OpenAirDocs.org

20200608010719A

Accident · Substantial damage
Open the Markdown

FAA accident report · Great Lakes 2T-1A · St. Marys, PA · June 8, 2020

FAA Aviation Safety Information Portal

© OpenStreetMap
Date
June 8, 2020 · 13:00 local
Place
St. Marys, PA
Airport
St Marys Municipal Airport
Phase of flight
Landing: Approach
Operating rules
General operating rules (Part 91)
Damage
Substantial damage
Aircraft
N863K
NTSB investigation
NTSBERA20CA210
Reported as
Great Lakes 2T-1A
Reported engine
WARNER SS165 series
People aboard
1
Fatal injuries
0
Other injuries
0
Pilot’s certificates
Airline transport, flight instructor
Pilot’s flight hours
23,700 total20 in this make and model5 in the last 90 days
N863KRegistered now · Great Lakes 2T-1AS/N 124 · Built 1932Airframe modelGreat Lakes 2T-1AEngine modelWarner SS165 seriesReciprocating

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.

Investigation results:

-On 06/16/2020 at 16:42 et, I interviewed privacy data omittedfor 56 minutes.

-privacy data omitted confirmed being PIC of N863K at the time of the accident. He also confirmed that he was the sole occupant in the aircraft.

-The PIC was picking up the aircraft from having maintenance work done on it. The PIC said that privacy data omitted performed the maintenance on the aircraft. The carburetor was removed and replaced. The PIC wanted to take the aircraft up for a test flight in the pattern first, before accepting the aircraft from maintenance.

-The PIC taxied the aircraft around for a bit and completed the run-up. The PIC stated that everything seemed fine on the aircraft.

-The PIC had full take-off power and normal climb-out power.

-The PIC leveled off on downwind. The PIC said that for level flight, the throttle wasn?t in the same power setting location as when the PIC took it in for maintenance. The PIC had to pull the throttle 2/3 of the way back from full power, which was different than what the PIC was use to, prior to the maintenance event, in the aircraft.

-The PIC said that the throttle did not have any power setting marking on it.

-The PIC said that the PIC was distracted by the difference in the power settings than what the PIC was use to in that aircraft prior to the maintenance activity.

-The PIC made three to four trips around the traffic pattern, staying at approximately 3500 feet AGL. The aircraft flew fine, and then, the PIC decided to make the first landing, which is when the accident occurred.

-The PIC reduced the power on downwind, but since the power settings seemed different than what the PIC was familiar with for that aircraft, the PIC didn?t know how much throttle to reduce. The PIC was looking for 1500 RPM on approach at 80 mph, which the PIC said should yield a three-degree glide path.

-The PIC said that the PIC didn?t reduce enough power, and the PIC realized that the aircraft was high on the base leg of the traffic pattern. When the PIC realized that the aircraft was high on base, the PIC reduced power because the PIC did not want to go past the low spot in the runway and land uphill with a tail-wheel aircraft.

-The PIC said that the PIC was focused on the point of intended landing. The runway slopes down from each end, and the PIC wanted to land 500-1000 feet down the runway.

-The PIC turned final and didn?t realize that the aircraft was low until the numbers on the runway started to disappear from the pic's sight. The PIC added some power and added some back pressure to the controls. The PIC had a much higher rate of descent than the PIC anticipated. When the PIC added power on final, it was not a sufficient amount to stop the rate of descent.

-The PIC heard a bang, and the aircraft quickly hit the ground. The PIC stated that the aircraft was 15-20 degrees nose-down when it hit the ground. The aircraft struck an antenna of the localizer on the approach end of the runway.

-The PIC sees the incident as ?pilot error, loss of situational awareness, and cfit?. The PIC was so focused on the point of intended landing, and the aircraft was a lot lower to the ground than the PIC anticipated due to the up-sloping terrain that extends all the way up into the clear zone of the runway and to the road.

-The PIC never saw the localizer antenna when the aircraft was on base or on final because the PIC was so focused on the point of intended landing.

-The PIC contacted the NTSB after the accident, and the PIC submitted a form that was requested by the NTSB.

As the FAA filed it

INVESTIGATION RESULTS:

-ON 06/16/2020 AT 16:42 ET, I INTERVIEWED ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^FOR 56 MINUTES.

-^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ CONFIRMED BEING PIC OF N863K AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT. HE ALSO CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS THE SOLE OCCUPANT IN THE AIRCRAFT.

-THE PIC WAS PICKING UP THE AIRCRAFT FROM HAVING MAINTENANCE WORK DONE ON IT. THE PIC SAID THAT ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ PERFORMED THE MAINTENANCE ON THE AIRCRAFT. THE CARBURETOR WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED. THE PIC WANTED TO TAKE THE AIRCRAFT UP FOR A TEST FLIGHT IN THE PATTERN FIRST, BEFORE ACCEPTING THE AIRCRAFT FROM MAINTENANCE.

