WPR11LA287

The pilot did not attain and maintain an adequate airspeed during the takeoff initial climb, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall.

The airplane arrived at the airport after a 3-hour flight. The pilot serviced the airplane to capacity with fuel and departed about 1 hour later. Turbulent crosswind and high density altitude conditions (9,369 feet) existed at the time of departure. A witness saw the airplane taxi along the 3,400-foot-long departure runway for about 1/3 of its length before beginning to accelerate. The passengers reported that, compared to previous flights, the airplane accelerated slower and took off farther down the runway, as would be expected due to the high density altitude. The pilot reported that the takeoff progressed normally until the airplane reached an altitude of about 200 feet above ground level. At that point, the airplane would no longer climb, and, certain that they would not be able to return to the airport, the pilot attempted to maneuver the airplane for landing in the field ahead. The passengers reported that, once airborne, the airplane rocked from side-to-side, and the stall warning horn operated continuously. The witness observed the airplane in an unusually nose-high attitude throughout the flight until it suddenly descended out of her view. The airplane impacted the ground in a flat attitude, sustaining crush damage in the vertical plane. Although the horizontal stabilizer sustained tree-strike damage, the wings did not; this damage pattern was consistent with the nose-high attitude observed by the witness. The airplane was loaded within its center of gravity envelope and was about 125 pounds below maximum gross weight. No evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunction or failure was noted during the postaccident examination of the airframe and engine. Review of recorded engine monitor data revealed that an appropriate level of power was being produced, and all engine parameters were normal. Although the mixture control was found in the full rich position, the pilot recalled that he leaned the mixture during taxi, and the power output determined from the engine monitor data was consistent with an appropriately leaned mixture. The pilot did not recall the extended runway taxi reported by the witness, however, performance calculations indicated that the remaining runway length would still have allowed for takeoff and adequate terrain clearance.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT On June 26, 2011, about 1340 mountain standard time, a Cessna 177RG, N2725V, collided with terrain in a field following takeoff from St Johns Industrial Air Park (SJN), St Johns, Arizona. The pilot was operating the airplane under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The private pilot and two passengers sustained serious injuries; the airplane sustained substantial damage. The cross-country flight departed SJN about 1340, with a planned destination of Mesquite Metro Airport (HQZ), Mesquite, Texas. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed. The airplane arrived at SJN about 1245, having flown from San Bernardino, California. According to the pilot and passengers, the accident flight was to be the penultimate leg of a journey, which was to ultimately end in Mesquite. The group had originally departed in the accident airplane from the Dallas area about a week prior, and had landed and taken off at multiple airports in the Southwest region during that time. The pilot reported that after landing at SJN, he had the airplane serviced with fuel, and that they stayed longer than he had planned. He became concerned about the airplane’s performance as the day drew on, and the air temperature began to rise. They eventually boarded, and the pilot performed an uneventful engine run-up. An airport employee, located in the fixed base operator facility at midfield, observed the pilot and passengers board the airplane, and then taxi to the departure end of runway 21. The airplane then turned onto the runway and began to move at a speed she considered slow, such that she thought the pilot had decided to cancel the takeoff. The airplane then crossed runway 14/32 and its parallel taxiway, and began to accelerate once it progressed to about 1/3 of the runway length. She continued to watch as the airplane accelerated, and eventually rotated 3/4 of the way down the runway. The airplane began to climb, but did not gain altitude once it reached the level of adjacent trees. The airplane continued in a nose-high attitude, and then suddenly descended out of her view. The witness reported that at the time of departure, the local automated surface observing systems (ASOS) indicated wind from 270 degrees, at 17 knots gusting to 30, with a density altitude of 9,200 feet. The passengers stated that as the airplane began the ground roll, it appeared to accelerate more slowly and felt more labored than on previous flights. They recalled that the airplane took off further down the runway than before, and once in the air it appeared to "hover". They stated that not long after takeoff, they began to hear the sound of a buzzer, as the airplane began to roll from