Saratoga, WY, USA
N761NZ
CESSNA T210M
The pilot reported that following an aborted approach and subsequent attempted go-around, the engine lost power as the airplane approached the departure end of the runway. The pilot initiated a forced landing to an open area, and during the landing roll, the airplane struck a fence and embankment. A postaccident examination of the airframe and fuel injected engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
On September 5, 2011, about 1420 mountain daylight time, a Cessna T210M, N761NZ, sustained substantial damage when it impacted terrain following a loss of engine power during an aborted landing at the Shively Field Airport (SAA), Saratoga, Wyoming. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The private pilot and his three passengers sustained serious injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for the personal flight. The cross-country flight originated from Wichita, Kansas, approximately 1145 central daylight time, with an intended destination of SAA. The pilot reported that as he approached runway 23, the wind began to blow the airplane left of the runway centerline. The pilot said that he decided to abort the landing and initiate a go-around due to the wind. As the airplane approached the departure end of the runway, the engine suffered a complete loss of power. The pilot initiated a forced landing straight ahead of his position to an open area on the airport property. During the landing roll, the airplane struck an airport parameter fence and impacted a road embankment. Subsequently, the airplane nosed over. Examination of the airplane by local law enforcement revealed that the airplane came to rest inverted about 800 feet beyond runway 23. The left wing and fuselage exhibited structural damage. The wreckage was recovered to a secure location for further examination. Recovery personnel reported that during recovery of the wreckage, in excess of 10 gallons of fuel was removed from each wing fuel tank. TESTS AND RESEARCH Examination of the recovered airframe revealed that the empennage and both wings were removed by the wreckage recovery personnel to facilitate transport and storage. Flight control cable continuity was established from the cockpit controls throughout to all primary flight control surfaces. All separations noted within the flight control cables were either cut or disconnected by wreckage recovery personnel. The flap actuator and flap position was found at a 30-degree flap setting, or fully extended. The flap handle and flap indicator were observed at the 10-degree position. The cockpit trim actuator was measured and found to be in a position consistent with the elevator trim in the tab up, 15 degree position. The elevator trim indicator was destroyed by impact damage. The airframe fuel strainer was removed and found to be free of debris. A small amount of liquid, consistent with 100 low lead fuel was observed. The liquid was tested using water finding paste with negative results. Continuity was established throughout the airframe fuel system. Impact damage was noted to various portions of the fuel line between the fuel selector valve and gascolator. Both the left and right wing fuel vents were free of obstructions. Examination of the recovered fuel injected engine, a Continental Motors TSIO-520-R, serial number 512558, revealed that it remained partially attached to the airframe via its mounts. The top spark plugs, fuel pump, and rocker box covers were removed. All cylinders were inspected using a lighted borescope. The internal combustion chambers, intake and exhaust valve faces, and piston heads were unremarkable. The engine crankshaft was rotated by hand using the propeller. Rotational continuity was established throughout the engine and valve train. Thumb compression was obtained on six cylinders and both magnetos produced spark on all ignition leads. No evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunction was noted during the examination of the recovered airframe and engine.
A loss of engine power during an attempted go-around for reasons that could not be determined because postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
