Riverton, WY, USA
N550D
PIPER PA 28R-200
The private pilot was attempting to take off and noted that the airplane's landing light was not working. Although the runway lights provided him with good visibility, his depth perception was limited. As the airplane approached the intersection with the crossing runway during the takeoff roll, the pilot thought that the airplane was approaching the end of the runway. He rotated the airplane to lift off, but it had not gained enough airspeed to become airborne, so he decided to reject the takeoff. As he reduced engine power, he lost directional control, and the airplane departed the left side of the runway. The pilot stated that there were no issues with the airplane during the accident takeoff other than the inoperative landing light. He noted that a better review of the airport diagram and a working landing light might have improved his situational awareness during the takeoff.
On December 24, 2017, about 1740 mountain standard time, a Piper PA-28R-200 airplane, N550D, was substantially damaged during a runway excursion on takeoff from runway 28 (8,204 feet by 150 feet, asphalt) at the Riverton Regional Airport (RIW), Riverton, Wyoming. The pilot and four passengers were not injured. The airplane was registered to Oracle Aviation, LLC and operated by the pilot as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and the flight was not operated on a flight plan. The flight was originating at the time of the accident. The intended destination was the Stanford Field Airport (U12), St Anthony, Idaho.The pilot stated that he initially departed from Millard Airport (MLE), with planned fuel stops at Gordon Municipal Airport (GRN) and RIW. After refueling at RIW, the pilot recognized that the landing light was not working. He noted that it was working during the previous flight into RIW. The pilot recalled having good visibility with the runway lights, but he did not have good depth perception. As the airplane approached the intersection with the crossing runway during the takeoff roll, he thought that they were approaching the end of the runway. He rotated the airplane in an attempt to lift off, but the airplane had not gained enough airspeed to become airborne at that point. He decided to reject the takeoff and, as he reduced engine power, he lost directional control and the airplane departed the left side of the runway. The pilot stated that there were no issues with the airplane during the accident takeoff, other than the inoperative landing light. He noted that a functioning landing light and a better review of the airport diagram might have prevented the accident. A review of the available weight and balance data indicated that pilot's calculation was complete and correct, and that the airplane was loaded within limits during the accident takeoff. The airplane was equipped with four seats and seatbelts. The pilot stated that two children occupied one seat and were sharing a seatbelt at the time of the accident takeoff. Federal Aviation Administration regulations do not require a landing light for operations under Part 91 unless they are conducted for hire. However, any inoperative equipment must be deactivated and placarded according to the regulations.
The pilot's loss of directional control during the rejected takeoff. Contributing to the accident were the pilot's lack of familiarity with the airport runway configuration, which led to his premature attempt to take off, and the airplane’s inoperative landing light.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
