Michigan

A McDonnell Douglas MD-83, registration N786TW, suffered a runway excursion following an aborted takeoff from runway 23L at Detroit-Willow Run Airport, Michigan, USA. The aircraft had been chartered by the University of Michigan Basketball team for a flight to a game in Washington, DC. The flight crew prepared for take-off and calculated V-speeds (V1, VR, V2) using "Normal Thrust Takeoff", a 10 kts headwind, and a take-off weight of 146,600 lbs. The V-speeds for this configuration were 139 kts, 142 kts, and 150 kts, respectively. However, the flight crew chose to increase VR to 150 kts to allow for more control during take-off in the presence of windshear. During takeoff roll, at 14:51:56 (about 3,000 ft down the runway) and about 138 kts of airspeed, the control column was pulled back slightly from a non-dimensional value of -7 to -5.52. The airplane’s left elevator followed the control input and moved from a position of -15° trailing edge down to -13° trailing edge down. The right elevator did not change and stayed at approximately -16° trailing edge down. At 14:52:01 a large control column input was made (151 kts and 4100 ft down the runway) to a non-dimensional 18.5 and the left elevator moves to a position near 15° trailing edge up. After 14:52:05 the right elevator moves to -13° trailing edge down, but no more. The airplane does not respond in pitch and does not rotate. The captain decided to abort the takeoff. The maximum ground speed was 163 kts (173 kts airspeed) and the airplane began to decelerate as soon as the brakes were applied at 14:52:08. Spoilers were deployed at 14:52:10 and thrust reversers were deployed between 14:52:13 and 14:52:15. The aircraft could not be stopped on the runway. The airplane’s ground speed was 100 kts when it left the paved surface. The aircraft overran the end of the runway, damaged approach lights, went through the perimeter fence and crossed Tyler Road. It came to rest on grassy terrain, 345 meters past the end of the runway, with the rear fuselage across a ditch. The nose landing gear had collapsed. Runway 23L is a 7543 ft long runway.

After exiting the clouds during the landing approach at the uncontrolled airport, the private pilot of the small jet canceled his instrument flight plan with air traffic control. He stated that, although there was no precipitation when he exited the clouds, he suspected the runway may be icy due to the weather conditions. The pilot saw an airplane holding short on the taxiway at the end of the runway and assumed it was preparing to takeoff, which he stated led him to believe that the runway condition was good. Although the pilot announced his location and intentions on the airport's common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF), he did not inquire about the runway condition via CTAF/UNICOM. Witnesses reported that the approach looked normal. After touchdown, the pilot applied brakes and realized he had no braking action. He subsequently retracted the speed brakes, spoilers, and flaps, and added takeoff power. The airplane yawed to the left and the pilot reduced engine power to idle while applying rudder to correct the airplane's track. The airplane continued off the runway, where it traveled through a fence and across a road before coming to rest inverted. The pilot and mechanic seated in the airplane that was holding short of the runway during the landing reported that they were only taxiing to a maintenance facility and did not intend to take off. They reported that the taxiways were icy. A witness who assisted the pilot following the accident reported that the roads at the time were covered in ice and "very slick." Recorded data from the airplane showed that the pilot flew a stabilized approach and that the airplane touched down near the approach end of the runway; however, given the icy runway conditions, the airplane's landing distance required exceeded the available runway by more than 8,000 ft. Airport personnel had not issued a NOTAM regarding the icy runway conditions. The airport manager stated he was not at the airport at the time of the accident, and that he was still trying to learn the new digital NOTAM manager system. The employee who was at the airport was authorized to issue NOTAMs, but had not yet been trained on the new system.

The private pilot reported that, while on a left downwind in the airport traffic pattern after conducting a cross-country business flight, he extended the flaps 10 degrees. While on short final, he fully extended the flaps, and shortly after, the left wing dropped. The pilot attempted to correct the left wing drop by applying right aileron and rudder; however, the airplane did not respond. The pilot chose to conduct a go-around and increased engine power. The airplane subsequently pitched up, and the left turn steepened. The pilot subsequently reduced engine power, and the airplane began to descend. The airplane struck the ground short of the runway, and the left wing separated from the fuselage. The examination of the airframe, flight controls, and engine revealed no preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the trim system revealed that the right aileron trim and the left rudder trim were in positions that would have resulted in a right turn and a left yaw. Further, a witness reported that the airplane appeared to be in a cross-controlled attitude while on final approach to the airport. It is likely that the pilot’s improper use of the trim led to a cross-controlled situation and resulted in the subsequent stall during the attempted go-around.

