Introduction
On August 22, 2008, at approximately 1815 Alaska daylight time, a Cessna 207A airplane, registration N17GN, operated by Hageland Aviation as scheduled commuter Flight 8066, overran the runway at Kongiganak, Alaska, during an aborted takeoff. The aircraft sustained substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The commercial pilot and three of the five passengers reported no injuries; two passengers reported minor injuries. The flight was en route to Bethel, Alaska, in visual meteorological conditions, and a company VFR flight plan was in effect.
Incident Details
The pilot reported that he loaded numerous bags and five passengers in preparation for takeoff on runway 36, which is 1,885 feet long and has a gravel surface. He noted that he was at or near gross weight but did not have an exact weight of the airplane at the time of the attempted takeoff. During loading, the tail of the airplane fell to the ground, but once the pilot and front seat passenger were seated, the tail remained off the ground. A thunderstorm had passed through the vicinity, and it was still raining, making the runway wet. The pilot thought the wind was calm.
After applying full power for takeoff, the pilot encountered numerous water puddles on the runway, which slowed the airplane's acceleration. About three-quarters down the runway, the airplane lifted off but would not climb. The pilot observed the fuel pressure gauge, which seemed a little low, and felt that the engine was not making full power, though he was not sure. The airplane flew over the end of the runway in ground effect but would not climb and began to sink. The pilot added another 10 degrees of flap to the 20 degrees already deployed and pulled back on the control wheel to cushion the collision with the tundra.
Pilot Statements
The pilot stated he had flown the airplane on four or five legs that day without any engine problems. He also mentioned that he had what he thought was a low power indication a few days before the accident and had informed company maintenance personnel. In his written statement to the NTSB, the pilot attributed the accident to runway conditions, a lack of power, and being heavy but under gross weight.
Maintenance and Inspection
Discussions with the operator's director of operations revealed no recent history of engine performance or maintenance problems. A review of company maintenance records showed no pilot complaints about significant mechanical problems or power loss in the preceding 60 days. The operator's director of operations submitted a written report stating there were no mechanical problems with the airplane at the time of the accident.
On September 17, an FAA aviation airworthiness inspector inspected the accident engine at the operator's facility in Bethel. The inspector started the engine and ran it to full operating RPM without any anomalies, including fuel pressure, fuel flow, and engine magnetos.
Witness Account
A witness to the accident noted that the airplane slowed significantly each time it hit a water puddle during the takeoff roll. The witness also observed numerous bags aboard and a very large man seated in the right front seat. Additionally, the witness thought there was a slight tailwind during the takeoff attempt.