Crash of Cape Air Flight 2072 at Provincetown Municipal Airport, Massachusetts (9 September 2021)

The pilot was transporting six passengers on a scheduled revenue flight in instrument meteorological conditions. The pilot familiarized himself with the weather conditions before departure and surmised that he would be executing the instrument landing system (ILS) instrument approach for the landing runway at the destination airport. The operator prohibited approaches to runways less than 4,000 ft long if the tailwind component was 5 knots or more. The landing runway was 498 ft shorter than the operator-specified length.
The pilot said he obtained the automated weather observing system (AWOS) data at least twice during the flight since he was required to obtain it before starting the instrument approach and then once again before he crossed the approach's final-approach-fix (FAF). Though the pilot could not recall when he checked the AWOS, he said the conditions were within the airplane and company performance limits and he continued with the approach. A review of the wind data at the time he accepted the approach revealed the tailwind component was within limitations.
As the airplane approached the FAF, wind speed increased, and the tailwind component ranged between 1 and 7 knots. Since the exact time the pilot checked the AWOS is unknown, it is possible that he obtained an observation when the tailwind component was within operator limits; however, between the time that the airplane crossed over the FAF and the time it landed, the tailwind component increased above 5 knots.
The pilot said the approach was normal until he encountered a strong downdraft when the airplane was about 50 to 100 ft above the ground. He said that the approach became unstabilized and that he immediately executed a go-around; the airplane touched down briefly before becoming airborne again. The pilot said he was unable to establish a positive rate of climb and the airplane impacted trees off the end of the runway.
The accident was captured on three airport surveillance cameras. A study of the video data revealed the airplane made a normal landing and touched down about 500 ft from the beginning of the runway. It was raining heavily at the time. The airplane rolled down the runway for about 21 seconds, and then took off again. The airplane entered a shallow climb, collided with trees, and caught on fire.
An airplane performance study was conducted using automatic dependent surveillance - broadcast (ADS-B) data, weather information, and aircraft performance data provided by the manufacturer. The study revealed that the approach became unstabilized when the airplane exceeded a sink rate of 1,000 ft/minute at 400 ft above mean sea level (msl). Per the operator's General Operations Manual (GOM), the pilot should have immediately executed a missed approach.
In addition, the wind speed and tailwind component increased as the airplane was on approach. Consequently, the airplane landed at a calibrated airspeed that was about 18 knots faster than the speed assumed in the pilot operating handbook (POH)/airplane flight manual (AFM) landing distance tables, with a tailwind component of about 11 knots.
Landing performance calculations indicated that even with the fast touchdown speed, the airplane had sufficient runway available to stop on a dry runway, including a 15% safety margin. However, the combination of the fast touchdown speed and reduced deceleration due to the wet runway significantly increased the distance that would have been required to stop the airplane. The video study revealed that if the pilot just continued to let the airplane decelerate on the runway, it would have stopped somewhere between 60 ft before the end of the runway to 88 ft beyond the end of the runway.
Due to the reduced deceleration, the pilot most likely thought the airplane was going to go off the end of the runway and he opted to go-around. After lifting off, the airplane continued to accelerate at 5.0 ft/s2. Climb performance calculations revealed that it was unlikely that the airplane could have simultaneously maintained this acceleration and climbed out of ground effect. The airplane could have achieved a higher climb angle and likely cleared the trees if it had maintained a constant airspeed after liftoff, instead of accelerating, even though the liftoff airspeed was below the airplane's best angle of climb speed. However, it is understandable that a pilot would want to accelerate to this speed before climbing to clear obstacles.
Given the outcome of the attempted go-around, the performance data determined that the better option for the pilot would have been to accept an overrun into the open area beyond the end of the runway.
Probable Cause: The pilot's delayed decision to perform an aborted landing late in the landing roll with insufficient runway remaining. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's failure to execute a go-around once the approach became unstabilized, per the operator's procedures.

[@aviationaccidentsNTSBcases]

Read description and this comment! Didn't have enough space in the description to link the report/docket, I also only used some of the wreckage photos after the video, the docket is filled with dozens and dozens and figures and info. On September 9, 2021, about 1527 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 402C, N88833, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Provincetown, Massachusetts. The pilot and the six passengers were seriously injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 flight. - Report: data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/103831/pdf - Docket: data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=103831

[@pauliefromphilly]

The report says the plane "was substantially damaged ".

