of you, and keep the record going.

UPDATES FROM NTSB: Events previously appearing in the Weekly Accident Update:

**10/19 F33A loss of directional control on landing at Big Bear, CA.  From the NTSB: “The pilot, who [i]s a certified flight instructor (CFI), submitted a written statement. She had departed from a local airport and received flight following to her destination. After obtaining the wind information, which she recalled reporting winds from 240 degrees at 5 knots, gusting to 17 knots, she entered a left downwind for runway 26. The pilot landed on the runway and the airplane swerved to the right, departing the runway surface and impacting a parked airplane, a vehicle, and an airport hangar. The Safety Board investigator interviewed a CFI that departed from the same airport and was landing at the same destination as the accident flight. He also obtained flight following and overheard the communication between air traffic control and the accident pilot, and then landed behind her. He indicated that the winds were reported from 220 degrees at 5 knots. During the landing, the airplane went past the final approach leg and then entered a 270-degree turn to enter back into the traffic pattern. When the airplane entered onto the final leg he looked down and saw a cloud of dust. Approximately 5 minutes after the accident, an aviation routine weather report (METAR) for the airport was reporting, in part, winds from 240 degrees at 8 knots.”

FROM UNOFFICIAL SOURCES

Readers report:

(Date and time not reported):  Within the last two weeks a Be35’s landing gear collapsed on touchdown at an unidentified airport in Iowa.  According to the reader, who has spoken with the pilot, when retracting the landing gear the pilot “heard a loud bang.”  He then re-extended the gear but got “not indication the nose gear was down.”  Attempting to troubleshoot, the pilot “cycled the gear several times” but “heard a terrible noise each time the gear [was] cycled.”  He then “raised the gear using the [manual extension] hand cranks—a big mistake,” then lowered the gear using the manual extension procedure.  On landing the airplane “went over on its nose”.  Investigation revealed the aft nose gear retract rod had failed.  When the pilot repeated cycled the gear the broken rod “punched holes [in] and tore the webbing” on the carry-thru spar.  The airplane is reportedly uninsured and it’s uncertain whether the owner will be able to afford to make repairs.  The airplane is a 1950 B35, registration and ownership not reported.

(“Failure of nose gear to extend due to mechanical failure”; “Substantial damage”—In many cases of mechanical landing gear failure, a pushrod or rod end bends or breaks but at that point the gear may still be capable of being extended the rest of the way suing alternate/emergency procedures.  Although often we are taught to “cycle the gear” if something interrupts gear extension, in practice such cycling frequently causes additional damage that prevents the gear from being fully extended by any means.  If the gear circuit breaker trips or landing gear dies not fully extend for any other reason, your safest course of action is to attempt to get the gear the rest of the way down with an alternate/emergency extension procedure.  Do not, however, attempt to raise and re-lower [“cycle”] the landing gear, as this carries a very real risk of making matters much worse.)

11/4 (time not reported):  A Be36 was on approach to Ann Arbor, MI.  Weather conditions required he miss the first ILS approach.  On a second attempt the pilot carried extra power “thinking he might have to miss again”, but he failed to extend the landing gear or notice what must have been a big discrepancy between power, pitch, airspeed and vertical speed that should have warned the landing gear was still up.  It may be that the pilot intentionally left the gear up “thinking he might have to miss again” with the good intention of extending it if/when he went visual at the bottom of the approach.   This time he did break out and saw the runway; he reduced power “about five feet up” from the runway and bellied it in.  The airplane is an A36, registration and ownership not reported.

(“Gear up landing”; “IMC”—The Bonanza’s gear warning horn [and in later airplanes, annunciator light] is designed to activate if the landing gear is not fully down and the throttle is reduced below the position that would normally provide about 12” manifold pressure at sea level.  Alter your technique to land with power and the gear warning will not sound or illuminate.  Later airplanes also trigger the gear warnings if the flaps are fully down and the gear is not.  Landing with less than full flaps [such as many pilots do out of a low IFR approach or in strong winds] also defeats the landing gear warning system.  Altering an establish technique because an approach might need to be missed can set the pilot up for missed items that could lead to a gear mishap or Controlled Flight Into Terrain [CFIT].)

