According to Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast data, the flight departed from Port Isabel-Cameron County Airport (KPIL) in Texas, and flew to Madisonville Municipal Airport (51R) in Texas.
As it was coming in for landing, the Piper PA-32-260 hit 50-foot-tall trees about 680 feet south of the approach end of Runway 36 at 51R. The airplane came to rest about 550 feet south of the approach end of the runway.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and wings due to the impact with trees and terrain. The pilot died in the accident and five passengers were seriously injured.
The propeller displayed S-bending consistent with the engine producing power at the time of impact. The trees along the wreckage path exhibited slash marks consistent with propeller strikes.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s failure to maintain a proper glidepath during final approach for landing, which resulted in impact with trees and terrain.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This June 2021 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.
How many successful landing have been accomplished at this airport?
Probably not a lot of traffic;
3 aircraft based there, no hangars
no services except SS fuel.
If there were a VGSI at a normal location adjacent to the runway, it would direct you to fly to a point adjacent to or very near the forth white runway edge lights where the landing would then be at about the thousand foot point if properly executed. In this case, that would still accomplish a landing in the first third. This in effect overshoots the first 700ft of the runway but adds the necessary altitude over the obstacle. In the day, it all looks normal. But at night to a somewhat short runway with no VGSI, it may look like you are going to overshoot most of the runway. That may result in the pilot aiming for some point closer to the beginning of the runway if not even at the green threshold lights which will almost surely result in a collision with the obstacle. I think training for this unusual environment is a must.
The obstructions reported for PIL were 50 ft trees, 201 ft from the end of the runway, 190 ft L. The approach starts 200 ft before the runway end. It is a trapezoid shape, narrower at the runway end and wider the farther out you go. It is 500 ft wide at the narrow end, that is 250 ft each side of rwy CL. He likely hit trees closer to centerline which were not as significant as the 50 ft trees closer in, but 190 ft L/R of centerline. The Chart Supplement will only show “trees” as the obstruction no matter how significant they may be to a pilot. It could be a 10 ft tree at 0:1 at 201 distance, 250 R or L of centerline. But the pilot would want to know about the 50 ft tree on centerline 500 ft from the runway end. Pilot is not given that information. Airport did not have PAPI lights at the time of the accident.
Thanks. I was looking at the report on the trees at 680 ft, and the google maps view of the airport. The tall trees along the road at the approach end are easy to see.
None of this is on any airport info I looked at.!
PAPI or VASI lights would have indicate a non-standard angle of at least 5 degrees vs the normal 3 -3.5 degrees.
NSTD 5 degrees aiming of PAPI is not an option. FAA Order JO 6850.2B paragraph 503.b. Most I’ve ever seen is 4 degrees.
So, then the city needs to either remove the trees, or delete the GPS approach to rwy 36 showing a 3.01 degree glide slope….which is guaranteed to hit the 50 ft trees, 680 ft from the rwy .!!
The city seems to be liable for this issue.!
I thought it was the FAA and not the city who certifies airports and airport approaches.
The 50 ft trees 680 ft from the approach end, will require an approach angle of more than 4.2 degrees to have ‘0’ ft clearance. A 5 degree approach would give only a 10 ft clearance of the trees, so a much steeper approach is needed to ensure adequate clearance. !
BUT, at night, near midnight, the pilot wouldn’t see the trees and from the pic of the cut branches, it looks like he made a typical 3 degree approach, cutting branches 15 ft below the top of the trees.
The airport info I looked at didn’t mention the 50 ft trees at 680 ft..! So, the pilot, even during the day, would be surprised to see them.
Why wouldn’t they remove these trees, being a hazard on approach ??
Thank you JimH & Randy Coller:
I pulled the approach plate for this to look for papi/vasi and saw neither for this approach.
If this pilot was using a WAAS GPS that provided vertical guidance….
Given the additional info you two provided, me thinks there is a problem with the approach and it needs to be looked at by the FAA.
I don’t know if the published approach for RWY 36 has changed since the accident, but I notice that it is *not authorized* at night. Further, it is LNAV — lateral guidance only. Descent from the FAF starts at 1900 MSL, and the MDA is 680 MSL (397 AGL). If you use this approach properly — in the daytime, for starters — then you should be able to see trees ahead of the runway environment and plan your descent accordingly.
But this was a night VFR operation. My takeaway: be extra skeptical about a proposed night landing at an unfamiliar, lightly used airport with a short runway. And check to see if the approach procedures are authorized at night.
If I do a little geometry; the mda of 400 ft, is 7,500 ft from the runway at a 3 degree approach, and the 50 ft trees will be blocking the pilot’s view of 2,000 ft of the runway .
So, even a vfr day instrument approach could be difficult.!
It’s Texas….cut down the trees..!!!