Kongiganak, AK, USA
N17GN
CESSNA 207A
The pilot was attempting to takeoff from a short, wet runway with five passengers, and baggage when the accident occurred. He stated that the heavily loaded airplane didn't seem to accelerate as fast as it should have, and slowed down each time it encountered one of the numerous pools of water on the runway. He said the airplane became airborne about 3/4 down the runway, but would not climb. He realized the airplane was going to collide with the tundra, and added more flaps as the airplane passed over the end of the runway, and pulled back on the elevator control to minimize the impact. The pilot stated that he didn't think the engine was developing full power, although he had no problems with it during previous flights that day. He also noted that he was uncertain as to the actual weight of the airplane at takeoff, but said it was at or below the allowable gross weight. A review of the operator's maintenance records for the accident airplane disclosed no recent mechanical problems or pilot complaints about the engine's performance. An FAA inspector inspected the accident engine postaccident and monitored it during a test run at the operator's facilities. The inspector found no anomalies with the engine, and stated that it developed full rated rpm during the test run. A witness to the accident said the airplane appeared to be heavily loaded with bags and people, and that it slowed significantly each time it hit a puddle of water.
On August 22, 2008, about 1815 Alaska daylight time, a Cessna 207A airplane, N17GN, operated by Hageland Aviation, Anchorage, Alaska, as scheduled commuter Flight 8066, overran the runway at Kongiganak, Alaska, during an aborted takeoff, sustaining substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The commercial pilot and three of the five passengers reported no injuries; two passengers reported minor injuries. The flight was en route to Bethel, Alaska, in visual meteorological conditions, and a company VFR flight plan was in effect. In a telephone interview with the NTSB investigator-in-charge on September 3, 2008, the pilot related that he loaded numerous bags and five passengers in preparation for takeoff on runway 36, which is 1,885 feet long and has a gravel surface. The pilot noted that he was at or near gross weight, but didn't have an exact weight of the airplane at the time he attempted to takeoff. He said that the tail of the airplane fell to the ground as it was being loaded, but that he didn't have the front seat passenger or himself seated yet, and once they were seated, the airplane's tail remained off the ground. He noted that a thunderstorm had passed through the general vicinity, that it was still raining, and the runway was wet. He thought the wind was calm. After he applied full power for takeoff, he said that he encountered numerous water puddles on the runway which slowed the airplane's acceleration. About 3/4 down the runway, the airplane lifted off, but would not climb. He indicated that he looked at the fuel pressure gauge, which seemed a little low, and he felt that the engine wasn't making full power, but he wasn't sure. The airplane flew over the end of the runway in ground effect, but would not climb, and began to sink. The pilot stated that he added another 10 degrees of flap to the 20 degrees he already had, and pulled back on the control wheel to cushion the collision with the tundra. The pilot said he had flown the airplane on four or five legs that day, and had no problems with the engine. He also said that he had what he thought was a low power indication a few days before the accident, and had told company maintenance personnel about it. In his written statement to the NTSB, the pilot said he thought the accident was due to the runway conditions, a lack of power, and "being heavy, but under gross weight." Discussions with the operator's director of operations disclosed no recent history of any engine performance or maintenance problems, and a review of company maintenance records revealed no pilot complaints about significant mechanical problems or power loss in the preceding 60 days. In a written report submitted by the operator's director of operations, he indicated there were no mechanical problems with the airplane at the time of the accident. On September 17, an FAA aviation airworthiness inspector went to the operator's facility in Bethel and inspected the accident engine. After the inspection, the inspector monitored the engine while it was started and ran to full operating rpm without any anomalies, including fuel pressure, fuel flow, and engine magnetos. A witness to the accident noted that the airplane slowed significantly each time that it hit a water puddle during the takeoff roll, and that there were numerous bags aboard, and a very large man seated in the right front seat. He also said he thought there was a slight tailwind during the takeoff attempt.
The pilot's decision to attempt to takeoff on a short, wet runway with a heavily loaded airplane, and his failure to abort the takeoff before it became impracticable.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