11/9 (time not reported):  The pilot of a Be36 emailed to report:  “We had the dreaded ‘uh-oh’ Sunday after we departed from Ardmore, OK, and headed down to the north Dallas area. At 4,500 [ft] and at relatively moderate power, our engine cratered. We later found the #5 cylinder head blew off, disconnected. There was a ‘bang’, the engine immediately ran rough, and the JPI confirmed power loss in the cylinder. Of course while in the air, we had no idea what had happened, but I sort of reckoned it was a cylinder coming apart. We have ECi cylinders. There's an AD out on the subject, though it doesn't appear to cover our specific cylinders.

The pilot’s wife, in the right seat “pushed the GPS ‘nearest’ button to locate the nearest airport, which fortunately turned out to be Gainesville, TX [GLE]. We were on Center frequency, declared an ‘emergency’ and stayed with them for a couple minutes until we identified GLE, then we switched to GLE Unicom, again declared an emergency asking everyone to stay clear because we were coming in with only limited power. The engine was still running, but we had plenty of altitude and we didn't want to push the power issue. There was a clunking noise.  Our altitude was just fine for the 6.5 nm coast to GLE, and we entered onto base, then turned final, and landed quite normally. The engine provided taxi power to get us to the tie down. We shut it down normally.

“Once on the ground, we opened the cowl to find #5 cracked all the way around about 5 fins up from the bottom of the louvers. It had separated by about a third of an inch.”  N29959 (E-2340) is a 1986 A36 registered since 2001 to a co-ownership in Kerrville, Texas.

(“Piston/cylinder failure in flight”—This is an excellent example of how to handle an emergency, including division of cockpit chores, use of technology, obtaining ATC assistance by declaring an emergency, and assertiveness in dealing with the situation.  Going the extra mile to warn all pilots in the area on Unicom shows the “crew” was unmistakably in control and situationally aware enough to still be thinking about the world outside the cockpit.  The subject cylinder had approximately 1100 hours Time-In-Service [TIS] amassed in roughly seven years’ time.  The engine is turbonormalized and the pilot reports following the STC holder’s operating instructions, which include high cruise power settings but lean-of-peak mixture operation to keep temperatures down.  The subject cylinder had suffered “problems” several years ago, according to the pilot, including repeated failure to develop power on takeoff that was overcome by ground leaning and proper operation on the second takeoff attempt. That was addressed by mechanics but no definitive cause was ever found.  Again, tremendous job by the crew of this A36.) 

FOLLOW-UP on a previous report

Concerning this report from the August 14, 2008 Weekly Accident Update:

A reader from Israel reports:  8/7 (time note reported):  “There was a fatal Bonanza accident at Haifa airport.  A civil A36 failed to go around and crashed into an abandoned shack. Three out of four crew members were killed, the fourth is severely wounded. From the information gathered so far it seems there was no problem with the aircraft and the engine was in full power during the crash. The investigation is still being carried out, I'll keep you updated when I know more.”  Aircraft registration and serial number are not known, and weather conditions appear not to have been a factor.

(“Landed long/failed to go around”; “Fatal”; and [I assume at least] “Substantial damage”—thanks, reader, for your report).

Another Israel-based reader now provides this update:

The report of this A36 accident is out since two days. It holds some 110 pages dealing not only with the probable cause but with many issues (regulatory, formal etc.) which popped out during the investigation. In addition to the volume - it is in Hebrew.

The reader graciously provided some translation, including:

A Bonanza A36 came to land in the Haifa airport (LGHA), its home base, which has a 4400 ft runway.  It touched briefly about 1650 ft after the threshold (speed estimated at 57 knots) and immediately took back into the air attempting a go-around, applying full power and retracting the gear and flaps. It was basically flying in ground effect along the runway, and toward the end wiggled the wings, stalled, veered left, hit a tree, then an electricity pole, then a second [pole]. This last impact clipped off the left wing causing a cloud of sprayed fuel which immediately became a fireball. The aircraft turned sharply to the left and hit a wall, coming to rest, burning. Three out of the four occupants were killed on the spot, The fourth, the right hand front passenger, was thrown out of the aircraft with the door, hinges and all, survived the crash but died later in the hospital because of severe external and internal burns. Since he was immediately anesthetized he was not questioned by the investigators.  I should add that the aircraft was heavy, at the MTOW, and the CG way aft. 