[@Zelig2Cents]

Hello, thank you for posting this. I'm super interested in this kind of info, not for morbid reasons, but rather to learn the easy way, that is, from others' mistakes, so that I don't make the same mistake. I also like sharing info with pilots that might save their lives one day. Thank you again. With that being said, I did have a question on something you wrote in the comments that confused me a bit. Your specific words were, "The operator prohibited approaches to runways less than 4,000 ft long if the tailwind component was 5 knots or more. The landing runway was 498 ft shorter than the operator-specified length." What I am unclear about is that it looks like this means that that airline's pilots were forbidden approaches to runways less than 4,000 feet... but ONLY if the tailwind component was 5 knots or more. 5 knots is not that much of a wind. Did you mean to say that their pilots are forbidden approaches to runways less than 4,000 feet AND the tailwind component would have to be 5 knots or less? In other words, what is their minimum runway length if there is NO tailwind component? Sorry for being such a noodge, but I do appreciate any clarity you can lend on this. All the best!

[@heartland96a]

With the size of that fireball , did not expect to see the fuselage so intact

[@rnzoli]

neither did I, but probably the trees took off the wings with the fuel in it, and that saved the fuselage and its occupants from burning away

[@heartland96a]

@@rnzoli Yes

[@muffs55mercury61]

When the wings tear off that's where the fuel is and thus the fuselage may be left intact. It has saved people in the past from burning to death in fires.

[@Gkitchens1]

Fuel is stored in the wings most of the time, which got torn off pretty fast I think.

[@olympiashorts]

Nor would I have expected a non-fatal incident. Crazy.

[@DohTheOpinionator]

All 6 passengers and the piolot survived the crash. At least 4 of the passengers are involved in lawsuts that this video and summary will, no doubt, help their case. If I were a passenger, I'd want that video just to show to people and say, "I survived that!" I wasn't expecting anyone to walk away from that scene.

[@roberthagedorn290]

The video shows the plane exploding in a ball of fire at 1:16, indicating no survivors and only scattered burned pieces of wreckage. Then the after-crash photos of the aircraft show somewhat moderate damage that would explain everyone fortunately surviving. This is confusing.

[@felixx321]

@@roberthagedorn290 The wings contain the fuel, they got snapped off by trees, this ignited and created the fireball, but this happened adjacent to the fuselage, therefore the fuselage didn't catch giving occupants time to escape. Definitely still some luck involved, had they hit a very large massive tree trunk somewhere it may have been different but these trees some rather small, so in this case aside from snapping off the wings, the trees probably helped absorb some of the impact to the fuselage. There is a similar kind of wreck (on a much larger scale) of an A320 that crashed into trees in france in the 80s, look up Air France 296 - from the footage you would think there was a total loss of life but the fire was adjacent to the fuselage and only 3 of the 136 people on board perished.

[@Mrbfgray]

VERY pricy tree trimming methodology not highly recommended.

[@lbowsk]

I'm going to guess that Buck Rogers is no longer flying.

[@roberthagedorn290]

@@felixx321 Thank you for the explanation. Yes, there certainly was some luck involved. What an incredible survival story this is.

[@mignav464]

Oh man, I actually thought this was a takeoff! Crazy to read this was an approach, what the heck...

[@MindofMatter]

Same

[@combaupas]

Me too

[@Darkvirgo88xx]

Oh wow he was smoking it on approach I thought it was a takeoff also.

[@jc3_nft875]

same. thought the pilot should have taken of 25 and definitely aborted takeoff. seems like the pilot was just late in the decision to go missed or go around. i understand not wanting to overrun, and expecting better climb out. but tailwinds suck.

[@UncleKennysPlace]

Per the report, the pilot was coming in more than 30 kts too fast, plus a tailwind. Crazy unstable approach.