The pilot landed at the airport to refuel the airplane and pick up cargo. The pilot spoke with three employees of the fixed base operator who stated that he seemed alert and awake but wanted to make a "quick turn." After the airplane was fueled and the cargo was loaded, the pilot departed; the airplane crashed 1 minute later. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time. An aircraft performance GPS and simulation study indicated that the airplane entered a right bank almost immediately after takeoff and then made a 42 degree right turn and that it was accelerating throughout the flight, from about 75 knots groundspeed shortly after liftoff to about 145 knots groundspeed at impact. The airplane was climbing about 500 to 700 feet per minute to a peak altitude of about 260 feet above the ground before descending. The simulation showed a gas generator speed of about 93 percent throughout the flight. The study indicated that the load factor vectors, which were the forces felt by the pilot, could have produced a somatogravic illusion of a climb, even while the airplane was descending. The postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Based on the findings from the aircraft performance GPS and simulation study, the degraded visual reference conditions present about the time of the accident, and the forces felt by the pilot, it is likely that he experienced spatial disorientation, which led to his inadvertent controlled descent into terrain.

After the pilot finished the preflight inspection in the hangar, the maintenance technician pulled the airplane out of the hangar and connected the auxiliary power cart to the airplane. Shortly thereafter, the pilot boarded the airplane and proceeded with the normal checklist. The pilot signaled to the maintenance technician to disconnect the power cart. The maintenance technician subsequently signaled that the pilot was clear to start the engines. After departure, the pilot noted a problem with the landing gear, and, after establishing that the tow bar was, most likely, still attached to the nosewheel, he diverted to a nearby airport for a precautionary landing. During the landing, the nose landing gear collapsed and the primary structure in the nose of the airplane was substantially damaged.

During climb to cruise, the captain increased left engine power and the engine power lever became jammed in the full forward position. This condition resulted in an engine overtorque and overtemperture condition, and the captain shut down the left engine. After the engine shutdown, both primary flight display screens went blank. The captain reset the right generator and the flight displays regained power and display. Due to the engine shutdown, the captain diverted to a nearby airport and attempted a single-engine precautionary landing in visual flight rules conditions. Based on wind conditions at the airport (290 degrees at 18 knots), runway 27 was being used for operations. During the descent, the crew became confused as to their true heading and were only able to identify runway 27 about a minute before touching down due to a 50-degree difference in heading indications displayed to the crew as a result of the instrument gyros having been reset. Accurate heading information would have been available to the crew had they referenced the airplane’s compass. Having declared an emergency, the crew was cleared to land on any runway and chose to land on runway 18. After touchdown, the captain applied reverse thrust on the right engine and the airplane veered to the right. The airplane flight manual’s single-engine approach and landing checklist indicates that after landing braking and reverse thrust are to be used as required to maintain airplane control. The airplane continued to the right, departed the runway surface, impacted terrain, flipped over, and came to rest inverted. At the point of touchdown, there was about 5,000 feet of runway remaining for the landing roll. The loss of directional control was likely initiated when the captain applied reverse thrust shortly after touchdown, and was likely aggravated by the strong crosswind. Postaccident examination of the airplane showed a clevis pin incorrectly installed by unknown maintenance personnel that resulted in a jammed left engine power lever. No additional anomalies were noted with the airplane or engines that would have precluded normal operation.

A witness reported and radar data showed the airplane approaching the runway at a higher‐than‐normal speed. As the airplane leveled low over the runway, the propeller began striking the runway surface. The damage from repetitive propeller strikes resulted in a loss of the thrust and airspeed necessary for flight. The airplane impacted the ground and subsequently caught fire. The postaccident examination of the wreckage confirmed that the airplane was configured with the landing gear and flaps retracted. No mechanical anomalies were observed that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. Weight and balance estimates of the airplane indicated that the pilot was operating the airplane outside of its certified weight and center of gravity limits. Forensic toxicology performed on the pilot showed the presence of Hydrocodone and Dihydrocodeine, indicative of the pilot using disqualifying sedating cough or pain medications. These medications can impair performance in high workload environments. The level of medication found in the pilot’s blood at the time of the accident could not be determined. Additionally, Nortriptyline was detected in the pilot’s tissues. While the medications could have had degrading effects on the pilot’s performance, the investigation was not able to determine what role they may have played in the accident sequence.