Government investigators determined that the airplane was 146 pounds over maximum gross weight and 0.4 inches forward of the aft c.g. limit for maximum takeoff weight, or just inside the c.g. envelope but near the aft limit.

The aircraft was fitted with tip tanks, so the total fuel capacity was 110 US gallons. It is worthwhile to not[e] that a go-around from the same status and same configuration was tried in a simulator by four experienced pilots. They crashed 28 out of 30 attempts.

Aft c.g., even within limits, will have the following effects on takeoff, go-around or missed approach:

·         Requirement for the pitch trim to be set more nose-low than in a “normal” takeoff.

·         Tendency of the airplane to pitch up excessively on liftoff for any given trim position.

·         Decreased pitch stability, i.e., a less stable, “squirrelier” airplane.

·         Decreased longitudinal stability, with increased rudder necessary to compensate for propeller turning tendencies at high power.  In ground effect this may exceed the available rudder if airspeed is low, causing the airplane to drift uncontrollably to the left.

·         Requirement for more nose-up trim for a given speed on landing, exacerbating the nose-up tendency at power application at the beginning of a balked landing or missed approach.

Consequently it will take careful application of power and pitch control at the beginning of a go-around or missed approach, to assure control authority exists to transition safely into a climb.  The further aft the center of gravity the more gingerly this transition needs to be made.  If the c.g. is out of limits aft the condition may not be recoverable at slow forward airspeeds.  The condition is also aggravated by high aircraft weight [reportedly a factor in this case] and/or high density altitude [e.g., August in Israel].

In the Normal Procedures section the Beech A36 Pilot’s operating Handbook [POH] provides this guidance on balked landings:

1.        Throttle—FULL THROTTLE, 2700 RPM

2.        Airspeed—76 to 80 KTS [depending on serial number] until clear of obstacles, then trim to normal climb speed

3.        Flaps—UP (0°)

4.        Landing gear—RETRACT

5.        Cowl flaps—OPEN

Note that a drag demonstration in the A36 shows that the drag of full flaps at landing speed is greater than the drag created by the landing gear, so you may want to reduce flap deflection before retracting the landing gear during a balked landing.  The FAA’s Airplane Flying Handbook [pg. 8-11] provides guidance on what it calls Rejected Landings, advises “in cleaning up the airplane during the go-around, the pilot should be concerned first with flaps and secondly with the landing gear.”  The AFH does provide the caveat “Unless otherwise specified in the AFM/POH,” but reiterates

…it is generally recommended that the flaps be retracted (at least partially) before retracting the landing gear—for two reasons. First, on most airplanes full flaps produce more drag than the landing gear; and second, in case the airplane should inadvertently touchdown as the go-around is initiated, it is most desirable to have the landing gear in the down-and-locked position. After a positive rate of climb is established, the landing gear can be retracted….  If the pitch attitude is increased excessively in an effort to keep the airplane from contacting the runway, it may cause the airplane to stall. This would be especially likely if no trim correction is made and the flaps remain fully extended. The pilot should not attempt to retract the landing gear until after a rough trim is accomplished and a positive rate of climb is established. 

Practice some go-arounds both ways and see what climb performance and control feel you get, so you’ll be ready next time you need to “waive off” from a landing.)

Thanks, readers, for the useful information you provide!

NEW REPORTS THIS WEEK

**There are no newly posted FAA preliminary reports for piston Beechcraft this week.**

UPDATES FROM NTSB: Events previously appearing in the Weekly Accident Update:

**There are no newly posted NTSB preliminary reports for piston Beechcraft this week.**

NEW REPORTS THIS WEEK

7/10 2200Z (1500 local):  While landing at The Dalles, Oregon, the right main gear of a Be35 collapsed.  The solo pilot reports no injury despite “substantial” aircraft damage.  Weather conditions were “not reported”.  N931B (D-6792) is a 1961 N35 recently (April 2008) registered to an individual in The Dalles.