[@Andrew-13579]

Was it a single pilot? No copilot? That should’ve been a missed approach, and go to an alternate airport, I think. The GPS ground speed indication should have shown faster than indicated airspeed down low on final and been a warning, if there wasn’t an AWOS reporting the wind…I don’t know, maybe there was. Bottom line, a pilot CANNOT let themselves get into such a situation. Better to tell passengers, “Sorry, I can’t get you to that airport,” than to have to say, “Sorry, I injured, traumatized and nearly killed all of you.” If knowing you’re too fast on short final, knowing there’s a tailwind, knowing you’ve touched down past the touchdown zone, and the runway is wet…too many things stacked against you, don’t force the landing that may not work…go around, immediately! That’s what I think. Looked like a last second, desperation go-around, when it was too late. Luckily, it didn’t turn into a stall-spin to an inverted crash!

[@joetheairbusguy1813]

Per the report the pilot flew the approach at 120 knots until configured at flaps 45°, at which point he slowed to 90 knots. I read the report and can’t find your numbers. Do you have a page?

[@MetaView7]

That little hill at the end of the runway did not help.

[@Gkitchens1]

If you read the description, a crash was inevitable the moment he touched down, however the pilots decisions led to the crash being so bad. Had he just continued to land he would have overran the runway but would have managed to stop safety, but because he tried a go around and tried to gain too much liftoff speed, he hit the trees. The rain also played a factor, he would have been able to stop IN TIME If it weren’t raining. The pilot made the wrong decision but considering the sum of circumstances I’m not sure many would have decided so different.

[@doctortheopolis3122]

@@joetheairbusguy1813 Page 12

[@flaviuskern225]

Lucky was Cape Cod scrub pines at the end and not full size trees with zero give.

[@TimedOut...NoWayo]

Pilots trying to alter physics. Sometimes it doesn't work out.

[@chrisg9627]

When the limits are abused to that level, even the performance margins built in to the approach calculation no longer apply.

[@joetheairbusguy1813]

@@chrisg9627 in the second video the windsock is clearly visible. It was a gusty variable tailwind, but less than 10 knots.

[@redbaroniii]

Again, two things that don't count in aviation, 1 altitude above you, and 2 runway behind you, As a tailhook aviator l am always amazed by civilians touching down a third of the runway behind them. I touchdown on the numbers with all that safety runway ahead of me.

[@jimmydulin928]

Same here. No tailhook, but I decelerate enough to bring throttle/throttles into dynamic and exact control of glideslope and rate of descent. Finally, the apparent rate of closure with the numbers can be used to further decelerate coming into ground effect. The rate of closure always appears to speed up as we near a target like an intersection in our car or the numbers in our airplane. And Vso, an out of ground effect number, has nothing to do with either takeoff or landing. So use ground effect's unwanted extra energy to keep flight possible at very slow airspeed on landing. So use ground effect (get airplane level in ground effect well before Vso) on takeoff as long as runway remains ahead. After messing up the landing and making an always dangerous late go around, he did a good job flying all the way to the crash. Use rudder to yaw the nose between the trees while keeping the wing level.

[@marktibbetts3799]

Good grief,it looked as though it never slowed down at all.

[@SeligTiles]

Well that’s because the pilot applied full power to attempt a go around

[@Laakona]

There once was a plane from Nantucket.........

[@Meowface.]

with a pilot who saw tailwind and said f*ck it

[@Laakona]

@@Meowface. He said with glee, as the plane hit the tree, Get the wreck on a ramp truck and truck it!

[@XetraRewop]

😂👍

[@johnmarksmith1120]

How long did you work on that!?😂

[@Laakona]

@@johnmarksmith1120 At least 8 seconds.

[@bobmillerick300]

These situations happen so fast that your first instinct is "I don't want to damage the airplane". As the data stated, his best option at the decision point was to accept the overrun off of the runway

[@ricklowers8873]

Appears the touchdown was ALMOST midfield. Beyond the touchdown zone (first 1/3 of the runway). Predisposed to completing the mission…staying on schedule. We have an attitude of; “I can get this”. Right up to where we’ve placed ourselves in a situation where we’re OUT of options. ALL aspiring part 121 pilots please keep in mind; “go-arounds are FREE!”

[@pm1104]

A total mess totally avoidable , what was the pilots experience..!

[@troo_story]

⁠​⁠@@pm1104Well unfortunately, he was a *person* . These types of people annoyingly can make mistakes even with the 1,274 hours he had on the type. Given your obviously-perfect standards, it must be difficult for you to comprehend. Just have to hope you're not on *my* jury.

