The pilot made an approach for landing on Runway 35 at the airport in Kernville, California. According to airport personnel, the wind was about 170 at 25 knots, creating a tailwind component for landing.
During the landing, the Cessna U206-G bounced and touched down further than normal.
The airplane subsequently overran the departure end of the runway onto rough terrain, and nosed over.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage.
The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Probable cause: The pilot’s inadequate flare and failure to maintain airplane control during the landing with a tailwind which resulted in a bounce, long landing, and subsequent runway excursion.
NTSB Identification: WPR15CA100
This February 2015 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.
Learn from the misfortune of others
Sign up now to receive NTSB Accident Reports and GA news in your email inbox. Join 110,000+ fellow aviators.
Anyone with experience can detect a 25 knot tailwind on landing. The ground speed will be noticeably higher than usual – actually dangerously higher if on a relatively short runway for such a wind. That should have prompted a go around and a call to the FBO to confirm the direction of the surface wind if indeed there was someone manning a Unicom radio.
I bet he had to tinkel and couldn’t wait to go around a 180.
The pilot reported in his statement (located in the Docket) that he radioed Unicom and was told “wind is from the north”. He also said he was experiencing “severe to extreme turbulence” during descent and at pattern altitude. He said he made two passes over the airport prior to making the decision to land on 17, and that he didn’t see a windsock on either pass. His total time PIC was 248 at the time of the accident, and he had 370+ hours total time. The airport manager statement (also in the docket) didn’t indicate support or refuting that a unicom was active at the time of the accident. The pilot admitted in his statement that he didn’t have a good sense of how high his ground speed was until after touchdown, by which time he decided it was better to remain on the ground that botch a go around. IMHO, that last was a good decision from the perspective of potential crash energy and severity.
I think you have it reversed – he landed on 35. But in any event, I don’t buy the “I didn’t know what the wind was” explanation. Unless he was in a coma he would simply have to know that the 25-knot wind was out of the south rather than out of the north. Drift would tell him that and otherwise all he would have to do would be to look at Isabella Lake a couple of miles to the south. You can’t hide a 25-knot wind.
Clear approach both ends, 3500 feet of asphalt – one has to wonder what kind of logic led to the pilot to land with a 25 knot tailwind when he could have landed into the wind.
Good point… when I first read the phrase “tailwind component” I was about to do the crosswind calculation when I noticed that no calculation was needed. Landing on 35 with a wind out of 170 is as direct a tailwind as it gets. Very curious as to why the pilot chose 35 instead of 17 when the wind was 25 knots. It’s not like it was 5 knots and they could “get away with it”. And I’m not trying to belabor the point. Knowing what led to that decision might be useful to others who might think they can tempt fate in a similar scenario. It’s too bad that kind of insight is not reflected in the accident report.
Agree,what else was possibly going on to make this decision.