CEN25LA059
2024-12-11 · Pearland, Texas, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport LVJ
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The AA-5 pilot’s failure to maintain separation from the 182T during approach and landing, which resulted in a ground collision during the landing roll. Contributing to the accident was the failure of the AA-5’s electrical system, which prevented the AA-5 pilot from communicating with other aircraft in the traffic pattern, and the AA-5 pilot’s poor judgment that the electrical system failure required an expedited landing when a preceding airplane occupied the runway.
Factual narrative
On December 11, 2024, about 1412 central standard time, a Cessna 182T, N127SL, and a Grumman American AA-5, N5450L, were substantially damaged when they were involved in an accident at Pearland Regional Airport (LVJ), Pearland, Texas. The pilot of the 182T and the pilot and two passengers of the AA-5 were not injured. The 182T was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 aerial observation flight and the AA-5 was operated as a Part 91 personal flight. According to the pilot of the 182T, he was landing on runway 32 after completing aerial observation work. A pilot holding short of the runway alerted him over the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) that another airplane was following close behind him. The pilot of the 182T attempted to expedite his exit from the runway at taxiway A3, but the AA-5 impacted the 182T. According to the pilot of the AA-5, the airplane had to be “jump started” before departing from Scholes International Airport (GLS), Galveston, Texas. About five minutes after departure from GLS, the airplane lost all electrical power. As a result of the electrical failure, the pilot could not communicate over the CTAF or extend the airplane’s flaps. The pilot reported that he was able to navigate to LVJ using an iPad with ForeFlight software connected to a portable ADS-B receiver, all powered by batteries independent from the airplane’s electrical system. While approaching LVJ, the pilot made visual contact with the 182T and followed it to runway 32. The pilot estimated that he was about 1/4 to 1/2 mile behind the 182T while in the traffic pattern. The pilot reported that as he crossed the runway threshold, the 182T was slowing more than he had expected; with the closure rate, he did not feel like he could safely complete a go-around. The pilot attempted to avoid colliding with the 182T by veering toward taxiway A3, which was the same taxiway the 182T used to exit the runway. The AA-5 impacted the left side of the 182T, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage of the AA-5. The 182T sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and horizontal stabilizer. A pilot who was holding short of runway 32 stated that he observed the AA-5 following about 100 yards behind the 182T. The witness made a radio call over the CTAF to alert the pilot of the 182T about the AA-5’s proximity. He stated that the pilot of the AA-5 flew an unstable final approach, the airplane bounced on the runway after touchdown, and it veered left of the runway centerline before it impacted the 182T. In addition, he stated that the pilot of the AA-5 did not appear to make an attempt to perform a go-around or avoid the 182T while rolling on the runway. Video recorded from inside the AA-5’s cockpit revealed the AA-5’s engine was operating normally during the approach and landing. It did not show any evidence of the pilot of the AA-5 attempting to either increase spacing between his airplane and the 182T or conduct a go-around. Postaccident visual examination of the AA-5’s electrical system components revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot of the AA-5 stated that he allowed the failure of the airplane’s electrical system to influence his decision to land the airplane as soon as possible and “at all costs.” He stated that he should have executed a 360° turn while on final approach to add spacing between his airplane and the 182T. The pilot of the AA-5 “jump started” his airplane before departure and experienced a total electrical failure shortly after departure, resulting in his inability to communicate over the radio or extend the airplane’s flaps. While approaching the airport, the pilot of the AA-5 saw the 182T on final approach and followed it to the runway. As the 182T exited the runway, the AA-5 veered toward it and impacted the left side of the 182T, resulting in substantial damage to both airplanes. Video evidence showed the AA-5’s engine was operating normally during the approach and landing. The pilot of the AA-5 made no attempt to increase spacing between his airplane and the 182T or conduct a go-around. The pilot of the AA-5 stated that when he was faced with the failure of the airplane’s electrical system, he believed he had to get the airplane on the ground as soon as possible and “at all costs.” 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 of other aircraft
- — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Lack of action-Pilot of other aircraft
- — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Info processing/decision-Decision making/judgment-Pilot
- — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Lack of action-Pilot
- — Aircraft-Aircraft systems-Electrical power system-(general)-Failure
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2024_CEN25LA059.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Search this event elsewhere
External sources are reported, not agency: signal that something happened, not fact about what happened.
- TallyAero Live Wire Aviation press
- NTSB CAROL Agency ↗
- NTSB Docket Agency ↗
- Aviation Safety Network Aviation press ↗
- Kathryn's Report Aviation press ↗
- Aviation Herald Aviation press ↗
- AVweb Aviation press ↗
- Pilots of America Community ↗
- Reddit /r/flying Community ↗
- FlightAware Aviation press ↗
- AOPA accident database Aviation press ↗
- Google News News ↗
- DuckDuckGo News ↗
Related research
Matched on aircraft type or causal vocabulary (go-around). All research papers
- NASA NTRS 2025 · Conference Paper A Training Study to Improve Monitoring During A Go-Around
As part of an FAA program to improve go-around (GA) safety, we were asked to determine if we could improve the performance of the Pilot Monitoring (PM) during a GA maneuver.
- Flight Safety Foundation 2024 · FSF / AeroSafety World Go-Around Safety Forum Findings
Foundation Go-Around Safety Forum technical findings — examines why pilots fail to execute go-arounds when criteria are met (stabilized approach gate not met, energy state out of envelope, traffic con…
- Semantic Scholar 2022 · Article (Journal of Safety Research) Go-around accidents and general aviation safety.
INTRODUCTION Changes in General Aviation (GA) accident rates, specifically in the go-around phase, are examined by comparing the number of accidents, the proportion of fatal accidents, and the proport…
- Semantic Scholar 2021 · Article (Aerospace) Classification and Analysis of Go-Arounds in Commercial Aviation Using ADS-B Data
Go-arounds are a necessary aspect of commercial aviation and are conducted after a landing attempt has been aborted. It is necessary to conduct go-arounds in the safest possible manner, as go-arounds …
- NASA NTRS 2021 · Accepted Manuscript (Version with final changes) Go-Around Criteria Refinement for Transport Category Aircraft
Presently, airline pilots are trained to go around if, when lower than 500 ft above the ground, they are outside of a handful of parameters such as airspeed, position, and rate of descent.
- NASA NTRS 2019 · Conference Paper Validation of Proposed Go-Around Criteria Under Various Environmental Conditions
This paper evaluates the effects of environmental conditions on touchdown performance under varying approach states and validates proposed go-around criteria developed using data from a previously con…