[@AC-jk8wq]

Go arounds are free… But need to be exercised immediately, not after landing, or slowing, or braking… The end of the runway is quickly approaching, and it takes time to get back up to flying speed… Hoping to have enough… -runway left -speed to fly -power to accelerate Hope makes a lousy flight plan….

[@cl65captain]

@@AC-jk8wqnot only are they free, but as airline pilots we get paid by the minute (literally)

[@mitseraffej5812]

Many years back I worked for an utterly unscrupulous operator flying a Beech 99. This is essentially a Queen Air with turbines, as are King Airs and the Beech 1900. We were expected to take significant tailwind for both take off and landing in order to save a few minutes of flight time. Difficult to resist when you are young and jobs are scarce. Looking back at that job and it was only due to luck I survived. In the few years I worked there I had two inflight engine shut downs, would pump the gear down almost every other month and probably the most scary event was having a section of the wing de ice boot detach from the leading edge creating an almost uncontrollable roll requiring near full aileron deflection to counter. Luckily it was inboard of the stall fence, if it had of been outboard it would have rendered that side aileron useless, rolling the airplane into the dirt along with all on board.

[@EVE101Patt]

freaking unbelievable they all made it out alive 😲

[@waldoinaz]

I blame the windsock for not providing a safer wind direction. They should be banned.

[@jimmiller5600]

aaron brown myers salutes you

[@iowanation1034]

My windsocks don't fit.

[@Laakona]

30 round high capacity windsocks should be banned

[@Laakona]

@DrMoriarty-sees-all Thank You, Doctor, but I'm barely squeaking by with 4 retirements.

[@ChadwickTheChad]

You're going to get some really negative comments from the wind hosiery fanbois.

[@user-hw7gf4bu6f]

The first camera appears to show plant branches been blown from left to right, and then the second camera catches the windsock as it seems to re-inflate in the now (new) downwind direction. I could be wrong, but it would be interesting to see the previous 15 mins of windsock footage.

[@hendrikdebruin4012]

I thought it was taking off....not landing?

[@dang6369]

That's a goddamn shame right there. Poor decision making and lack of situational awareness costs lives.

[@joeyjamison5772]

When I used to fly model airplanes, I knew better than to try and land downwind.

[@cowboyvalley]

WHY was the landing DOWNWIND IN THE HEAVY RAIN????? Not smart at all.

[@williambrennan9515]

The runway may only be served by a single ILS, forcing pilots to use it when ceiling and/or visibility are too low. The ceiling was probably too low for a circle-to-land. Add a relatively short runway, a tailwind and you should be going to the alternate.

[@AEMoreira81]

@@williambrennan9515- That’s what I was wondering…why not divert or return to you origin? There’s a reason why 4 of the passengers are suing the airline.

[@BostonBuzz]

Only RW 07 has an ILS. RW 25 does not.

[@javacup912]

I have flown on Cape Air our of San Juan to the Virgin Island a few tims, usually flyting in the front, but the pilot and ground crew pay attention to the CG. Being a pilot myself, and haveing worked on the Cesssna 402 in my younger days, I know the airplane is not a rocket by any means. Good everyone got out in time.

[@fiskarnorth]

What about a discussion of circling to land option? What was the ceiling reporting? Circling minimums on that approach are 660' ceiling. If he had the viz and ceiling, circling would have been a pretty easy option that no doubt would have averted this outcome. In addition to listening to the AWOS, he should have also observed his ground speed on short final, which would have indicated if the approach was unsafe. Frequently AWOS will give an incomplete idea of the winds around an airfield, even a small one. I've seen situations where the AWOS calls light or variable winds, but winds on short final can be stronger than expected from the tail or quartering tail. Observing ground speed on GPS can be an important part of your scan on short final in these kinds of conditions. Glad everyone made it, and I hope the pilot learned and was able to continue his career or find something else.

[@bettigio]

It takes years of studying and dedication to become a pilot and one second stupid mistake to end it.

[@triggerpointtechnology]

Sorry, the stupid mistake was likely based on years of bad decisions and marginal flying. Nobody goes from solid piloting skills and decisions to this collection of terrible choices without years of shaving the safety margins.

