During the takeoff roll from the 1,400-foot-long runway in Kirkville, N.Y., the Rans S-10 encountered water on the runway and “was not able to gain enough momentum.”
During the initial climb, the airplane was unable to clear the surrounding trees. Therefore, the pilot elected to maneuver the airplane to avoid striking the trees.
During the turn, the airspeed decreased and the pilot made an off airport landing to a nearby golf course. According to a witness, the airplane was about 40 feet off the ground when it began the turn.
In addition, it looked like the airplane “turned too tight,” and that the “wings never leveled out” prior to impacting the ground.
During the off-airport landing, the airplane incurred substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The pilot was seriously injured in the crash.
The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. He further stated, “it was my fault, not the [airplane’s].”
At the time of the accident the wind was from the northwest at 4 knots.
Probable cause: The pilot’s failure to maintain airspeed while maneuvering during the initial climb, which resulted in a loss of lift and subsequent off airport landing. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s failure to abort the takeoff after recognizing the airplane’s slow acceleration.
NTSB Identification: ERA15CA242
This June 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.
It’s always with a bit of jollification that I read what the same “experts”, with all the answers, always have to say about these accidents posted on this web site. Why not have the FAA require all pilots attend a class inculcated by these “experts” and there would never be another aircraft accident or aviation injury?
If he didn’t have enough airspeed to climb, why in the world would he think he had enough to make a turn? It has to hurt a lot less to run off the runway while decelerating even if you do hit an obstacle than hitting that obstacle while in flight.
Not 70% of flying speed at 50% of runway? ABORT ABORT ABORT
Nice rule of thumb, but when doing a short field t/o with an obstacle at the end… 70% at 700′ may not be sufficient. Not knowing the specs on an S-10, it may not have been able to accelerate sufficiently for Vy and miss the obstacle at the end of the runway.
Next, given the water, one may not be able to ABORT ABORT ABORT. One may not have sufficient braking to get stopped.
That would be Vx or best angle of climb (most climb over distance) that applies to this takeoff, not Vy or best rate of climb (most climb over time). Your maybes and what ifs could be extrapolated all the way back to the hangar hence leave the doors closed and don’t fly to avoid accidents. The braking action of the standing water was already at work preventing the airplane from accelerating so its likely that had the power been brought to idle the airplane would have slowed rather quickly. Best to take ones chances on the ground by aborting the takeoff rather than force the airplane into the air where it will almost certainly be forced back to the ground with a far worse outcome.
Wilbur W: The pilot ailed to abort the outcome was…??? It’s always better to hit an obstacle in a lower energy state. Even if he’d hydrolplaned off the end of the runway at 70% Vr his injuries would probably have been far less serious.