CEN22LA385

Factual narrative

On August 10, 2022, about 1030 eastern daylight time, a Piper PA-28-140 airplane, N55338, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Sparta, Michigan. The pilot and two passengers were not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The pilot reported that after liftoff, the airplane did not seem to be accelerating. She pushed the nose down to accelerate in ground effect; however, the airplane was approaching the end of the runway and, in her judgement, may not have had sufficient altitude to clear a line of trees. The pilot decided to reject the takeoff. After touching down, she “immediately” applied full brakes but was unable to stop before the airplane departed the runway pavement. It continued into the grass and impacted the airport perimeter fence. The airframe sustained damage to the right wing during the impact. A postaccident engine examination did not reveal any anomalies consistent with an inability to produce rated power. In addition, the pilot stated that there was no mechanical failure or malfunction associated with the airplane. She noted that factors adversely affecting airplane takeoff performance were density altitude, airplane gross weight, an upsloping runway, and the additional altitude required to clear the tree line. The preflight weight and balance calculation provided by the pilot indicated a gross takeoff weight of 2,072 lbs and a center-of-gravity location of 90.405 inches. This was within the allowable loading envelope for the airplane. At the time of the accident, the calculated density altitude was about 1,674 ft. Airplane performance data indicated the expected takeoff performance was about 900 ft ground roll, 2,000 ft required to clear a 50-foot obstacle, and an initial climb rate of 550 feet per minute. The pilot reported that after liftoff, the airplane did not seem to be accelerating. She pushed the nose down to accelerate in ground effect; however, the airplane was approaching the end of the runway and, in her judgement, may not have had sufficient altitude to clear a line of trees. The pilot decided to reject the takeoff. After touching down, she “immediately” applied full brakes but was unable to stop before the airplane departed the end of the runway. It continued into the grass and impacted the airport perimeter fence. A postaccident engine examination did not reveal any anomalies consistent with an inability to produce rated power. The airplane was loaded within the specified gross weight and center-of-gravity limits and the runway length was sufficient based on published performance data. The pilot noted that factors adversely affecting airplane takeoff performance were the elevated density altitude, the near-maximum airplane gross weight, the upsloping runway, and the additional altitude required to clear the tree line. She added that a short field takeoff procedure may have provided additional climb performance and clearance from the tree line. Although the published airplane performance indicated the takeoff could have been completed safely, the pilot prudently decided to reject the takeoff when the obstacle clearance was in doubt. The decision was made without sufficient runway available to land and resulted in the runway excursion and impact with the airport perimeter fence. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.

• — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Info processing/decision-Decision making/judgment-Pilot
• — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Delayed action-Pilot
• — Environmental issues-Physical environment-Object/animal/substance-Fence/fence post-Contributed to outcome