[@cd7652]

Actually, you can be sitting in the right seat as a copilot with passengers behind you in just shy of one year.

[@joetheairbusguy1813]

@@triggerpointtechnologyyou have no idea sweetheart. Until everything went to crap he was flying a low weather ILS approach with a 5 knot tailwind. This is fairly routine as most airports only have ILSs to one runway. He had every reason to believe when he started the approach that he was going to be able to land and stop.

[@triggerpointtechnology]

@@cd7652 Yes, this is now the norm. I had to tread water, building time as a flight instructor, in order to accumulate the necessary 3,000 hours to be considered for the airlines in 1980. However, much to my surprise, I actually learned to fly, I mean really learned to fly, by teaching and doing literally thousands of stalls of all types, short field, soft field and normal landings, spin demonstrations, flight at minimum controllable airspeed demonstrations AND teach dozens of students to perform these maneuvers flawlessly to pass a checkride. This level of operational experience is not to be found among first officers today.

[@triggerpointtechnology]

@@joetheairbusguy1813 I have no idea sweetheart? Joe the air bus guy can kiss my ass. We’ll wait for the accident report but this cluster F is going to reveal weak skills. Oh, I’m Terry the Pan Am guy.

[@KarlLew]

Thank you for the excellent description. It was much more helpful than the impatient comments.

[@richarddudley444]

I have landed at kpvc at least 50 times since 1972,usually as pic,but one time I was in right seat and Bryan,who flew jumpers at Sussex was PIC. We had a sneaky tailwind and it took Bryan 4 approaches to get it right. Usually the problem is turkeys on the runway.

[@paulpaulsen7777]

I don't know, why he didn't use afterburner to get more altitude fast....

[@robertk.5195]

Whatchamean? He used afterburner. He just didn't use it soon enough. The "afterburner" lit off just after he plowed through the trees!

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

Reasonable point, but wouldn't warp drive have been better?

[@thomasallen6980]

He was landing acording to others. No idea why he started from zero on the ground but they are all FAA experts and Microsoft ATC approved.

[@paulpaulsen7777]

As a professional and certified and approved KZbin video watcher, I can definitely state, that he did not use his afterburner

[@jamescook7713]

Never land with a 20 mph TAILWIND!!😮

[@pjtill1]

Ironically, the go around is often the correct (and often unused) option.

[@5calambres]

This dude deemed the correct time to go around when he reached the END of the runway. He was probably like 100m (300ft) before the end with still over 20knts to fast: "i got this" xD

[@deepgoldjellyfish]

Not ironic, basic flying knowledge!

[@darthheretic129]

This go around was timed like deciding you don’t want kids after they graduate high school. Kinda too late.

[@dap777754]

Not a pilot, so you're free to disregard. My sense is that the "go around" is overtaught, overused and riskier than just staying put on the ground. So many fatalities when the pilot decides to do all over again what he just did to arrive on the ground, where he should have stayed.

[@Tryp-j9d]

“Just drop me off, I’m not big on COOKOUTS!!”

[@kyle381000]

Why do so many pilots continue with a poor approach rather than just going around again? Is it ego? Is it driven by schedule?

[@plainsimpx1662]

Tailwinds bite you every time

[@Tryp-j9d]

“I’m landing, I’m taking off…..HEY, I’m CRASH landing/taking off!!”

[@edadan]

I attempted a night landing with my instructor when I was a student pilot. I realized almost immediately that the airplane was not slowing down on the runway and immediately applied full power for a go around. I’m not bragging, but I’ve always had good instincts as a pilot. Some people do and some don’t. Those that don’t should find another profession.

[@SkyCharter]

I suppose there's a good reason for not landing into the wind?

[@StevenMalatesta]

I remember that weather here that day. There were some crazy localized thunderstorms that ripped through that afternoon. I heard about this crash later in the day and immediately hoped that no one tried to land/takeoff during one of those rain events.

[@thomasallen6980]

You can look at the wet pavement and the cloudy skies to figure out the weather. Thanks Al Roker.

[@StevenMalatesta]

@@thomasallen6980 You're very welcome.