(“Gear collapse on landing”; “Substantial damage”; “Recent registration”)

11/12 1648Z (1048 local):  A Be35 landed gear up at Pell City, Alabama.  The solo pilot was unhurt and aircraft damage was “minor”.  Weather conditions were “not reported”.  N888S (D-9937) is a 1976 V35A recently (January 2008) registered to a Delaware-based corporation.

(“Gear up landing”; “Recent registration”)

11/18 1745Z (1245 local):  Departing on a solo “training” flight from Cincinnati, Ohio, a Be77 “veered off the runway into the grass,” resulting in minor damage to the Skipper but no injury to the solo pilot.  Weather was 4900 scattered, 5600 scattered, visibility 10 with winds from 360° at eight gusting to 19 knots.  N3729D (WA-141) is a 1980 Skipper registered since 2005 to a corporation based in Cincinnati.

(“Loss of directional control on takeoff”; “Wind”—There no indication whether the pilot was a student or a certificated pilots on a solo flight he/she identified as “training”.  However, I suspect the term “training” is almost universally applied to student pilots where solo flight is concerned.  If that is the case instructors should consider writing wind limitations into student pilots’ logbooks as part of their solo endorsement.  Review the limitation with the student, expand or reduce it as the student’s recent experience with crosswinds varies, and include a limitation about maximum gust values.  It’s unlikely the typical student pilot is prepared to handle an 11-knot wind gust value and the wind direction changes that accompany them.)   

UPDATES FROM NTSB: Events previously appearing in the Weekly Accident Update:

**There are no newly posted NTSB preliminary reports for piston Beechcraft this week.**

NEW REPORTS THIS WEEK

11/19 2130Z (1530 local):  A Be60 landed gear up at Alexandria, Minnesota.  The solo pilot of the Duke was unhurt; aircraft damage is “unknown” and weather “not reported”.  N7578D (P-177) is a 1971 A60 registered since 2006 to an Alexandria-based corporation.

(“Gear up landing”)

11/20 1230Z (0630 local):  The pilot of a Be35 “reported engine problems and force-landed nine miles from Bloomington, Indiana.”  The solo pilot was not hurt despite “substantial” aircraft damage.  Weather conditions were “not reported”.  N3213C (D-3877) is a 1954 E35 registered since 2001 to Wilmington, Delaware corporation.

(“Engine failure in flight”; “Substantial damage”—The Bonanza had flown roughly half an hour prior to the failure, with Bloomington as his intended destination.  A local news report quotes a witness as saying he “could see the smoke and hear [the] motor making a noise” as the Bonanza descended.  The airplane “suffered wing damage,” according to the report, and pictures in the account make it appear the nose wheel broken or sunk deeply into the ground.  Through skill or luck the pilot avoided hitting trees that were very near the airplane after it came to a stop.  The pilot was collected and pragmatic: "It developed engine trouble and I landed it in the field. I'm fine and we'll get the airplane fixed."  This is another testimony to a successful outcome when the pilot keeps wings level, maintains control and lands at the slowest safe speed following an engine failure.) 

11/21 1653Z (0853 local):  A Be35, registration not reported, blew a tire while on the takeoff roll and went off the runway and “into the dirt.”  The pilot was not hurt, damage is “minor” and the weather conditions were not reported.  The airplane is a Be35, registration and serial number unknown.

(“Blown tire/loss of directional control during takeoff”)

11/23 0054Z (1954 local 11/22/08):  A Be35 and a Piper PA28 collided at 2000 feet about five miles from the Winter Haven, Florida airport.  Both airplanes landed without further incident, with “unknown” damage to each airplane and no injuries.  The Piper’s wingtip struck the underside of the Bonanza, according to the FAA’s preliminary report.  N4396W (D-9592) is a 1974 V35B registered since 2000 to an individual in Ocala, Florida.

(“Midair collision”; “Night”—From the report either the Bonanza descended into the Cherokee, the Piper climbed into the Beechcraft, or the airplanes were both flying level at only slightly different altitudes when they struck.  For more on midair collision avoidance see “See and Avoid: Techniques, Time and Technology” in the November 6, 2008 edition of Mastery Flight Training’s FLYING LESSONS.)

