ERA20LA070

The pilot reported that during the approach, the airplane was “hot and long,” indicating that it was travelling faster than normal and would overshoot the intended landing point. After touching down near the midpoint of the 2,180 ft long, wet turf runway, the pilot applied the brakes and the left brake pedal “went to the floor” with little or no resistance. He tried to pump the brake to get it to function but was unsuccessful. The airplane veered to the right, struck trees, and sustained substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage. The pilot reported that he had experienced intermittent problems with the left brake for about 2 years. It had previously exhibited the same symptoms as it did on the day of the accident; however, in the past, pumping of the brake would restore its performance. A review of the airplane’s maintenance records revealed several entries related to the replacement, overhaul, and maintenance of the left brake system components. Examination of the airplane after the accident confirmed that the left brake pedal offered less resistance and travelled further than the right brake pedal. Asymmetrical skid marks found on the runway were consistent with heavier braking from the right wheel initially, followed by similar braking for both wheels during the last 75 ft of ground roll prior to impact with the trees. It is therefore likely that the left brake was not operating or operating at reduced effectiveness during a portion of the landing. Although the left brake malfunctioned, other conditions likely contributed to the accident. The airplane touched down near the midpoint of the runway, which would have left about 1,100 ft of runway remaining. The airplane would have required a ground roll of about 918 ft for a dry grass runway, with no wind. At the time of the accident, the grass was wet, the airplane’s speed was faster than normal, and the nearest recorded weather about 4 miles away indicated that a tailwind may have prevailed around the time of the landing. Each of these factors would have further increased the required ground roll distance, leaving little or no margin to stop safely with normally functioning brakes.

On December 24, 2019, at 1600 eastern standard time, a Cessna 210L, N30259, was substantially damaged when it when it was involved in an accident at Spencer Airport (NC35), Concord, North Carolina. The pilot sustained minor injuries; the pilot-rated passenger and two other passengers were uninjured. The personal flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. According to the pilot, while flying in the traffic pattern at NC35, he had performed one uneventful approach and then conducted a go-around to runway 21, a 2,180 ft long turf runway, which was wet from rainfall the previous day. The pilot stated that during the second approach his “sight picture looked normal, but he was hot and long.” After touching down about halfway down the runway, he tapped the brakes and the left brake “went to the floor” with little or no resistance. He pumped the brake in an attempt to get it to work but was unsuccessful. The airplane veered to the right, and he chose to ground loop the airplane into pine trees on the right side of the runway, to avoid a fence and drainage ditch off the end of the runway. The airplane struck trees, spun to the right, and came to rest. According to the pilot, he had been having an intermittent problem with the left brake for nearly 2 years and had brought the airplane to two separate maintenance facilities to address the issue. The symptoms were very similar to the brake behavior on the day of the accident; however, he was always able to regain brake performance by pumping the brake pedal during previous events. A review of the airplane maintenance records revealed the master cylinder had been replaced twice, most recently 2 weeks before the accident, and previously in March 2019. It had also been overhauled in January 2019. Several other maintenance entries described replacement of o-rings, line plugs, the brake swivel and other brake hardware. An examination of the wreckage at the accident site by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector revealed substantial impact damage to the leading edge of both wings and buckling of the fuselage forward of the horizontal stabilizer and forward of the left door. The airplane impacted trees on the right side of the runway 21, near the end. A subsequent examination of the airplane at the salvage facility revealed that the left brake pedal had more travel than the right and did not offer as much resistance as the right brake pedal. No damage to the airplane was observed that would affect the operation of the pedal. A set of marks in the turf runway consistent with a touchdown were found about halfway down the runway. Another set of asymmetrical skid marks on runway were found leading from the center of the runway toward the right side and ended at the impact location. The mark consistent with the right main landing gear was estimated to be about 500 feet long. The mark consistent with the left main landing was estimated to be about 75 feet long.Both marks were relatively continuous up to the impact location. According to the pilot’s operating handbook, for landing at gross weight on a dry grass runway with zero wind, the required ground roll distance was 918 ft. The Concord Regional Airport (JQF), Concord, North Carolina, located about 4 miles west of the accident site, was the nearest weather reporting station. At 1550, the reported weather included wind from 360° at 8 knots, visibility 10 miles, sky clear, temperature 18°C, dew point 8°C, and an altimeter setting of 30.04 inches of mercury. For a runway oriented on a heading of 210°, the tailwind component would be about 7 knots.