On July 17, 2010, approximately 1500 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 182P, N777RM, was substantially damaged following a runway excursion during an aborted takeoff from Crisfield Municipal Airport (W41), Crisfield, Maryland. The certificated commercial pilot and three passengers were uninjured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight, which was operated under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The flight was originating at the time of the accident, with an intended destination of Northeast Philadelphia Airport (PNE), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The pilot stated that he conducted a preflight inspection of the airplane and everything appeared normal, and that the engine run-up also indicated no abnormalities. He stated that the airplane contained a total of 50 gallons of fuel. The pilot stated that the wind conditions at the airport were light and from the west, and that the windsock indicated the winds were favoring runway 32. The airplane was configured for a normal takeoff, which included zero degrees of wing flaps.

The pilot initiated the takeoff from runway 32, which was 2,490 feet in length. Part way down the runway, the pilot elected to abort the takeoff for lack of airspeed. The pilot stated to a police officer who responded to the scene that he attempted to lift off the runway at 85 miles per hour, and the airplane would not become airborne. He subsequently attempted to take off two more times, both without success. He stated that by the time he decided to abort the takeoff, the airplane was near the end of the runway. Both the pilot and passenger applied brakes, but the airplane continued off the end of the runway into grass, where it impacted a ditch approximately 2 feet deep, and came to rest upright. All four occupants exited the aircraft normally. The pilot stated that the heat and humidity may have accounted for the airplane's inability to become airborne.

Post accident examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector revealed that the nose landing gear had separated from the airplane, and the airplane had substantial damage to the fuselage and engine firewall.

The pilot held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land and sea, airplane multiengine, glider, and instrument airplane, in addition to a flight instructor certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine, instrument airplane, and glider. He reported 3,845 hours total flight time, 200 hours of which were in the accident airplane make and model. His most recent FAA third class medical certificate was issued in April, 2009.

FAA records indicated that the airplane was manufactured in 1973. It was a high-wing, four-place monoplane of metal construction, with a fixed, tricycle landing gear configuration. The airplane was equipped with a 235-horsepower, Teledyne Continental Motors O-470 engine. Its most recent annual inspection was conducted on March 24, 2010, at a total airframe time of 6,001 hours.

The 1454 weather observation at Wallops Flight Facility (WAL), located approximately 18 miles east of the accident airport, included winds from 330 degrees at 8 knots, 10 statute miles visibility, few clouds at 4,900 feet, temperature 34 degrees C, dew point 19 degrees C, and an altimeter setting of 29.94 inches of mercury.

The pilot stated that the airplane's weight at the time of the accident was 2,840 lbs. Review of the pilot's operating handbook takeoff performance data revealed that the airplane's takeoff ground roll distance at this weight with 20 degrees of flaps would have been approximately 590 feet, and approximately 1,110 feet to clear a 50-foot tall obstacle given the atmospheric conditions present about the time of the accident. The pilot's operating handbook also stated that, "Using 20 degrees wing flaps reduces the ground run and total distance over the obstacle by approximately 20 percent."

In the "Recommendation" section of the NTSB Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report Form, the pilot stated that, "It is possible that the use of a short-field takeoff technique with 20 degrees flaps would have been more successful than the standard method which was used."

Use your browsers 'back' function to return to synopsis
Return to Query Page