11/23 1955Z (1255 local):  A Be24 landed gear up at Colorado Springs, Colorado.  The solo pilot reports no injury; damage is “minor”.  Weather: “clear” with a 15-knot surface wind.  N9200S (MC-372) is a 1975 B24R registered since 2006 to a Carlsbad, California-based corporation.

(“Gear up landing”; “Wind”)

11/23 2138Z (1638 local):  A Be36 landed gear up at Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania.  The solo pilot was not hurt and damage is “minor”.  Weather conditions were “not reported”.  N14LR (E-524) is a 1974 A36 registered since 2001 to a corporation in Ridgewood, New Jersey. 

(“Gear up landing”—remember that, on average, “minor” gear-up landing damage is a $60,000 repair bill or greater for a Bonanza-class airplane, and many times “totals” the airframe.  For more on landing gear-related mishaps see these observations and data.)

11/24 1646Z (1146 local):  Three aboard a Be55 died when, while “on an IFR flight plan,” the Baron “crashed 12 miles northwest of Nashville [Tennessee] after the pilot reported an instrument problem.”  The Baron was “destroyed”.  Weather in the area was 1800 broken, 2600 overcast, with surface visibility three miles in light rain and drizzle, and winds at nine gusting to 16 knots.  N412ES (TC-2198) was a 1978 B55 registered since 1998 to a co-ownership in Hot Springs, Arkansas.

(“Loss of control in flight: instrument failure”; “Fatal”; “Aircraft destroyed”; IMC” [at least where the incident began]—local television accounts include a witness who says the airplane was “flat and spinning” when it came out of the clouds, and made motions with his hands that indeed seem indicative of a spin [whether meeting the definition of a “flat spin” or not is irrelevant in this case].

For all their redundancies there are several single-point failures that can affect multiengine airplanes.  Specific to the flight instruments, implicated in this event, could be affected by:

·        Failure of the attitude gyro itself

·        Failed [stuck open] check valves in the pneumatic manifold, where instrument air from both engine-driven pumps enters and combines in the cabin, combined with a previously undetected failure of a single instrument air pump (vacuum or pressure)

·        Failure of a regulator many multiengine airplanes have between the pneumatic manifold and the panel instruments

·        Significant leaks anywhere in the instrument air lines

Any of these situations can take a redundant twin’s system and render it unusable with little warning.

There are documented cases where a professional pilot identified a failed attitude indicator but lost control despite a back-up attitude indicator installed on the “copilot” side of the airplane.  It takes significant practice to include such a remotely-mounted indicator in your scan.  If you have any say in the matter at all, locate back-up instruments to where they’ll be in your primary field of vision in partial-panel flight.

The airplane was reportedly being flown by a professional pilot employed by the owners.  It’s not known what training regime this pilot followed, or what other [if any] airplane types he flew besides this Baron.  It’s common for contract pilots who fly turbine airplanes to also perform “pilot service” flights in piston twins, with the invalid assumption that recurrent training in, say, a King Air or a Citation provides all the relevant practice necessary to safely operate a “little” airplane.  In fact many of my students who fly turbine aircraft in addition to the Baron in which I’ve provide training tell me single pilot operation of a piston twin is far more challenging.  The airplane has complex systems with virtually no automation; many redundancies taken for granted in larger airplanes are nonexistent or only available under certain circumstances in piston twins.  A tenet of my training is “fly the plane you’re flying”, i.e., train and practice type-specific operation because not everything applicable to flying one type of aircraft is appropriate in another.  In the case of piston twins I train to the extent safety and realism allows, but I highly recommend my students seek out a good simulator-based program to cover items that cannot be done safely [or at all] in the airplane.  These tasks include engine failures in all phases of flight and, relevant to this event, insidious development of partial panel scenarios under a high workload.  You simply cannot adequately prepare for such events even with thousands of hours in the airplane.)

11/24 1835Z (1135 local):  A Be36’s nose gear collapsed on landing at Roswell, New Mexico.   The two aboard were unhurt; damage is “unknown”.  Weather: “clear and 10” with a three-knot wind.  N711TH (E-246) is a 1970 A36, “sale reported” to an unknown person or entity.