-THE PIC TAXIED THE AIRCRAFT AROUND FOR A BIT AND COMPLETED THE RUN-UP. THE PIC STATED THAT EVERYTHING SEEMED FINE ON THE AIRCRAFT.

-THE PIC HAD FULL TAKE-OFF POWER AND NORMAL CLIMB-OUT POWER.

-THE PIC LEVELED OFF ON DOWNWIND. THE PIC SAID THAT FOR LEVEL FLIGHT, THE THROTTLE WASN?T IN THE SAME POWER SETTING LOCATION AS WHEN THE PIC TOOK IT IN FOR MAINTENANCE. THE PIC HAD TO PULL THE THROTTLE 2/3 OF THE WAY BACK FROM FULL POWER, WHICH WAS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE PIC WAS USE TO, PRIOR TO THE MAINTENANCE EVENT, IN THE AIRCRAFT.

-THE PIC SAID THAT THE THROTTLE DID NOT HAVE ANY POWER SETTING MARKING ON IT.

-THE PIC SAID THAT THE PIC WAS DISTRACTED BY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE POWER SETTINGS THAN WHAT THE PIC WAS USE TO IN THAT AIRCRAFT PRIOR TO THE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY.

-THE PIC MADE THREE TO FOUR TRIPS AROUND THE TRAFFIC PATTERN, STAYING AT APPROXIMATELY 3500 FEET AGL. THE AIRCRAFT FLEW FINE, AND THEN, THE PIC DECIDED TO MAKE THE FIRST LANDING, WHICH IS WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED.

-THE PIC REDUCED THE POWER ON DOWNWIND, BUT SINCE THE POWER SETTINGS SEEMED DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE PIC WAS FAMILIAR WITH FOR THAT AIRCRAFT, THE PIC DIDN?T KNOW HOW MUCH THROTTLE TO REDUCE. THE PIC WAS LOOKING FOR 1500 RPM ON APPROACH AT 80 MPH, WHICH THE PIC SAID SHOULD YIELD A THREE-DEGREE GLIDE PATH.

-THE PIC SAID THAT THE PIC DIDN?T REDUCE ENOUGH POWER, AND THE PIC REALIZED THAT THE AIRCRAFT WAS HIGH ON THE BASE LEG OF THE TRAFFIC PATTERN. WHEN THE PIC REALIZED THAT THE AIRCRAFT WAS HIGH ON BASE, THE PIC REDUCED POWER BECAUSE THE PIC DID NOT WANT TO GO PAST THE LOW SPOT IN THE RUNWAY AND LAND UPHILL WITH A TAIL-WHEEL AIRCRAFT.

-THE PIC SAID THAT THE PIC WAS FOCUSED ON THE POINT OF INTENDED LANDING. THE RUNWAY SLOPES DOWN FROM EACH END, AND THE PIC WANTED TO LAND 500-1000 FEET DOWN THE RUNWAY.

-THE PIC TURNED FINAL AND DIDN?T REALIZE THAT THE AIRCRAFT WAS LOW UNTIL THE NUMBERS ON THE RUNWAY STARTED TO DISAPPEAR FROM THE PIC'S SIGHT. THE PIC ADDED SOME POWER AND ADDED SOME BACK PRESSURE TO THE CONTROLS. THE PIC HAD A MUCH HIGHER RATE OF DESCENT THAN THE PIC ANTICIPATED. WHEN THE PIC ADDED POWER ON FINAL, IT WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT TO STOP THE RATE OF DESCENT.

-THE PIC HEARD A BANG, AND THE AIRCRAFT QUICKLY HIT THE GROUND. THE PIC STATED THAT THE AIRCRAFT WAS 15-20 DEGREES NOSE-DOWN WHEN IT HIT THE GROUND. THE AIRCRAFT STRUCK AN ANTENNA OF THE LOCALIZER ON THE APPROACH END OF THE RUNWAY.

-THE PIC SEES THE INCIDENT AS ?PILOT ERROR, LOSS OF SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, AND CFIT?. THE PIC WAS SO FOCUSED ON THE POINT OF INTENDED LANDING, AND THE AIRCRAFT WAS A LOT LOWER TO THE GROUND THAN THE PIC ANTICIPATED DUE TO THE UP-SLOPING TERRAIN THAT EXTENDS ALL THE WAY UP INTO THE CLEAR ZONE OF THE RUNWAY AND TO THE ROAD.

-THE PIC NEVER SAW THE LOCALIZER ANTENNA WHEN THE AIRCRAFT WAS ON BASE OR ON FINAL BECAUSE THE PIC WAS SO FOCUSED ON THE POINT OF INTENDED LANDING.

-THE PIC CONTACTED THE NTSB AFTER THE ACCIDENT, AND THE PIC SUBMITTED A FORM THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE NTSB.

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 ERA20CA210Accident · No injuriesClass 4 · Data collectionFinal reportSt. Mary's, PAThe pilot's failure to maintain proper glide path during final approach which resulted in a collision with airport equipment short of the runway.Jun 8, 2020 · Substantial damage