[@Frankestein01nl]

Just redid the flight in msfs2020.... Not only was there a tailwind, but also a sun that was coming in from the back of the cockpit, with low hanging clouds bouncing the light, it possibly making the instruments even harder to read. I know it's not 100% accurate, the historic weather from hifisim's ActiveSkyFS but i broke through the clouds at about 200 feet... on my second attempt. (the first one i aborted, even though i was nice and steady, it just didn't feel right) the reason the pilot chose to land with a tailwind, was probably because there was no way in hell he couldhave landed in those conditions without an ils to guide him from the opposite side as there are only papi's on both sides, yet only one ils, which is for runway 7. Pretty much sketchy conditions he shouldn't have flown into in the first place. (yep, armchair pilot here.. )

[@thefreedomguyuk]

Armchair or not, you're not far off. You can fly my armchair any day !!

[@kens249]

Flown into pvc in c402 and DC3 many times in the 80s. A miracle they walked away. Saw the wreckage the day after, plane was on the other side of road in trees. Pvc is not a forgivable airport.

[@EngelsAviation]

tailwind landing??!! WTF?!!!!

[@ke3552]

I thought that they were trying to take off.

[@maxtanicgaming]

Wet runway, pushed it and once in it, too late.

[@kewkabe]

Pilot had 17,000 hours with 10,000 hours in type? How do you not move up from a place like Cape Air with that kind of experience? Unless nobody wanted him?

[@crazyralph6386]

Just shows that it could happen to anyone

[@glennstubbs8232]

Not everyone wants to fly for the majors.

[@kewkabe]

@@glennstubbs8232 I know, right? Why make $250 an hour at a major when you can work harder and make $30 an hour at Cape Air.

[@Mark-pp7jy]

Lots of reasons. Family time, schedule, location, aircraft type, other interests, type of clientele, loves the environment, AND is Happy!

[@carvinylizbeth5110]

Yes, there are many legitimate reasons a pilot stays at the same place long term

[@RichardShelton]

I've flown with Cape Air many times. Once, when landing in Iowa, the rain storm was so severe and the ceiling so low, that when we broke out of the clouds I could count the shingles on the roofs of the houses near the airport. I asked the pilot afterwards how much lower he would have gotten before aborting the landing. He said "not much lower". That didn't make me feel very good.

[@warped-sliderule]

the infamous "I was right at minimums."

[@robappeldorn2162]

Is that why you don't land with a tailwind?

[@joeyjamison5772]

When I flew model airplanes, I knew better than to try and land downwind.

[@StevenBanks123]

No narration needed

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

Thou shalt maintain thy airspeed lest the ground reach up and SMITE thee!

[@pappyd8417]

Is the pilot still flying for Cape Air or with Fed Ex now delivering packages in a Twin Otter?

[@theargonauts8490]

That’s called a Dan Gryder approach 😏

[@taproom113]

🤣👍🤘 ^v^

[@rnzoli]

unexpected tailwind is truly insidious - it will mess up the final approach (collecting extra kinetic energy), it will mess up the landing flare (too long or bouncy flare), and it will mess up the go-around attempt too (climb angle more shallow than usual). I did an unexpected +8 kts tailwind landing in a 172 recently, and I nearly crashed into a treeline in the same fashion. (OK, a stuck stall horn was also playing against me.)

[@localcrew]

Not even close.

[@burleman]

Oh, so you’re supposed to go OVER the trees. My bad.

[@johnmcgahern3946]

Why was he landing with a significant tail wind????????

[@patton371]

Hey My old plane is still there The red Grumman Cheeta N26696!!!

[@Frankestein01nl]

hmm.. The docket states 15.27 local time, and the camerafootage shows 1503 as the time on all three camera's. Did you notice that?

[@drewmog123456]

I only noticed the silly apostrophe in cameras.

[@veterantrucker9063]

Looks like some low visibility. I think only rwy 7 has ILS. I may be wrong

[@bertraminc9412]

Pilot said he “briefly touched down”… for 21 seconds!

[@lvi3818]

Why do these small airports ALWAYS have an old growth forest at the end of the runway? Just cut it back a few hundred yards and you'd probably prevent a hundred crashes a year!

[@rafalemarine5063]

Il veut atterrir avec ce fort vent arrière ????.