left to right. The pilot stated that he could not recall the point at which he began the ground roll, but that the takeoff progressed normally until the airplane reached an altitude of about 200 feet above ground level. At that point, the airplane would no longer climb, and certain that they would not be able to return to the airport, he attempted to maneuver the airplane for a landing in the field ahead. The airplane came to rest on runway heading, about 1,800 feet beyond the departure end of runway 21. The airplane remained intact, with the entire cabin and fuselage structure sustaining vertical crush damage. The horizontal stabilizer sustained crush damage to its forward surfaces on both sides, and contained fragments of branches and tree limbs. No corresponding damage was noted to the wings. PERSONNEL INFORMATION A review of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airman records revealed that the pilot held a private pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land issued in 1998. The pilot reported a total flight time of 681 hours; 350 in the accident make and model. AIRCRAFT INFORMATION The four-seat, high-wing, retractable-gear airplane, serial number 177RG0672, was manufactured in 1975. It was powered by a Textron Lycoming IO-360-A1B6D engine, serial number L-13497-51A, and equipped with a McCauley two-blade constant speed propeller. The complete maintenance logbooks were not recovered, and as such, the mechanic who performed the most recent annual inspection provided maintenance records. The last annual inspection was completed on March 18, 2011. At that time, the airframe had accrued a total time of 5190.8 flight hours, with an engine time of 745.5 hours since major overhaul. The airplane underwent an avionics system upgrade in February 2010, which included the replacement of the majority of the original avionics equipment. The upgrade included the addition of a Garmin G500 multi function display, an SL-30 navigation/communication transceiver, and a J P Instruments EDM-930 engine data monitor. METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION An automated surface weather observation at SJN was issued about 25 minutes after the accident. It indicated wind from 250 degrees at 23 knots, gusting to 30 knots; 10 miles visibility; sky clear; temperature 96 degrees Fahrenheit (F); dew point 24 degrees F; and an altimeter setting at 30.04 inches of Mercury. The calculated density altitude, based on these values, was 9,369 feet. AIRPORT INFORMATION St Johns Airport is equipped with two intersecting runways. According to the FAA Southwest Airport/Facility Directory (AFD), runway 3/21 is 3,400 feet in length, and located at an elevation of 5,737 feet mean sea level. Runway 14/32 is 5,322 feet in length. The AFD does not make reference to obstacles in the path of runway 3/21. Utilizing a mapping program, the closest obstacle in the departure path of runway 21, was a single-story building, about 800 feet beyond the threshold of runway 3. TESTS AND RESEARCH Airframe and Engine Examination The airplane was recovered, and subsequently examined by the NTSB investigator-in-charge and a representative from Cessna Aircraft. The examination revealed that the landing gear and flaps were in the fully retracted position. Based on photographic evidence taken at the accident site, the fuel mixture and propeller controls were in the full forward position, with the throttle control about 1/4-inch aft of full forward. The yoke was in the full aft position, and the cowl flap control lever was in the closed position. The elevator and rudder trim positions could not be determined. The engine sustained minimal damage. The dual magneto remained firmly attached to its mounting pads, and the spark plugs were secure at each position, with their respective leads attached. The top spark plugs were removed, and examined. The electrodes remained mechanically undamaged, coated in light grey deposits, and displayed worn out–normal wear signatures when compared with the Champion Spark Plugs AV-27 Check-A-Plug chart. The exhaust pipes exhibited light grey deposits, and were free of oil residue. The crankshaft turned freely when rotated by hand utilizing the propeller flange, and thumb compression was observed on all cylinders. Mechanical continuity was established throughout the rotating group, valve train and accessory section, and all rocker arms displayed equal amounts of lift. Sparks were observed at the termination of each spark plug lead. Cylinder number two was removed in order to facilitate the examination of the lifting surfaces of the forward camshaft lobes. The lifting surfaces of cylinder number one exhaust cam, cylinder number two exhaust cam, and the shared cylinder number one and two intake cam appeared clean, and free of scratches, gouges, or spalling, with a defined and undamaged profile noted at each point of maximum cam lift. No evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunction or failure was noted during the examination of the airframe and engine, a complete examination report is contained within the public docket. Weight and Balance Fueling records recovered from St John's Airport indicated that the