The Zenith CH-750 pilot reported that during takeoff, the airplane’s engine was producing normal rpm, and “the aircraft lifted off about halfway down the runway, but did not climb normally.”
He aborted the takeoff, landed beyond the departure end of the runway, and hit a building in Gainesville, Missouri.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall and fuselage.
A post-accident inspection by FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors revealed that the carburetor was disconnected, however post impact or pre-impact separation of the carburetor could not be determined.
Probable cause: The pilot’s perception that the airplane was not climbing normally, which precipitated an aborted landing with insufficient runway remaining to stop the airplane safely.
NTSB Identification: GAA15CA166
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.
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.
Something in this report does not make sense
If the carburetor was disconnected how did he takeoff thus far?
It is the NTSB. They investigate *at* GA crashes. And if it is an experimental, well those are more of the red-headed step-children than a plane with an MTOW of 12,500 or better.
And, thankfully, the NTSB’s reports are subject to cross-examination in a court of competent jurisdiction which sometimes shows their work for GA to be woefully lacking.
Marvin, the statement was written to state the investigators could not tell if the disconnect was pre T.O or post T.O flight. Yet, my theory is possible carburetor ice, especially in MO.
What bothers me about that report more than anything was the total lack of relevant information by which we might judge the pilots overall level of experience, the planes TT in service, when was last maintenance performed, what type of engine was it, and the list goes on.
If you follow the link given to the NTSB report it has almost nothing to add beyond what was printed so what are we to learn from all of this if we do not have at least some relevant factors to weigh? By doing a search I found an entry for the NTSB database (a big PDF file) that did add the aircraft had 178 hours total airframe time and the engine was a Jabiru 3300. At least with those meager details we know something about the airframe. As mentioned in another comment the EAB world does not exactly get much attention from the NTSB in these matters but without some basic information we cannot begin to start to learn from the mistakes of the past.
As for the takeoff itself the technique was flawed. There has to be a decision point where you either abort the takeoff (and have the runway left to do that) or you press on and do your best with what you have. Pulling the power and diving for the runway too late in the game is a sure ticket to disaster in just about every instance I have heard of. The pilot said the engine was making full RPM but the aircraft did not seem to be climbing normally. Well it was climbing and the engine was operating so maybe the better choice would have been to make a cautious circuit and land immediately, there was nothing dire like fire and smoke in the cockpit. Regardless of the aircraft type or certification status these are the sort of scenarios we need to be prepared to face on every takeoff and not be subjected to make critical decisions with no forethought. The professionals flying the big stuff get this stuff drilled into them continuously and it usually does turn out good for them and all those people behind them.