WPR22LA320

During a discovery flight, the passenger asked the instructor if they could land at a private airstrip near his residence. The instructor was not familiar with this particular airstrip, nor had he consulted the airplane’s performance charts to determine if a safe landing and takeoff could be completed, but he still agreed to land. After landing to the west, the instructor turned the airplane around to depart to the east, as the wind appeared calm. He performed a short-field takeoff and observed the engine speed advance as the airplane began to move down the runway. When the airplane was about midfield, the instructor noticed that both his digital and analog airspeed indicators displayed 0 knots. Shortly after making this observation, after the airplane had traveled about 3/4 of the total length of the 1,300-ft-long runway, he decided to abort the landing. The airplane subsequently collided with a fence at the end of the runway and trees beyond the runway edge. A postaccident examination of the airplane did not reveal any preimpact mechanical anomalies with the airframe or engine that could have precluded normal operation. Examination of the pitot/static system did not indicate any failures or blockages. Performance computations indicated that the airplane had the required performance to complete the takeoff from a paved, level runway; however, the departure runway was composed of dirt, which the takeoff performance chart did not account for. Performance charts also indicated that the airplane did not have the distance necessary to stop when the instructor aborted the takeoff to avoid impacting the fence at the end of the runway. Therefore, the instructor’s delayed decision to abort the takeoff resulted in a collision with a fence and a tree. His decision to land at the unfamiliar airstrip without determining whether the airplane’s performance capabilities were adequate to perform a safe takeoff and landing contributed to the accident.

On August 26, 2022, about 1227 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 152, N49430, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Ione, California. The flight instructor and passenger were not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight. The instructor stated that he was asked to perform a discovery flight, during which they would fly to a private airstrip near the passenger’s home. Upon reaching the airstrip, the passenger asked the instructor if they could land. The instructor agreed and chose to land to the west, as the wind appeared calm. After landing, the instructor turned the airplane around for a departure to the east. He held the toe brakes as he advanced the throttle to full power to perform a short-field takeoff. The instructor stated that he observed between 2,300 and 2,400 rpm on the tachometer at the beginning of the takeoff roll. When the airplane was about halfway down the runway, the instructor noticed that both the analog airspeed indicator needle and the Garmin electronic flight instrument displayed 0 knots indicated (KIAS). The instructor stated that he had observed the lagging airspeed indication before midfield but had dismissed it. He decided to abort the takeoff, but, when he reduced power, he saw the airspeed indicator needle suddenly advance to about 45 KIAS. The airplane was about three quarters down the total length of the runway about this time. At the same time, the instructor noticed a fence in the airplane’s path beyond the runway end that was rapidly approaching. After the airplane collided with the fence, the left wing impacted a tree then the airplane spun and came to rest. The instructor reported that he had not expected to perform a takeoff from this particular dirt strip and had not calculated the airplane’s takeoff and landing performance. According to a witness and nearby resident, the weather conditions included a temperature of about 95° with light wind from the west at the time of the accident. The witness reported that the airplane never left the ground and that the engine sounded smooth and continuous throughout the takeoff attempt. The fence that the airplane impacted was adjacent to the departure end of eastern facing runway. The static range of the engine was between 2,280 and 2,380 rpm and the maximum rpm was 2,550. Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine did not reveal any preimpact mechanical anomalies or malfunctions that could have precluded normal operation. An examination of the analog airspeed indicator and Garmin electronic flight instrument revealed no anomalies, as both units functioned as designed during postaccident testing. Examination of the pitot/static system did not reveal any blockages. The airplane’s ground run and takeoff distance were computed using a chart from the pilot’s operating handbook (POH). Conditions for the performance calculations included flaps 10°, full throttle prior to brakerelease, paved, level, dry runway, and zero wind. The chart stated to increase the distance by 10% for every 2 kts of tailwind. Using a given temperature of 35°C and about 500 ft pressure altitude, the airplane required a ground run of about 972 ft and a takeoff distance of about 1,791 ft to clear a 50-ft obstacle. The runway was about 1,300 ft long. The airplane’s landing distance was also computed using the respective chart from the POH. Conditions for this performance computation included flaps 30°, power OFF, maximum braking, paved, level, dry runway, and zero wind. The performance chart also stated that the landing distance should be increased by 10% for every 2 kt of tailwind. The results indicated that a ground roll of about 569 ft was required to stop the airplane. The airplane had approximately 325 ft of remaining runway when the pilot aborted the takeoff attempt.