Poor approach for Cessna

Aircraft: Cessna T210M. Injuries: None. Location: Kremmling, Colo. Aircraft damage: Substantial.

What reportedly happened: During the approach to runway 27, the pilot maintained the airspeed between 100 and 110 knots to compensate for the gusting wind.

He reported that the wind at the time of the accident was from 190° at 10 knots, gusting to 18 knots. Upon touchdown, the plane began to porpoise and the pilot aborted the landing.

During the go-around attempt, the airplane encountered a wind gust and settled back onto the ground adjacent to the runway. The pilot reduced the engine power and attempted to bring the airplane to a stop, but it hit an airport perimeter fence, tearing off the nose-wheel landing gear and bending the gearbox bulkhead.

Probable cause: The pilot’s failure to maintain aircraft control during landing.

NTSB Identification: CEN11CA620

This August 2011 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.


  1. peter says

    he should have checked the crosswind components on the aircraft and check himself out to see at what crosswinds he can land at.

    he should have checked the weather prior to take-off in correspondence to what he can do.

    pilot error yes. but it frustrates me as a pilot to see people out there making dumb decisions to fly when clearly they shouldn’t…in Australia we have a rule of thumb for GA pilots.. if the crosswinds are 12 knots or higher then you are not going anywhere unless you wish to die. simple as that…

  2. Mooney 9242V says

    The NTSB summary makes no reference to the pilot not having a current medical, a positive for the FAA. Unfortunately, not much of a positive for the GA community. An 18 knot 80 degree crosswind can be challenging. Now, in lieu of a medical certification that has proven to have no value, could this accident have been prevented with some good old honest flight instruction on emergency procedures (porposing and then a go around fall into this category). How do we get the FAA to recoginize that a major risk factor is piloting skills, not heath. Let us address the real issue and stop wasting pilots’ limited financial resources on medical certification that only makes the Oklahoma City folks feel like they are doing something good. If what they are doing is so good, then show us the evidence. If no evidence, stop the nonsense and do something to help, not hinder GA.

    • RudyH says

      Note that medicals are discussed on the ‘fatals’ predominantly. This one smacks of clear pilot error….. btw….again…We are not docs….

    • says

      Gary and Rudy, With luck those that wish for the elimination of the third class med. will get their wish. It will be much more cost effective to not pay $200.00 by yearly, for the medical and spend $400 or more every year or six months for a check ride to P.T.S. standards. The accident rate should go down as that will get many to stop flying with the cost and hassle of such testing. With this all in the name of safety it will be worth it, even if it kills off the light end of G.A. The airlines and corporate fleets can get pilots from the military, so if it saves one life….. Bottom line you cannot legislate good judgment, pay attention, don’t just run the systems, FLY THE AIRPLANE!!!

      • RudyH says

        again….extend the period of validity of the third class to four to five years for 45 yr old and under aviators and even let the general physicians perform exams using FAA med standards…..at a cheaper cost per exam…now the FAA would be reasonably content, docs still make some money, and aviators keep on flyin’….because….simply we are not docs….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *