On March 27, 2009, about 1715 mountain standard time, a Cessna 182Q, N97467, hit a fence and nosed over after departing the end of the runway during a landing at Sedona Airport, Sedona, Arizona. The airline transport pilot, who was the sole occupant, was not injured, but the airplane, which was registered to Linear Management Corporation, sustained substantial damage. The 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 cross-country positioning flight, which departed Cable Airport, Upland, California, about 1430 Pacific daylight time, was being operated in visual meteorological conditions. No flight plan had been filed.
During the investigation the NTSB Investigator-In-Charge (IIC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Inspector who assisted with the investigation both conducted follow-up interviews with the pilot in order to clarify the sequence of events that he provided on the day of the accident and in the narrative of the NTSB Form 6120.1 that he submitted. According to the information derived from these interviews, when the pilot entered the downwind for runway 21 at Sedona, he selected a flap position of ten degrees, but because he was distracted by nearby hilly terrain and the presence of thermal turbulence, he did not visually confirm the position of the flaps. According to the pilot, when he turned onto final, he selected a flap position of 30 degrees, but once again did not visually check their position because of the distraction created by the turbulence. He further stated that although he did not visually check their position, he assumed the flaps were at 30 degrees on final, and at that point in time did not suspect any anomaly associated with the flap system. As he continued his final approach, the pilot realized that he was coming in too high, fast, and long, so he decided to execute a go-around. At the beginning of the go-around he repositioned the flaps to the 20 degree position, but reportedly did not feel the sinking sensation that he normally associated with a partial retraction of the flaps.
According to the pilot, because of the profile of his final approach, and since he did not feel the sinking sensation that he expected on the go-around, he thought that it was possible that the flaps might not be operating properly. Based upon that possibility, and because he had not visually confirmed their position at any time since entering the pattern, the pilot decided to leave the flaps where they were for the second approach.
During the second approach, the pilot proceeded as if he were making a no-flap landing, establishing an airspeed on final around 70 to 75 knots. Reportedly, his flare during this approach was near the halfway point of the runway, and he eventually touched down at the 4,000 foot point of the 5,183 foot long runway. He then attempted to apply maximum braking, but the brake pedal on the left brake rotated forward to its fully applied position with almost no resistance, and no braking action occurred at the left wheel. The pilot then tried to stop the airplane with only the one functional brake, but was unable to do so before the airplane exited the end of the runway. After the airplane departed the runway, it impacted a perimeter fence and nosed over onto its back.
An on-scene inspection found the flaps at 10 degrees.
After the accident, when the pilot was advised by the FAA that they were going to go inspect the airplane, he stated that they would find the flap handle in the 10 degree position, and that he thought the flaps were probably at 10 degrees during the second approach. In a further interview with the NTSB IIC, the pilot stated that the flaps were most likely functioning properly during both of his approaches, but that the turbulence may have masked that fact. During a post-accident function test performed by the airplane's owner, the flaps operated normally in all selector switch positions. In addition, the pilot reported that since he had not flown this airplane before this flight, prior to departure he performed a functionality check on all the airplane's systems, and no anomalies had been found.
As part of the investigation, an FAA Inspector inspected the left brake system, and it was determined that the left pedal master cylinder was low on fluid. It was also determined that very little braking or pedal resistance was present when the brake pedal was pushed toward its applied position, and according to the Inspector there was likely very little, if any, left wheel braking action during the pilot's attempt to stop the airplane after landing long.