[@fjbtube6278]

Tail wind, relatively short runway with a tree line at the end and a a too fast approach 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@petethecatable]

I once landed a Citabria with just a 5 knot tailwind. Great lesson. Scared the bejesus out of me to see how much runway I used. But the closest brush with flying death was coming into Bar Harbor on Cape Air last summer---the airport was reporting minimums, but was actually below and the kid pilot busted them on final--he was following the strobes through the ground fog. Successfully, obviously. I muttered "You won't get away with that every time" as I exited the airplane. I am not sure if he heard me or ignored me--no response. I hope he was as scared as I was.

[@colin6937]

The "strobes?" You mean the sequenced flashing lights which are part of the approach lighting system? If so, the pilot can legally descend down to 100 ft above the touchdown zone by sole reference to these lights. So I can't help but cast doubt on your claim that he "busted" minimums. It's no wonder he did it "successfully," as you say. That's what the lights are there for!

[@petethecatable]

@@colin6937 I am not instrument rated--and he might have been 100 ft above them, but I don't think so. He had to make a quick 30 degree right turn to line up over them. We were in a very thick local fog bank that was part of a much larger, less dense evening fog system settling in. The runway was not visible until an instant before touchdown. I have flown a fair amount in IMC with others but never similar conditions. I have been with IFR pilots when they did missed approaches when I thought they could have safely landed. But I am not claiming to be an expert. Just a scared passenger in this case. So it is OK to land when you actually cannot see the runway prior to touchdown? What is RVR for?

[@darthheretic129]

@@petethecatableRVR is there for when you breakout, you need to for part 91 approaches. Oddly, you don’t need to see to takeoff.

[@ronstowell8646]

Never a good idea to take off down wind.

[@spankyharland9845]

must have been a navy aviator, did not catch the line and had the plane on full afterburner.

[@nikh9080]

Joe & Brian are going to be disappointed.

[@tungstenkid2271]

7 people on board including the pilot was a l-o-o-o-t of weight..

[@jimrenner9401]

Might as well paint the windsock black, if you’re not going to even look at it……

[@robertmoura6336]

Hold on, landing the wrong way!!!, should it not be into the wind?

[@taproom113]

Bingo!

[@gort8203]

Headwind is preferable but one can't always land into the wind.

[@robinkoenig]

Short, wet runway with a tailwind. Need I say more?

[@waynebrocklehurst1768]

Was the pilot trying to go around?

[@hanscattini468]

Tailwind landing ?

[@jameshoopes6467]

People survived that? 🤯

[@donk499]

YIPES, hope they will be OK...

[@superseries7007]

Downwind take off... Oh dear.

[@cameraman655]

Who was flying that Sandpiper flight, Joe or Brian Hackett?..Wings TV show reference

[@JohnJohn-ec6kx]

There are old pilots, there are bold pilots, there are great bold pilots(Bob Hoover, Chuck Yeager, Steve Himton), average pilots, mediocre pilots and shitty pilots. Maybe he just had a bad day. Glad he lived to fly another day. From my opening statement, can we work together to put away that myth that there are, 'No old, bold pilots'. There have been plenty. Some have met their end in a smoking hole, but most have not. Once again I cite to of the most famous pilots EVER, Chuck Yeager and Bob Hoover. Of course there were many, many other 'old bold pilots' who earned their wings and cut their teeth flying over the Pacific, over the Rhineland and over the jungles, rain forests and into the SAM saturated airspace of Route Package Six. If you ever had the pleasures to hang out and fly with this breed, you know what I am talking about. Sadly, they are few and far between. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We must stamp our trite, catchy statements that upon actual consideration, are false. There most certainly are and have been, 'old bold pilots'.

[@nigel900]

Please don’t crash!

[@tyronebiggims1613]

Air psi in tires was not maxed, caused left drag caused right rudder pull .slows quick not enough rpm to lift /powerrpm not maxed at tome of push.

[@thefreedomguyuk]

Wasn't the poor tyres fault here😅

[@aviationaccidentsNTSBcases]

how do you even come with up with this despite the fact the final report is attached in the pin comment/description

[@snydedon9636]

@@aviationaccidentsNTSBcaseshe slept at a holiday inn xpress last night.😅

[@ACI_clips.]

