The pilot reported that during a landing at a remote dirt airstrip near Cascade, Idaho, while on short final, the Kitfox encountered a downdraft that resulted in a touchdown short of the runway. After impact the airplane nosed over.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage frame, the rudder, vertical stabilizer, and the engine mounts.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the pilot’s failure to maintain a proper glide path, which resulted in a touchdown short of the runway.
NTSB Identification: WPR13CA401
This August 2013 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.
I used to work at El Dorado Airport prop shop. Nice airport and flat runways even the grass X wind is good. I have never encountered problems there but did at Newton City County Airport in a Golden Eagle. At 500′ from the threshold a sink rate of 1000′ per minute and it took full power to fly thru it to touch down. And the plane was lightly loaded. Your shorts get stuck in places you don’t talk about.
I witnessed a 172 get slammed into the runway by a down draft at El Dorado, Arkansas, and there was absolutely nothing the pilot could have done to prevent it, so I do have a potential problem with the NTSB statement.
BJS, you appear to be talking about an occurrence where a severe downdraft or microburst did in fact occur. I hear you. Maybe that’s what happened. But from what I’ve seen in reports, those types of weather occurrences are normally mentioned by the pilot and discussed by the NTSB. But they weren’t so the NTSB determination seems reasonable to me given the information in the report.
Whether there is calm wind, updrafts, or downdrafts on final, the pilot’s job is to keep the airplane on a proper glide path. That obviously didn’t happen. There were no mechanical problems noted in the report, and nothing about weather conditions beyond the limits of the aircraft, so I don’t have any problem with the NTSB’s determination.
There are no details about airspeed, flight path, pilot actions, etc, in the report. But, for educational purposes as stated above, it’s worth reviewing basic technique for handling a downdraft on final considering that the aircraft is close to the ground and at approach speed, without any reflection on the pilot. More lift is necessary to counteract the downward force of the downdraft. However, as the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook states, “DO NOT increase the pitch attitude without increasing the power, since the airplane will decelerate rapidly and may approach the critical angle of attack and stall”. The general procedure given is “power must be applied immediately to maintain the airspeed while the pitch attitude is raised to increase lift and stop the descent”.
How about the downdraft? Could that have possibly played a role??? Or maybe the runway just wasn’t built long enough? Or how about this? The runway was built 1,000 feet beyond the intended point of touchdown? Some of the idiot comments by the NTSB are amazing!!