(“Gear collapse on landing”; “Recent registration”)  

UPDATES FROM NTSB: Events previously appearing in the Weekly Accident Update:

**10/18 A36 fuel starvation at Salina, Kansas.  Another reminder to switch tanks not during the approach (often taught as part of a ‘GUMPS’ check}, but at the top of descent, before getting so close to the ground that no time exists to restart the engine if for any reason the tank selection goes bad.**

SUMMARY: Reported Hawker Beechcraft piston mishaps, year-to-date 2008:

Total reported:  193 reports 

Operation in VMC: 123 reports   (64%)  

Operation in IMC:    11 reports   (6%)  

Weather “unknown” or “not reported”:  58 reports

Operation at night:  14 reports  (7%) 

Surface wind > 16 knots:  16 reports  (8%)             

Fatal accidents: 21 reports   (11%)  

“Serious” injury accidents (not involving fatalities): 3 reports  (2%) 

“Substantial” damage: 61 reports   (32%)  

Aircraft “destroyed”:   22 reports   (11%)   

Recent registration (within previous 12 months):  35 reports   (18%)  

(Note: FAA preliminary reports no longer identify the purpose of the flight involved in mishap.  Consequently the number and percentage of Beech mishaps that occur during dual instruction will become less and less accurate over time.  Since the late 1990s the percentage of Beech mishaps that take place during dual flight instruction has remained very consistently about 10%). 

By Aircraft Type:

Be35 Bonanza  46 reports  

Be36 Bonanza  31 reports  

Be33 Debonair/Bonanza  24 reports  

Be58 Baron  17 reports   

Be55 Baron  15 reports  

Be23 Musketeer/Sundowner 14 reports 

Be76 Duchess  13 reports  

Be24 Sierra   6 reports 

Be18 Twin Beech  5 reports

Be95 Travel Air   5 reports  

Be60 Duke  3 reports 

Be77 Skipper  3 reports  

Be65 Queen Air  3 reports 

Be17 Staggerwing  2 reports

Be19 Sport  2 reports

Be50 Twin Bonanza  2 reports 

Be45 (T-34) Mentor  1 report   

PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF CAUSE (all subject to update per NTSB findings):

LANDING GEAR-RELATED MISHAPS (84 reports; 44% of the total) 

Gear up landing

35 reports (Be18; three Be24s; five Be33s; thirteen Be35s; five Be36s; Be50; two Be55s; Be58; Be60; three Be76s)

Gear collapse (landing)

26 reports (Be17; two Be33s; six Be35s; two Be36s; Be50; three Be55s; three Be58s; two Be60s; two Be65s; two Be76s; two Be95s)

Gear collapse—pilot activation of gear on ground

5 reports (Be33; two Be35s; Be55; Be58)

Gear up landing—known mechanical system failure

4 reports (Be33; Be35; Be45; Be76)

Gear collapse (takeoff)

3 reports (Be18; Be36; Be58)

Gear collapse during taxi

3 reports (Be18; Be58; Be76)

Failure of nose gear to extend due to mechanical failure

3 reports (Be35; Be65, Be76)

Gear collapse on landing—known mechanical system failure

2 reports (Be55; Be95)

Gear collapse on landing: electrical failure/incomplete manual extension

2 reports (Be33; Be45)

Gear collapse on landing—known incomplete electrical extension

1 report (Be58)

...for more on Landing Gear-Related Mishaps see these data and this commentary. 

ENGINE FAILURE   (38 reports; 20% of the total) 

Engine failure in flight

17 reports (Be23; two Be33s; six Be35s; five Be36s; Be55; Be58)

Engine failure on takeoff

6 reports (two Be33s; Be36; Be55; Be77)

Fuel exhaustion

5 reports (Be18; three Be35s; Be55)

Fuel starvation

2 reports (Be33; Be36)

Engine failure on approach/landing

2 reports (Be23; Be35)

Piston/cylinder failure in flight

2 reports (Be35; Be36)

Partial power loss: fuel line leak

1 report (Be36)

Propeller overspeed

1 report (Be36)

Engine failure—fuel system malfunction

1 report (Be36)

Propeller separation in flight

1 report (Be55)

 ..for more on fuel management-related mishaps see www.thomaspturner.net/Fuel.htm.  

