20050617033919A

(-23) On June 17, 2005, at 1659 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 414, N1654T, was substantially damaged during overrun of runway 08 at Butler County Airport (kbtp), Butler, Pennsylvania. The certificated commercial pilot and three passengers were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for the 14 CFR part 91 personal flight, which departed greenville downtown airport (kgmu), greenville, south carolina, destined kbtp. Kbtp has a single 3,998-foot by 100-foot asphalt runway with a field elevation of 1248 feet. A review of NOTAMS issued for the airport revealed that on June 2, 2005, the threshold for runway 08 was displaced 400 feet. The weather reported at the airport, at 1659, included winds from 310 degrees at 10 knots gusting to 15, few clouds from 4,500 to 6,000 feet, temperature 69.8 degrees fahrenheit, dew point 50 degrees fahrenheit, and an altimeter setting of 29.84 inches of mercury. The pilot stated that prior to landing that he could not obtain the weather from the Butler automated weather observing system (AWOS). He stated he was finally advised by ATC that the pittsburgh international airport (kpit) waslanding on runway 28 and that the weather and runway in use at kbtp were not available. A review of the ATC tapes of the communication between N1654T and ATC revealed the pilot was told "give it a few miles" when he first said he was not receiving the AWOS. Later ATC told the pilot of N1654T that the weather was not available for kbtp and the pilot replied that he couldn't get it either. The tapes also confirmed that ATC had told N1654T that the aircraft at kpit were using both 28 and 32 for landing. A review of tape recording of the pilot's initial weather briefing from the anderson automated flight service station (afss) revealed the pilot was briefed that the winds were forecast to be from 280 with gust to 13. The pilot stated the reason for this decision for a downwind approach was his instrumentation showed the winds to be three to five knots and he considered them to be nominal. He also stated he wanted to land away from the construction and not toward it. The pilot stated he arrived at kbtp from the south, flew over the airport, and entered into the left downwind approach for runway 08. He stated he had maintained a nominal approach speed of approximately 110 knots with zeroflaps. Then slowing to 100 knots once the aircraft was over the threshold and landed normally within the first 200 feet beyond the displaced threshold of 400 feet. The pilot stated that once touched down that he had applied the brakes yet the aircraft would not slow. He then pumped the brakes and then stood on the brakes for the remainder of the ground roll. He said there was no to tendency of the aircraft swerving during the rollout. The pilot stated he thought he had slowed enough to make the last taxiway and began to maneuver the aircraft to the right to make a large radius turn, however at the last second it appeared that such a plan would not work. He elected to complete the roll out into the grass. The aircraft appeared to slow, until it started down the hill where it picked up speed. The aircraft impacted the airport's perimeter six-foot tall chain link fence. The pilot and three occupants were uninjured and evacuated the aircraft without further injuries. Upon impacting the chain link fence the nose gear was separated from the aircraft and the left main gear collapsed. The aircraft came to rest on three degree road at the following coordinates: 40DEGREES46'45.72"n 79DEGREES56'30.3"w. also upon impact of the fence, wiring for both the left and right wing navigational lights were exposed and the wing tip fuel tanks were punctured. Subsequently, both the left and right wing tip tanks caught fire. The fire caused minimal damage to the aircraft. The pilot stated he had made a zero flap landing since the aircraft's flaps were inoperative and had been about a week. He also stated while he was in tulsa a passenger who was holding the brakes during a preflight, that the brakes didn't feel right. The pilot also stated that another individual that flies the aircraft had stated before that the brakes felt spongy. A review of the aircraft's maintenance records show that all the annual maintenance requirements were current. Also all the advisory directives (AD) had been accomplished. A review of the pilot's medical, recurrent training, and certificate showed all were current. The pilot's flight logbook showed he had met the currency requirement, however, it was missing the flight entries since April 22, 2005. The pilot later provided the additional flight information. Fuel samples were taken from all tanks and all but the right wing tip tank were found to be clean. The fuel from the right wing tip tank was contaminated during the accident and following fire fighting with foam. The aircraft had approximately 64 gallons of fuel on board at the time of the accident. Both engines were producing power at the time of impact with the fence. The number two engine is believed to have bent the crank during the accident. All the flight controls continuity were confirmed and no issues were found with the flight controls, except