 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
DA62 instructor and trainee reported a runway excursion after a rejected takeoff.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1643299 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201905 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | DA62 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Takeoff |
| Route In Use | Other VFR |
| Flight Plan | None |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Instructor |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Commercial Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 142 Flight Crew Total 1510 Flight Crew Type 10 |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | Trainee Pilot Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Private Flight Crew Instrument |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 5 Flight Crew Total 300 Flight Crew Type 12 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical Ground Excursion Runway |
Narrative:
I was an instructor in a multi-engine aircraft flown by a properly rated student who has about 12 hours flight time in the plane. The incident was a high-speed aborted takeoff that led to a runway overrun through the stopway. In the process; the left tire blew. Other than the tire; no damage was noted to the aircraft or airport property. The runway was closed for [a few] hours while the tire was changed so the aircraft could be towed.we briefed the departure and knew the departure runway was 3900 feet long and that our accelerate/stop distance was 3400 feet. Our cg was at the forward end of the permissible range. Also; a flaps-up takeoff was selected. Upon reaching rotation speed; my student rotated and I felt the plane slowly come off the ground and into ground effect. I sensed my student try to gain airspeed by lowering the nose and he then pulled up again and did not get the response he anticipated. He elected to abort the takeoff; brought the throttle to idle; and once the plane was back on the ground; he applied max braking. I believe there were two factors that led to the incident: 1) the flaps-up takeoff; although permitted according to the airplane flight manual; provides a longer ground roll and increased the accelerate/stop distance. 2) the forward cg also leads to a longer takeoff roll and may have contributed to the lack of responsiveness my student felt. We discussed a takeoff with standard flaps; but my student mentioned that he was more comfortable with flaps-up in the event we lost an engine on the takeoff climb. I thought that was a reasonable position. However; we had the option of departing on runway xy which is [longer]. Electing to depart from runway xy would have greatly mitigated the risk of an overrun. Also; the aircraft was 400 pounds below max gross takeoff weight; so we also could have put more weight in the rear of the passenger area to move the cg aft and increase performance.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: DA62 Instructor and trainee reported a runway excursion after a rejected takeoff.
Narrative: I was an instructor in a multi-engine aircraft flown by a properly rated student who has about 12 hours flight time in the plane. The incident was a high-speed aborted takeoff that led to a runway overrun through the stopway. In the process; the left tire blew. Other than the tire; no damage was noted to the aircraft or airport property. The runway was closed for [a few] hours while the tire was changed so the aircraft could be towed.We briefed the departure and knew the departure runway was 3900 feet long and that our accelerate/stop distance was 3400 feet. Our CG was at the forward end of the permissible range. Also; a flaps-up takeoff was selected. Upon reaching rotation speed; my student rotated and I felt the plane slowly come off the ground and into ground effect. I sensed my student try to gain airspeed by lowering the nose and he then pulled up again and did not get the response he anticipated. He elected to abort the takeoff; brought the throttle to idle; and once the plane was back on the ground; he applied max braking. I believe there were two factors that led to the incident: 1) the flaps-up takeoff; although permitted according to the Airplane Flight Manual; provides a longer ground roll and increased the accelerate/stop distance. 2) The forward CG also leads to a longer takeoff roll and may have contributed to the lack of responsiveness my student felt. We discussed a takeoff with standard flaps; but my student mentioned that he was more comfortable with flaps-up in the event we lost an engine on the takeoff climb. I thought that was a reasonable position. However; we had the option of departing on Runway XY which is [longer]. Electing to depart from Runway XY would have greatly mitigated the risk of an overrun. Also; the aircraft was 400 pounds below max gross takeoff weight; so we also could have put more weight in the rear of the passenger area to move the CG aft and increase performance.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.