ERA16CA057

NTSB accident investigation · Boeing A75N1(PT17) · Farmington, DE · November 27, 2015

Accident · No injuriesData collectionFinal report
Date
November 27, 2015, 16:30 local (21:30 UTC)
Place
Farmington, DE
Injuries
3 uninjured
Phase of flight
Landing
Aircraft
N53488Boeing A75N1(PT17)N201HKMooney M20J
Defining events
Landing-landing roll: Ground collisionLanding-landing roll: Ground collision
Weather
Visual (VMC) · Day
Status
Completed · report January 15, 2016
Report
Approved by Office Director
NTSB office
Eastern Region Aviation
Parties
FAA/FSDO
Case key
92396

From the NTSB’s public API. By law, NTSB reports can’t be used as evidence in lawsuits over the accident.

On this page

Probable cause

Both pilots' failure to maintain visual separation during landing at an uncontrolled airport. Contributing to the accident was the Mooney pilot's lack of prompt evasive action once the biplane had been spotted on the same runway. In addition, the biplane pilots failure to ensure a clear runway.

Both pilots' failure to maintain visual separation during landing at non-towered airport. Contributing to the accident was the Mooney pilot's lack of prompt evasive action once the biplane had been spotted on the same runway.

Findings · 8

NTSB’s coded findings. Those marked are part of the probable cause; the rest are factors or other findings. Under each, the cases with the same finding.

N53488 · Boeing A75N1(PT17)

Attention/monitoring: monitoring other aircraftPersonnel issues › Psychological · Pilot of other aircraftBoeing A75N1(PT17): 3 casesAll aircraft: 231 casesProbable cause
Info processing/decision: decision making/judgmentPersonnel issues › Action/decision · Pilot of other aircraftBoeing A75N1(PT17): 6 casesAll aircraft: 3,098 casesProbable cause

N201HK · Mooney M20J

Attention/monitoring: monitoring other aircraftPersonnel issues › Psychological · PilotAll aircraft: 231 casesProbable cause
Attention/monitoring: monitoring other aircraftPersonnel issues › Psychological · Pilot of other aircraftAll aircraft: 231 casesProbable cause
Info processing/decision: decision making/judgmentPersonnel issues › Action/decision · PilotAll aircraft: 3,098 casesProbable cause
Attention/monitoring: monitoring environmentPersonnel issues › Psychological · Pilot of other aircraftAll aircraft: 809 casesProbable cause

Sequence of events

The events NTSB coded, in order, by phase of flight. The defining event is the one that best describes the accident. Under each, the cases with the same event anywhere in their sequence.

N201HK · Mooney M20J

Ground collisionLanding-landing rollAll aircraft: 618 casesDefining event

Analysis

According to the pilots of the Mooney and the Boeing (Biplane), they arrived at the uncontrolled field and landed on opposing sides of the runway at approximately the same time. The Mooney entered the left downwind pattern for a landing on runway 34. He stated he made radio calls over the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency at each leg of the traffic pattern. The pilot of the Biplane entered the left 45 degree entry for downwind for runway 16. He stated he was not equipped with radios, but scanned the area for traffic and did not see the any other aircraft in the pattern. The Biplane landed on runway 16 and proceeded to roll out. The Mooney landed on runway 34 and came to a stop when he saw the Biplane on the runway. According to the pilot of the Mooney, he first saw the Biplane on landing roll at the opposite side of the runway and thought he was going to stop. When it appeared that the Biplane was not going to stop, he gave it full power and attempted to take evasive action to the left. The pilot of the Biplane did not see the other airplane until it passed under his right wing and he felt the subsequent collision. Both pilots reported they did not see the other airplane in the pattern or during landing. Neither pilot reported any mechanical problems with their respective airplanes. Federal Aviation Administration Inspectors arrived on scene and confirmed substantial damage to both airplanes. The Mooney tail assembly was partially detached from the fuselage and bent 25 degrees to the left. The bottom right wing spar of the Biplane was damaged.

According to the pilots of the Mooney and the Boeing tail-wheel biplane, they arrived at the non-towered airport and entered the traffic patterns for opposing sides of the 3,588-foot-long by 37-foot-wide runway at approximately the same time. The Mooney entered the pattern on a left downwind for runway 34. The pilot stated he made radio calls over the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency at each leg of the traffic pattern. The pilot of the biplane entered the left 45-degree entry for downwind to runway 16 because winds appeared to favor that runway. The biplane was not equipped with a two-way radio. As the pilot of the Mooney touched down on runway 34, he saw the biplane on the opposite end. The Mooney pilot stopped his airplane on the runway about 300 feet from the biplane, and observed the biplane continue to taxi towards him. When it appeared that the biplane was not going to stop, he applied power and took take evasive action to the left. The pilot of the biplane had limited forward visibility due to its nose high, tail-wheel configuration, and he was unable to "s-turn" the biplane as he taxied due to the runway's narrow width. He did not did not see the Mooney until it passed under his right wing and they collided. Neither pilot reported any mechanical problems with their respective airplanes. Federal Aviation Administration inspectors examined both airplane's after the accident noted that each had been substantially damaged during the collision. The Mooney tail assembly was partially detached from the fuselage and bent 25 degrees to the left, while the bottom right wing spar of the biplane was damaged.

