The pilot reported that he intended to do touch-and-goes in the traffic pattern at the airport in Mesa, Arizona. While on the downwind leg, the air traffic controller cleared him to land.
During the landing roll, past the halfway point on the runway, he increased the engine power to full to takeoff and told the controller that he was doing a go-around. The controller immediately instructed him to exit the runway on to the last taxiway, so the pilot “cut the entire power,” applied brakes and full right rudder, but the Diamond DA40 skidded, exited the runway, and hit a concrete barrier.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward, lower fuselage.
The pilot noted that he wanted to do touch and goes, but did not accurately communicate his intentions to the air traffic controller.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s decision to abort a go-around with insufficient runway remaining to safely stop the airplane, which resulted in a loss of control, runway excursion and impact with a concrete barrier.
This September 2019 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 partially disagree with Wilbur.
True that proper communication dictates you should be cleared for a touch-and-go or for the option if you intend to do a touch-and-go but this doesn’t mean you can’t call for a go-around once on the runway if you need it. Although I am not a controller I am almost sure that once you call for a go-around ATC can’t deny it. After all, if the aircraft is in the landing rollout the approach/landing has not ended yet.
So I do agree the pilot showed a lack of good communication skills and poor decision making by attempting to abort a go-around (or is it touch-and-go?) once initiated. As Jim said, “unable” would have been the proper response. But since the PIC is ultimately responsible for the operation of the aircraft the “Probable Cause” is right on and the pilot is at fault.
Chris
Totally agree with You, JimH and Wylbur Wrong
Probable cause was a chain involving lack of communications between pilot, ground and tower. The pilot on contact with second tower should have said Close Traffic, touch and go, ready for take-off runway xx.
This would have prevented this confusion. Also, in the pattern, he could have asked/verified this would be a touch and go.
And as JimH said, at that point the pilot should have said “unable” and gotten off the ground. ADM issue, what’s the use here. Just my opinion.
So, rather than getting the runway back, the crash closed the runway for, what, an hour or so.
The pilot’s reply should have been,…’ unable’ !, and continued on his go-around.