Piper PA-32-300 Takeoff Accident in Sucúa, Ecuador

Flight and Accident Sequence On January 10, 2009, a Piper PA-32-300 began its third flight of the day on the Sucúa-Cangaime route. The aircraft carried the pilot, one passenger, and 386 kg of cargo. The pilot contacted the Macas Control Tower and reported a planned departure from runway 17 at Sucúa. At 18:30 UTC, the aircraft began its takeoff roll but failed to complete the maneuver. After lifting off, it touched the runway again, prompting the pilot to abort the takeoff. The aircraft could not be stopped within runway 17 and exited from the right side of the runway end, coming to rest in the adjacent area. The pilot and passenger, the only occupants, evacuated the aircraft on their own and were not injured. ## Aircraft and Personnel The aircraft held a valid Certificate of Airworthiness and had a total time of 11,857.6 hours. The operator’s maintenance program was based on the manufacturer’s program, and applicable airworthiness directives and service bulletins were completed on schedule. The pilot was a 25-year-old Ecuadorean holding a Commercial Pilot License with single-engine land and instrument ratings, supported by a valid first-class medical certificate with no limitations. His total flight time was 435:03 hours, including 196:38 hours in the PA-32-300. He had passed the written examination for the Piper PA-32 type rating on May 25, 2007. ## Meteorology and Aerodrome The pilot reported ideal weather conditions at the time of the takeoff: calm wind, visibility greater than 10 kilometers, and a high cloud ceiling. These conditions were corroborated by personnel from the company Amazonía Verde. The Sucúa runway had no radio aids. Runway 17/35 measured 1,000 by 25 meters, had a ballast surface, an elevation of 2,669 feet, and no slope. High grass was observed along the runway surface. ## Damage and Post-Accident Findings The aircraft sustained the following damage: separation of the left main landing gear; fracture and deformation of the left wing, flap, and aileron; deformation of the fuselage in the rear, lower, and left lateral sections; deformation of the horizontal stabilizer; and separation of the pitot tube. The aircraft left the runway by the right side of the runway 17 end. Ten meters from the runway end, the left main gear struck a 10-centimeter-high mound of earth, causing it to separate from its base. The aircraft’s speed and the surrounding vegetation caused it to carousel to the right, resulting in fuselage damage from ground contact, the left aileron and wing striking the base of a tree, and deformation of the vertical stabilizer. The aircraft stopped 17 meters from the runway 17 end, oriented at 300°. No evidence of fire was found. ## Weight and Balance The pilot’s weight and balance form for the second flight of January 10, 2009, listed a passenger weighing 150 lbs and cargo totaling 800 lbs, including sardines, rice, sugar, salt, oil, and provisions. The passenger also reported an additional 60-lb electric generator. The aircraft carried 41 gallons (115.54 kg) of fuel. The investigation board calculated the actual takeoff weight at 1,545.57 kg (3,400.25 lbs), exceeding the maximum takeoff weight of 1,545.00 kg (3,399 lbs). ## Performance and Procedures The aircraft’s flight manual provided short-field and normal takeoff performance charts for paved, dry runways. Under the existing conditions—25°C temperature, 3,394.27 lbs takeoff weight, and calm wind—the aircraft required 457.31 meters for a short-field takeoff with 25° flaps and 487.80 meters for a normal takeoff with 10° flaps. The manual’s procedures for soft runways called for 25° flaps, accelerating, lifting the nose wheel as soon as possible, and taking off at the lowest possible speed. ## Investigation and Analysis The investigation board found the flap actuator lever in position 1 (10° flaps) upon arrival. The lever had three positions: 10°, 25°, and 40° flaps. A two-minute engine run-up confirmed normal operation. The fuel used for the accident flight came from the company’s storage tank, which had also supplied the first two flights of the day without engine issues. The pilot stated he had selected 20° of flaps for the takeoff, a parameter used for all takeoffs of the aircraft, meaning he placed the flap lever in position 2, which corresponds to 25° of flaps. This demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the aircraft’s characteristics and flight manual. The board concluded that no engine failure or fuel contamination contributed to the accident, and that the weather conditions were adequate for the operation.