Wow

[@johnbolton9483]

Downwind takeoff.

[@kailaniandi]

It looked like the pilot might have tried a last minute go around attempt.

[@LeFraudHasChokedInSIXFinals]

Read the notes.

[@kailaniandi]

@@LeFraudHasChokedInSIXFinals it's not that interesting.

[@jmy6050]

The worst thing going against him was his decision to get into the aircraft to go flying

[@JoeRantCT]

Look at the windsock. NEVER land with a tail wind. It can increase your landing distance significantly. Why not land on 25? Guessing they were coming from the west and couldn't be bothered to do a downwind.

[@lvi3818]

I'm not a pilot so serious question. Why would a small tailwind have a significant effect? If I have a 5km/h tailwind doesn't it mean that I land with an airspeed 5km/h higher than normal? Surely there is enough runway margin to scrub off 5k of extra speed?

[@TopSecretVid]

pull up…pull up..😂

[@RR-zq3mk]

Windsock shows light winds so that’s fine. But what were the winds at 500 feet…………….

[@TOPDadAlpha]

What pilot lands with a tailwind? That can't be normal.

[@thefreedomguyuk]

It can be rather normal

[@lonzo61]

The published approach was almost certainly for that runway direction.

[@pauladelhoch6029]

Yes you can, albeit, there are aircraft limitations. The transport category aircraft I fly has a 10 Kt tailwind limitaion. Also depends on landing distance available for the landing runway.

[@earlgreystoke3324]

Tailwind take off...?

[@earlgreystoke3324]

@@txkflier Read it. Again...tailwind take off? Old pilots don't make rookie mistakes when the margins are tight.

[@thefreedomguyuk]

​@@txkflierYeah, kinda like a g/a from the ramp.... 😮

[@earlgreystoke3324]

@@txkflier Tailwind landing...even worse!

[@mjproebstle]

oof

[@BoomVang]

Almost every smartypants criticism here is wrong according to the concise and informative official report pinned here. Downwind was OK and possibly preferable to get ILS. Pilot was NOT landing but doing a go around take off. Pilot would have succeeded if 1) didn't abort landing, or 2) aborted landing earlier, or 3) optimized go around with a different airspeed (yes, pilot did lift off).

[@davidg3944]

Gosh, and here I thought that a "go around take off" INCLUDED trying to land first. Thanks for setting us straight...

[@thereminpitchknob4059]

Looks like pilot error.

[@TimedOut...NoWayo]

again

[@AP12BG]

Easy to make stupid comments, easy to judge, let’s wait for the NTSB report.

[@donausmus4281]

Taking off down wind. Wind sock straight out.

[@user-bm6yj3bw3g]

He was landing

[@roxleyldc]

At first I thought he was taking off… then I read the report. It doesn’t say how everyone faired after the crash though

[@MrAkurvaeletbe]

once again private pilots being idiots... when are they going to ban ordinary people from becoming pilots...

[@raoulcruz4404]

I’m not aware of a gene pool to get super people.

[@Flyboy_Gospel]

What’s an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Pilots are ordinary people. Also, considering it was a revenue flight, the pilot is required to hold a Commercial Pilot rating. People, such as yourself, that seem to have little to no understanding of how the aviation world works, should educate yourself a little before making such absurd statements.

[@1compaqedr8]

this was a commercial pilot carrying 6 passengers, not a private pilot.

[@kalamageo]

WRONG. Very uneducated response. Cape Air is a scheduled airline and this was NOT a "private pilot". Learn before you type. Cape Air pilots operate in some of the worst weather in the country. Coastal weather is VERY funky. Micro climates abound. This airline has some tough city pairs. They fly from Boston to the islands and back. Also, Florida Keys and even some routes in Montana. This pilot group is very experienced and has to deal with tough weather on a daily basis. This day looks bad but being scheduled means flying if legal. Sometimes the Swiss cheese lines up on you and backs you into a corner. Late in the approach, the condition changed quickly and the pilot chose the wrong response. Split second decisions are not always the best. These smaller coastal and island airports have limited weather reporting capabilities and Approach options. I've been landing small jets into these airports for the better part of 3 decades. VERY tough place to fly.

[@bruschi8148]

Was a very nasty day here on the cape when that happened!