Joplin, MO, USA
N468CM
CESSNA 172R
The pilot stated that the accident occurred as he was completing a touch-and-go landing following a cross-country flight. He reported that, after an uneventful landing and during the subsequent initial climb, the engine "grumbled" and began to "cut in and out." The pilot immediately told the airport tower controller that the airplane had an engine issue, reduced engine power, and fully extended the wing flaps for landing on the remaining runway. During the landing roll, the airplane overran the end of the runway before it collided with a light pole associated with the runway approach lighting system. Following the accident, the pilot was able to taxi the airplane back onto the runway, under normal engine power, before he shut down the engine on a nearby taxiway. A postaccident examination established that the fuel system contained about 42 gallons of aviation fuel that was evenly distributed between the two wing fuel tanks. The engine was started by following the normal checklist procedure, and it developed takeoff power during an operational test run. No hesitation or engine roughness was experienced during the operational test run, and the engine responded to corresponding throttle movements throughout the test run. Thus, the postaccident operational test run did not reveal any anomalies with the fuel-injected engine that would have prevented normal operation. The reason for the partial loss of engine power could not be determined.
On July 1, 2014, about 1726 central daylight time, a Cessna model 172R airplane, N468CM, was substantially damaged during a forced landing at the Joplin Regional Airport (JLN), Joplin, Missouri. The private pilot was not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by University of Central Missouri under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the instructional cross-country flight that departed from Downtown Airport (3DW), Springfield, Missouri, about 1700.The pilot reported that he was cleared for the option landing on runway 31 (6,501 feet by 150 feet, asphalt) and that the prevailing wind was aligned with the runway heading at 11 knots. The pilot stated that he performed a touch-and-go landing. He reported that he made an uneventful landing and that shortly after the following takeoff, during initial climb, the engine "grumbled" and began to "cut in and out." The pilot immediately told the tower controller that the airplane had an engine issue, reduced engine power, and fully extended the wing flaps for a landing on the remaining runway. During the landing roll, the airplane overran the end of the runway before it collided with a light pole associated with the runway approach lighting system. Following the accident, the pilot was able to taxi back onto runway, under normal engine power, before he shut down the engine on a nearby taxiway. The right wing was substantially damaged during the on-ground collision with the light pole. A postaccident examination was completed by the airplane operator's chief pilot and the director of maintenance. Their examination established that the airplane fuel system contained about 42 gallons of 100 low-lead aviation fuel that was evenly distributed between the two wing fuel tanks. An external examination of the engine did not reveal any anomalies or fluid leaks. The oil quantity dip-stick established that the engine contained about 8 quarts of oil. The engine was started by following the normal checklist procedure, and then demonstrated the ability to develop takeoff power during an operational test run. No hesitation or engine roughness was experienced during the operational test run. The engine responded to corresponding throttle movements throughout the test run. A functional magneto check did not reveal any anomalies with engine operation. Following the operational test run, there were no fluid leaks observed on the engine exterior. The postaccident operational test run did not reveal any anomalies with the engine, a fuel-injected Lycoming model IO-360, that would have prevented normal operation.
The partial loss of engine power for reasons that could not be determined because an operational test run of the engine 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
