DEN99LA144
1999-08-12 · ASPEN, Colorado, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport ASE
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
A failure of the right landing gear's brake system. Factors were the improper touchdown point attained by the pilot, the existing weather conditions that included a tailwind and high density altitude, and the rocky ditch.
Factual narrative
On August 12, 1999, at 1234 mountain daylight time, a Coleman Lancair IV P homebuilt, N124KM, was substantially damaged when it collided with terrain during landing roll at Aspen-Pitkin County/Sardy Field, Aspen, Colorado. The private pilot and one passenger were not injured. The personal cross-county flight was being conducted under Title 14 CFR Part 91. No flight plan had been filed for the flight which originated from Goodland, Kansas, at 1145 central daylight time. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed. According to several FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) personnel, during the pilot's first attempt to land on runway 15 at Aspen, the aircraft's altitude was too high to successfully land. The pilot advised the tower that he needed to perform a go around to lose more altitude. During his second landing attempt, one controller noted the aircraft's ground speed to be 270 knots while on a 3 mile final. Several controllers observed N124KM touch down near taxiway A2 (see enclosed personnel statements), located approximately 1,800 feet from the beginning of the 7,004 foot runway, and then noticed that the aircraft failed to stop. They witnessed the airplane depart the end of the runway slightly left of the centerline into a grassy field. According to the pilot, he touched down at an indicated airspeed of 95 to 100 knots (normal landing speed for the Lancair IV P) and the wind at the time he landed was from 300 degrees at 10 knots. He rolled out with the nose up to bleed off airspeed. After letting the nose settle onto the runway, he applied brake pressure and noted that the right brake appeared "soft." He pumped the brake, but was unsuccessful in restoring pressure. He stated that he was not able to initiate a go-around due to the high density altitude (calculated to be 9,828 feet above mean sea level), and the limited remaining runway that was available. The airplane departed the runway overrun and went into a grassy ditch surrounded by rocks. The aircraft sustained damage to both wings, the nose wheel, and propeller. According to a mechanic employed with Aspen Base Operations, the local Fixed Base Operator at the airport, when he went to remove the aircraft from the field, he observed a red fluid running down the right gear strut attached to the fuselage. At this investigator's request, a second mechanic was asked to perform a functional brake test of the right brake. According to the second mechanic, the left pedal was "firm," and the right brake was "soft = no brake" (see enclosed statement). According to an FAA ATC manager employed at the Aspen airport, the primary landing runway used at Aspen is 15, despite existing wind conditions. This is primarily due to mountainous terrain conditions surrounding the airport and the sloping runway gradient. During the pilot's second landing attempt, the aircraft touched down near taxiway A2, 1,800 feet down the 7,004 foot runway. The airplane then failed to stop, and departed the end of the runway slightly left of the centerline into a grassy, rocky ditch. The pilot stated that after allowing the nose wheel to settle onto the runway, he applied brake pressure and the right brake appeared soft. He was not able to initiate a go-around due to the high density altitude (calculated to be 9,828 ft. mean sea level), and limited remaining runway. According to a mechanic employed at the airport, he observed a red fluid running down the right gear strut following the accident. A functional brake test of the right brake was performed, and it was confirmed that the right brake was 'soft.' The wind at the time the pilot landed was from 300 degrees at 10 knots. The airport normally directs traffic to land on runway 15 due to mountainous terrain, despite existing wind conditions. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_1999_DEN99LA144.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…