Pilot Debrief

PIPER PA 28 near Tehachapi, CA — 2013-08-24

Final reportWPR13FA386
Sign in to save
Date
2013-08-24
Location
Tehachapi, CA, USA
Airport
L94
Aircraft
PIPER PA 28
Registration
N32582
Category
Airplane
Highest injury
Serious
Fatalities
0
Phase of flight
Initial climb

Probable cause

The pilot's failure to conduct predeparture airplane performance planning for a departure from a high density altitude location, which resulted in his selection of a flightpath toward rising terrain that the airplane was not capable of outclimbing.

NTSB narrative

The pilot/owner based the single-engine airplane at an airport that was on flat terrain at an elevation of about 100 ft mean sea level (msl). He flew to another airport that was located near the perimeter of the southeast quadrant of a geographic bowl at an elevation of 4,220 ft msl. The pilot had not previously flown into or out of the destination airport and had only flown one time into and out of a high-elevation airport (about 6,700 ft msl). The flight to the destination was uneventful. Later that afternoon, the pilot performed a weight-and-balance check and obtained a weather briefing before departure for the trip home. He did not conduct any density altitude, takeoff, or climb performance calculations. The pilot reported that the takeoff roll and initial climbout were normal, but when he turned onto the left crosswind leg, the airplane no longer seemed to be climbing. The airplane struck terrain about ½ mile from the departure end of the runway. The impact location elevation was about 160 ft above the departure airport elevation. Examination of the airplane, engine, and propeller did not reveal any preexisting mechanical deficiencies or problems that would have precluded normal operation. Based on the calculated density altitude of about 6,700 ft, the airplane manufacturer's performance charts indicated that the airplane would require about 3,300 ft to attain an altitude of 50 ft above ground level (agl). The expected initial climb rate was about 310 ft per minute; without any wind or performance decrements, the airplane would have been about 115 ft agl when it reached the impact location. Performance decrements included loss of lift in the turn; possible less-than-ideal airframe, engine, propeller, or pilot performance; and adverse wind, including downdrafts and the loss of the headwind component during the turn. The departure airport was equipped with two parallel runways and no air traffic control tower. A dedicated traffic advisory radio frequency and opposite-direction traffic patterns were used to separate the airport's sailplane and powered airplane operations. In keeping with the airport's procedures, the pilot used runway 27L and attempted to fly a left traffic pattern for departure. Review of the local topography revealed that the terrain south of the airport rose relatively rapidly, while the terrain both west and north remained about the airport elevation for several miles. Had the pilot conducted predeparture climb performance calculations, he would have determined that the airplane's climb capability was significantly reduced by the high density altitude. That, in turn, should have prompted him to select a departure path that remained clear of rising terrain. Two available options included a straight-out departure from runway 27L or a right turn from either runway 27L or 27R once the pilot was assured that a right turnout would not create a traffic conflict with the sailplanes using the airport.

Analysis

Primary failure mode
Human factors
First missed decision gate
Conducting takeoff and climb performance evaluations before departure from L94.

NTSB coding

Evidence available

  • 9 docket documents
View NTSB final reportView NTSB docket

Docket documents9

Related mishaps