IMPACT ON LANDING  (35 reports; 18% of the total) 

Loss of directional control on landing

9 reports (Be18; two Be19s; two Be23s; two Be33s; Be36; Be77)

Hard landing

8 reports (seven Be23s; Be35)

Loss of control on landing—strong, gusty winds

4 reports (two Be23s; Be58; Be76)

Landed long

3 reports (Be33; Be95)

Hard landing—strong, gusty wind

2 reports (Be23; Be36)

Wing strike on landing

1 report (Be58)

Impact with animal while landing

1 report (Be76)

Impact with obstacle on landing

1 report (Be35)

Loss of control--attempted go-around in strong/gusty winds

1 report (Be55)

Landed short

1 report (Be35)

Nosed over on landing

1 report (Be17)

Bounced landing

1 report (Be23)

Landed long/failed to go around

1 report (Be36)

Landed short—precautionary landing due to loss of oil pressure

1 report (Be33)

Pilot-induced oscillation/propeller strike

1 report (Be35)

IMPACT WITH OBJECT DURING TAKEOFF   (10 reports; 5% of the total) 

Impact with object/animal during takeoff

3 reports (two Be36s; Be58)

Loss of directional control during takeoff

2 reports (Be76; Be77)

Collision with landing aircraft

1 report (Be36)

Blown tire/loss of directional control during takeoff

1 report (Be35)

Blown tire/loss of directional control during aborted takeoff

1 report (Be24)

Runway overrun—failure to abort takeoff

1 report (Be35)

Propeller strike on takeoff

1 report (Be36)

MISCELLANEOUS CAUSES  (9 reports; 4% of the total) 

Taxied into obstruction/aircraft

4 reports (Be23; Be33; Be76; Be95)

Pilot incapacitation—heart attack

1 report (Be58)

Bird strike on landing

1 report (Be33)

Gear door damage—ice accumulation

1 report (Be33)

Wing explosion—suspected fuel leak ignited by arcing electrical wiring

1 report (Be58)

Mid-air collision

1 report (Be35)

CAUSE UNKNOWN  (8 reports; 4% of the total)  

Crash/Unknown

2 reports (Be24; Be35)

Takeoff/Unknown

2 reports (Be35; Be36; Be58)

Approach/Unknown

2 reports (Be33; Be36)

Forced landing/Unknown

1 report (Be36)

Ground/taxi unknown

1 report (Be33)

LOSS OF CONTROL IN FLIGHT   (6 reports; 3% of the total) 

Loss of control—single engine visual approach

3 reports (Be55; Be58)

Loss of control—airframe ice; in-flight break-up

1 report (Be35)

Loss of control on instrument approach

1 report (Be35)

Loss of control in flight: instrument failure

1 report (Be55)

STALL/SPIN   (4 reports; 2% of the total)

Stall--attempted go-around in strong/gusty winds

1 report (Be23)

Stall/Spin during turn in visual traffic pattern in strong/gusty winds

1 report (Be35)

Stall/Spin on takeoff

1 report (Be55)

Stall on landing—returning with unidentified urgency

1 report (Be58)

IN-FLIGHT CONTROL VIBRATION/ FLUTTER/ AIRFRAME SEPARATION  (2 reports; 1% of the total) 

In-flight break-up—probable pilot incapacitation

1 report (Be35)

In-flight tail vibration/flutter

1 report (Be35)

CONTROLLED FLIGHT INTO TERRAIN   (1 report)

Descent below IFR approach minimum altitude

1 report (Be36)

Recognize an N-number?  Want to check on friends or family that may have been involved in a cited mishap?  Click here to find the registered owner.   

Please accept my sincere personal condolences if you or anyone you know was involved in a mishap.  I welcome your comments, suggestions and criticisms.  Fly safe, and have fun!

Thomas P. Turner, M.S. Aviation Safety, Master CFI

2008 FAA Central Region CFI of the Year

Mastery Flight Training, Inc.

mastery.flight.training@cox.net

There's much more aviation safety information at www.thomaspturner.net.

Return to  archives page.