Factual narrative

According to the pilots of the Mooney and the Boeing tail-wheel biplane, they arrived at the uncontrolled field and landed on opposing sides of the runway at approximately the same time. The Mooney entered the pattern on a left downwind for runway 34. The pilot stated he made radio calls over the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency at each leg of the traffic pattern. The pilot of the biplane entered the left 45 degree entry for downwind to runway 16 because winds appeared to favor that runway. The biplane was not equipped with a two-way radio. He scanned the area for traffic and did not see any other aircraft. As the pilot of the Mooney touched down on runway 34, he saw the biplane on the opposite end. The Mooney pilot stopped his airplane on the runway and observed the biplane continue to taxi towards him. When it appeared that the biplane was not going to stop, he applied power and took take evasive action to the left. The pilot of the biplane had limited forward visibility due to his nose high tail-wheel configuration. He did not did not see the Mooney until it passed under his right wing and they collided. Neither pilot reported any mechanical problems with their respective airplanes. Federal Aviation Administration Inspectors arrived on scene and confirmed substantial damage to both airplanes. The Mooney tail assembly was partially detached from the fuselage and bent 25 degrees to the left. The bottom right wing spar of the biplane was damaged.

According to the pilots of the Mooney and the Boeing tail-wheel biplane, they arrived at the non-towered airport and entered the traffic patterns for opposing sides of the 3,588-foot-long by 37-foot-wide runway at approximately the same time. The Mooney entered the pattern on a left downwind for runway 34. The pilot stated he made radio calls over the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency at each leg of the traffic pattern. The pilot of the biplane entered the left 45-degree entry for downwind to runway 16 because winds appeared to favor that runway. The biplane was not equipped with a two-way radio. As the pilot of the Mooney touched down on runway 34, he saw the biplane on the opposite end. The Mooney pilot stopped his airplane on the runway about 300 feet from the biplane, and observed the biplane continue to taxi towards him. When it appeared that the biplane was not going to stop, he applied power and took take evasive action to the left. The pilot of the biplane had limited forward visibility due to its nose high, tail-wheel configuration, and he was unable to "s-turn" the biplane as he taxied due to the runway's narrow width. He did not did not see the Mooney until it passed under his right wing and they collided. Neither pilot reported any mechanical problems with their respective airplanes. Federal Aviation Administration inspectors examined both airplane's after the accident noted that each had been substantially damaged during the collision. The Mooney tail assembly was partially detached from the fuselage and bent 25 degrees to the left, while the bottom right wing spar of the biplane was damaged.

Aircraft · 2

Registration
N53488
Reported as
Boeing A75N1(PT17) (UNDESIGNAT)
Category
Airplane
Serial number
75-2284
Built
1942
Airframe hours
1,789.44
Engine
Continental W-670-6N, 200 horsepower, reciprocating
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Personal · Part 91
Operator
Allen Chorman & Son, LLC
Registered owner
Allen Chorman & Son, LLC
Airworthiness certificate
Standard, Aerobatic
Last inspection
Annual · June 26, 2015
Departed
Milford, DE
Destination
D74 · Farmington, DE
Airport
D74 · Chorman, runway 16, 3,588 × 37 ft, asphalt

Matched to the registry by N-number and the event date; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

Registration
N201HK
Reported as
Mooney M20J (NO SERIES)
Category
Airplane
Serial number
24-0177
Built
1977
Airframe hours
3,019.3
Engine
Lycoming IO-360-A3B6, 200 horsepower, reciprocating
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Personal · Part 91
Operator
American Industrial And Marine Electroni
Registered owner
American Industrial And Marine Electroni
Airworthiness certificate
Standard, Normal
Last inspection
Annual · July 17, 2015
Departed
D74 · Farmington, DE
Destination
D74 · Farmington, DE
Airport
D74 · Chorman, runway 34, 3,588 × 37 ft, asphalt
Equipment
Satellite tracking device, Electronic primary flight display, Stall warning system, Auto-pilot

Flight crew · 2

As NTSB recorded them. NTSB leaves out names.

Role
Pilot, aircraft N53488
Age
39
Injuries
None
Certificate
Commercial
Airplane ratings
Single-engine land, Multi-engine land, Single-engine sea, Multi-engine sea
Instrument ratings
Airplane
Medical
Class 2, Without waivers/limitations
Seat
Rear
Restraint
4-point
Flight hours
19,904 total · 50 in this make and model · 19,750 as pilot in command · 150 in the last 90 days · 50 in the last 30 days · 5 in the last 24 hours
Role
Pilot, aircraft N201HK
Age
69
Injuries
None
Certificates
Flight instructor, Commercial
Airplane ratings
Multi-engine land, Single-engine land
Instrument ratings
Airplane
Medical
Class 2, With waivers/limitations
Last flight review
June 28, 2015
Seat
Left
Restraint
3-point
Flight hours
4,463 total · 920 in this make and model · 4,385 as pilot in command · 37 in the last 90 days · 7 in the last 30 days · 1 in the last 24 hours

Weather

Conditions
Visual (VMC) · Day
Wind
230° at 3 knots
Visibility
10 statute miles
Temperature
54 °F, dew point 48 °F
Altimeter
30.37 inHg
Observed at
GED, 15 nm away

Docket · 6

The files NTSB released with the investigation on January 11, 2016, on NTSB’s docket system: statements, records, photos and specialists’ reports.

FAA reports on this event · 2

The FAA’s own accident and incident reports, matched to the aircraft by N-number and date.

Other investigations on N53488 · 2

Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.