Prior to takeoff, the pilot performed a run-up of the Cessna 210’s engine and all systems were normal. During the takeoff from the airport in Guymon, Okla., he rotated the plane at 67 knots and retracted the landing gear. Shortly thereafter, the plane began to descend toward the runway.
The pilot attempted to apply aft elevator control, however the plane continued to settle toward the runway.
The pilot said he “kept trying to fly higher…” and the propeller hit the runway surface.
After the runway contact, he continued to keep the airplane airborne. When he realized the airplane would not climb, he moved it over toward a grass area. The airplane hit terrain, rotated to the right, and came to rest upright in a ravine adjacent to the runway.
A pilot-rated witness reported he thought the airplane stalled during the takeoff.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the pilot’s failure to maintain adequate airspeed during takeoff, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and collision with terrain.
NTSB Identification: CEN14CA092
This December 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.
Airspeed – the difference between flying and falling. So often you’ll see pilots yank the airplane off the runway just above stall speed – which is fine only if they subsequently allow the airplane to build up airspeed in ground effect before resuming the climb.
If they don’t they will quickly find themselves hanging in the prop on the backside of the power curve and pulling on the yoke will only make matters worse – especially if they have been too hasty to stow their otherwise very useful landing gear. That’s when we get to read about them here.
Wonder if this guy was a member of ALPA?
I’m take issue with the headline of the article…what empirical proof is there that the pilot actually over controlled to the point that the wing was exceeding the critical angle of attack.?
It is imperative that the author and the readers understand the physics and the mental process involved. The Cessna 210 did not and cannot do anything unless the pilot takes actions…it is a piece of sheet metal…and it only obeys the laws of physics. .the Real problem. ….the air space between the ear drums of the pilot and the author of this article. Headlines such as Cessna 210 stalls on take off are about emotion….not about facts or reality. Physics operates 24×7..365….but i will suggest the pilots do not (and authors) respect that fact.
You are the PIC….you are responsible for all the decisions. …period!
Nothing was stated in this report about aircraft load. Appears it that he may have been at high load and maybe even a poorly running engine. Better to cut the power at first sign of problem and head back to the hangar for a check up.
He rotated at 67 knots !!!! Was the other pilot calling out the speed such as in an airliner protocol? I doubt it, he may very well have rotated to early. Additionally, did he reach a minimum of 75knots before retracting the gear which adds more drag during the retraction process. What was his fuel flow before taking off? It has to be spot on in order to develop full takeoff power.
I have had a similar thing happen to a different complex/hi-perf aircraft, and it was caused by at least two partly clogged injectors. Mag check was just fine, static run-up seemed fine. But I noticed that we were taking more runway to accelerate to Vr than it should have taken.
I wonder if the NTSB had treated this situation like they would have for a part 135/12x operation if they would have examined the engine/fuel system and found contamination?