What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
(-23) This flight was being operated between dead horse and Barter Island as an on-demand charter with three passengers and one crew member pilot. The flight was on an instrument rules flight (IFR) plan. Upon arrival at Barter islan the pilot was cleared for the global positioning system (GPS) approach to runway 06. The surface wind and visibility at the time favored runway 24. During the first approach and subsequent circling maneuver to land on runway 23, the pilot lost sight of the runway twice. He then performed a missed approach procedure and again received clearance for the GPS approach to runway 06. This time the approach was completed to a landing. The pilot landed with a quartering tail wind. He reported experiencing flat light conditions during the landing. He used reverse thrust on landing and then the aircraft turned around to the right. He claims to have hit a snow berm that was caused by the runway being only partially plowed. Flat light, blowing snow, low visibility, runway conditions, poor pilot judgement and lack of operational control at this company, were all factors in this accident. Also, according to all the information gathered to date, there were no notices to airman published. (-23 amendment) after interviewing the pilot it is determined that his judgment was not a factor contributing to the accident. Also, according to the information gathered there is no indication that any notices to airman issued that described the runway conditions that existed at the time of the accident.
As the FAA filed it
(-23) THIS FLIGHT WAS BEING OPERATED BETWEEN DEAD HORSE AND BARTER ISLAND AS AN ON-DEMAND CHARTER WITH THREE PASSENGERS AND ONE CREW MEMBER PILOT. THE FLIGHT WAS ON AN INSTRUMENT RULES FLIGHT (IFR) PLAN. UPON ARRIVAL AT BARTER ISLAN THE PILOT WAS CLEARED FOR THE GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) APPROACH TO RUNWAY 06. THE SURFACE WIND AND VISIBILITY AT THE TIME FAVORED RUNWAY 24. DURING THE FIRST APPROACH AND SUBSEQUENT CIRCLING MANEUVER TO LAND ON RUNWAY 23, THE PILOT LOST SIGHT OF THE RUNWAY TWICE. HE THEN PERFORMED A MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURE AND AGAIN RECEIVED CLEARANCE FOR THE GPS APPROACH TO RUNWAY 06. THIS TIME THE APPROACH WAS COMPLETED TO A LANDING. THE PILOT LANDED WITH A QUARTERING TAIL WIND. HE REPORTED EXPERIENCING FLAT LIGHT CONDITIONS DURING THE LANDING. HE USED REVERSE THRUST ON LANDING AND THEN THE AIRCRAFT TURNED AROUND TO THE RIGHT. HE CLAIMS TO HAVE HIT A SNOW BERM THAT WAS CAUSED BY THE RUNWAY BEING ONLY PARTIALLY PLOWED. FLAT LIGHT, BLOWING SNOW, LOW VISIBILITY, RUNWAY CONDITIONS, POOR PILOT JUDGEMENT AND LACK OF OPERATIONAL CONTROL AT THIS COMPANY, WERE ALL FACTORS IN THIS ACCIDENT. ALSO, ACCORDING TO ALL THE INFORMATION GATHERED TO DATE, THERE WERE NO NOTICES TO AIRMAN PUBLISHED. (-23 AMENDMENT) AFTER INTERVIEWING THE PILOT IT IS DETERMINED THAT HIS JUDGMENT WAS NOT A FACTOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE ACCIDENT. ALSO, ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION GATHERED THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT ANY NOTICES TO AIRMAN ISSUED THAT DESCRIBED THE RUNWAY CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.
Other reports on N223CS · 1
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.