What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
The aircraft was in closed traffic. After two go-arounds, the aircraft ground-looped on the runway. The investigating ASI reviewed historical weather (METAR) data for the airport, which indicated clear skies, visibility of 10 statute miles, and maximum winds reported as variable at 3 knots.
The investigating ASI requested and received two video surveillance recordings. The first video depicted the aircraft attempting to land, resulting in a series of bounces with brief runway contacts, followed by an executed go-around. The second video captured the accident itself.
The pilot in command (PIC) reported experiencing a left-quartering tailwind during the landing attempt, which caused the empennage to rise, the right wingtip to touch the ground, and damage to the landing gear. The pilot appeared focused on attributing responsibility to the tower for not changing the runway due to winds.
Upon careful review of both videos, the investigating ASI found no visual evidence of significant wind gusts or directional shifts. This finding supported the METAR observations in effect at the time of the accident.
As the FAA filed it
THE AIRCRAFT WAS IN CLOSED TRAFFIC. AFTER TWO GO-AROUNDS, THE AIRCRAFT GROUND-LOOPED ON THE RUNWAY. THE INVESTIGATING ASI REVIEWED HISTORICAL WEATHER (METAR) DATA FOR THE AIRPORT, WHICH INDICATED CLEAR SKIES, VISIBILITY OF 10 STATUTE MILES, AND MAXIMUM WINDS REPORTED AS VARIABLE AT 3 KNOTS.
THE INVESTIGATING ASI REQUESTED AND RECEIVED TWO VIDEO SURVEILLANCE RECORDINGS. THE FIRST VIDEO DEPICTED THE AIRCRAFT ATTEMPTING TO LAND, RESULTING IN A SERIES OF BOUNCES WITH BRIEF RUNWAY CONTACTS, FOLLOWED BY AN EXECUTED GO-AROUND. THE SECOND VIDEO CAPTURED THE ACCIDENT ITSELF.
THE PILOT IN COMMAND (PIC) REPORTED EXPERIENCING A LEFT-QUARTERING TAILWIND DURING THE LANDING ATTEMPT, WHICH CAUSED THE EMPENNAGE TO RISE, THE RIGHT WINGTIP TO TOUCH THE GROUND, AND DAMAGE TO THE LANDING GEAR. THE PILOT APPEARED FOCUSED ON ATTRIBUTING RESPONSIBILITY TO THE TOWER FOR NOT CHANGING THE RUNWAY DUE TO WINDS.
UPON CAREFUL REVIEW OF BOTH VIDEOS, THE INVESTIGATING ASI FOUND NO VISUAL EVIDENCE OF SIGNIFICANT WIND GUSTS OR DIRECTIONAL SHIFTS. THIS FINDING SUPPORTED THE METAR OBSERVATIONS IN EFFECT 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.