20001220026969A

Accident · No damage

FAA accident report · Braero HS 125-700A · Jackson, WY · December 20, 2000

Date: December 20, 2000 · 01:30 local
Place: Jackson, WY
Airport: Jackson Hole
Operating rules: Air taxi and commuter (Part 135)
Operator: GQVA
Damage: No damage
Aircraft: N236BN
NTSB investigation: NTSBDEN01FA030
Reported as: Braero HS125700A

N236BNRegistration cancelled Jul 28, 2014 · British Aerospace HS 125-700AS/N NA-0236 Airframe modelBritish Aerospace HS 125-700A

From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

What happened

The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.

(-23) After completing an ILS approach, the pilot landed the airplane approx. 160 feet left of the runway and 3,500 feet along the runway from the threshold in 2 to 3 feet of snow. At this point in the investigation, it appears that the runway lights were never activated.

As the FAA filed it

(-23) AFTER COMPLETING AN ILS APPROACH, THE PILOT LANDED THE AIRPLANE APPROX. 160 FEET LEFT OF THE RUNWAY AND 3,500 FEET ALONG THE RUNWAY FROM THE THRESHOLD IN 2 TO 3 FEET OF SNOW. AT THIS POINT IN THE INVESTIGATION, IT APPEARS THAT THE RUNWAY LIGHTS WERE NEVER ACTIVATED.

NTSB investigation

The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.

NTSB DEN01FA030Accident · No injuriesField investigationFinal reportJackson, WYThe pilot's failure to follow IFR approach procedures and perform a missed approach when the runway was not in sight below approach minimums. Contributing factors were the copilot's failure to follow current ILS approach procedures and use the correct…Dec 20, 2000 · Substantial damage