GAA17CA500

According to the pilot, during the takeoff roll, about 2,100 ft down the 4,210-ft-long runway, the airplane had accelerated to 65 knots. The airplane remained in ground effect for about 1,000 more feet but would not climb. The pilot feared the airplane would collide with obstacles beyond the end of the runway, and he aborted the takeoff. During landing, the airplane bounced, and when it descended back to the runway, the pilot immediately applied the brakes. The airplane exited the left side of the runway before reaching the runway threshold. The airplane continued about 120 ft and then collided with a fence. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the lower left fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The METAR at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 200° at 8 knots, and the temperature was 73°F. The field elevation was 4,862 ft, and the density altitude was 6,682 ft. According to the Pilot's Operating Handbook, under the reported weather conditions, the minimum ground roll was about 2,249 ft, and the minimum distance to clear a 50-ft obstacle was about 3,701 ft. Further, the normal distance to land would have been about 901 ft. According to FAA-H-8083-25A, The Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, Chapter 10 (Aircraft Performance) pg.16: The most critical conditions of landing performance are combinations of high gross weight, high density altitude, and unfavorable wind. These conditions produce the greatest required landing distances and critical levels of energy dissipation required of the brakes. In all cases, it is necessary to make an accurate prediction of minimum landing distance to compare with the available runway. A polished, professional landing procedure is necessary because the landing phase of flight accounts for more pilot-caused aircraft accidents than any other single phase of flight.

According to the pilot, during the takeoff roll on runway 17, about 2,100ft down the 4,210 ft runway, the airplane had accelerated to 65kts. The airplane remained in ground effect for about 1,000 additional feet but would not climb. The pilot feared the airplane would collide with obstacles beyond the end of the runway, and he aborted the takeoff. During landing, the airplane bounced and when it descended back to the runway, the pilot immediately applied the brakes. The airplane exited the left side of the runway, before the runway threshold. The airplane continued about 120ft and then collided with a chain link fence. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the lower left fuselage. The pilot reported that the departure weight of the airplane was 2,395.5lbs. According to the manufacturer, the maximum takeoff weight for the airplane was 2,450lbs. The METAR at the accident airport reported that about the time of the accident, the wind was from 200° at 8kts and the temperature was 73°F. The field elevation was 4,862ft and the density altitude was 6,682ft. According to the manufacturer's pilot operating handbook (POH), under the reported weather conditions, the minimum ground roll was about 2,249ft, and the minimum distance to clear a 50ft obstacle was about 3,701ft. Further, the normal distance to land would have been about 901ft. According to FAA-H-8083-25A, The Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, Chapter 10 (Aircraft Performance) pg.16: The most critical conditions of landing performance are combinations of high gross weight, high density altitude, and unfavorable wind. These conditions produce the greatest required landing distances and critical levels of energy dissipation required of the brakes. In all cases, it is necessary to make an accurate prediction of minimum landing distance to compare with the available runway. A polished, professional landing procedure is necessary because the landing phase of flight accounts for more pilot-caused aircraft accidents than any other single phase of flight. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.