for the flaps were found to be inoperative. An examination of the aircraft's flap system revealed the flap motor circuit breaker would pop every time the flaps were placed in the down position. A review of the aircraft records revealed no documentation of maintenance on the flaps. During a telephone conversation the pilot indicated the flaps had failed inbound to tulsa international airport (ktul) on June 8, 2005 and he had a mechanic look at it from sparks aviation. Documentation was obtained from sparks aviation at ktul and it showed a mechanic had looked at flaps system on June 8, 2005. The mechanic determined the flap motor was defective and would need to be replaced. The pilot of N1654T elected not to have the flaps repaired. The pilot of N1654T stated he had received instruction at ktul from a privacy data omitted , who instructed him that the flaps were not required on this aircraft. The pilot had received approximately 3.1 hours of training from privacy data omitted in his recurrent flight training. All the training conducted by privacy data omitted in N1654T was with the flaps inoperative. An examination of the aircraft's brake system revealed they were indeed felt spongy, as if there is possibly air in the lines. An examination of the brake's pads showed that all the pads were at the minimums. See the attached document for the measurements of each pad. Also the pressure of the brake system was measured at the bleeder port on both the left and right systems. The left side produced a maximum of approximately 150 PSI and the right side produced a maximum of approximately 50 PSI. The difference in the brake pressure from the left to the right is consistent with the skid marks left on the runway by N1654T. The skidding began on the runway at the following coordinates: 40DEGREES46'38.82"n 79DEGREES56'52.37"w and continued for approximately 1584 feet until the aircraft departed the departure e ND of the runway. The left wheel skidded the complete distance of 1584, yet the right wheel only started skidding approximately 600 feet for the departure end of the runway. The aircraft departed the departure end of runway 08 at the following coordinates: 40DEGREES46'43.38"n 79DEGREES56'34.37" w. see attached overview photograph of airfield for reference of skid marks. Two GPS garmin receivers were removed from N1654T and sent to garmin to have the unit's data downloaded. Two receivers were a gpsmap 196 serial number 65418891 and gpsmap 295 serial number 98828463. The gpsmap 196 data showed it was not used during the approach into kbtp. The gpsmap 295, however, had 415 track points recorded on June 17, 2005. The data from the gpsmap 295 showed the aircraft had a speed of approximately 124 knots just prior to the five hundred foot marks on the approach end of runway 08. Furthermore, the data shows the aircraft was traveling at approximately 95 knots just prior to the thousand foot marks at the departure end of runway 08 and was traveling approximately 57 knots when it departed the runway. See the attached airfield overview map with the last nine of the last ten track points. The chelton primary flight display (PFD) and the chelton multifunction flight display (MFD) units were removed from N1654T and sent to chelton to have the unit's data downloaded. The two displays sent to chelton were idu-iii serial number 37012 and idu-iii serial number 36975. The first thing the data from the chelton system revealed was that the time of the accident occurred at 1659 local time. The data provided from these units shows that N1654T touched down on the runway at approximately 800 feet past the approach end of runway 08 at a speed of 103 knots. The data also indicates the heading and track of the aircraft were approximately five to eight degrees apart from each other. It also indicated there was a constant positive pitch after landing, a slight positive rate of climb, and slight increased in altitude. The offset of the heading and track along with the slight positive rate of climb, increases in altitude and constant positive pitch angles suggest the aircraft may not have been in good contact with the ground for approximately eleven seconds. At the point where the aircraft's heading and track match was approximately 800 feet from the departure end of runway 08. See the attached overview of the airfield overlaid with the chelton data. privacy data omitted Was the passenger sitting in the copilot's seat and commented during our interview with her that this landing was the smoothest her husband had ever made. The other two passengers concurred that the touch down was very smooth. This may be an indication that the aircraft indeed never made good contact with the ground. The chelton system also indicated the winds at the time of landing were approximately 11 to 15 knots from 285. The Butler AWOS indicated the winds at 1659 local time were 10 knots gusting to 15 from 310. Both systems indicate the aircraft landed with a quartering tail wind. A review of an amateur video of N1654T after the accident shows a few American flags blowing in the wind. The flags give an indication of the wind at the time of the accident. Submission of this report closes this accident.