ERA11LA196
2011-03-19 · Ocean Springs, Mississippi, United States · Serious · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport 5R2
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The airplane's overweight condition due to the pilot's improper weight and balance calculation that resulted in the airplane's inability to maintain altitude.
Factual narrative
On March 19, 2011, about 1410 central daylight time, a Piper PA-28-140, N7330J, was substantially damaged during a forced landing after takeoff from Ocean Springs Airport (5R2), Ocean Springs, Mississippi. The certificated airline transport pilot and two passengers sustained minor injuries. The third passenger was seriously injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight that was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. In a telephone interview, the pilot stated that earlier on the day of the accident, he flew the 12-mile distance from Trent Lott International Airport (PQL), Pascagoula, Mississippi, to 5R2 in order to pick up the 3 passengers, and consumed "about an hour's worth of fuel" while en route. He then left the airport, went to his home, and then returned "around" 1350 to conduct the flight. Air Traffic Control data revealed that the accident airplane departed PQL at 1254. The pilot boarded the passengers, loaded approximately 40 pounds of luggage, and completed the engine start, run-up, magneto check, taxi, and takeoff roll with no anomalies noted. At 80 to 100 feet above the runway, the airplane "would not climb." At that time, the pilot perceived a loss of engine power and noted that the engine RPM had decayed from 2,300 RPM to about 2,000 RPM. The pilot checked the position of the engine controls, and responded to continuous stall warnings by "lowering the nose," which resulted in a steady loss of altitude. He then selected a narrow street in a residential area, 1/2 mile off the airport for the forced landing. The passengers each provided written statements, and their accounts were consistent with the pilot's, with the exception that they each estimated that the weight of the baggage loaded was between 80 and 100 pounds.
PERSONNEL INFORMATION
The pilot held an airline transport pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine and airplane multiengine. He reported an estimated 4,400 total hours of flight experience, of which 25 hours were in make and model.
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and maintenance records, the airplane was manufactured in 1968 and had accrued 5,946 total aircraft hours as of its most recent annual inspection, which was completed on January 27, 2011. The manufacturer's maximum allowable gross weight was 2,150 pounds. The weight of the airplane at takeoff was calculated using the weight of the occupants, 33 gallons of fuel, and 40 pounds of baggage. The estimated gross weight at takeoff was 2,248 pounds.
METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION
At 1355, the weather reported at Biloxi, Mississippi, included clear skies and winds from 210 at 10 knots. The temperature was 25 degrees C, and the dewpoint was 20 degrees C. The altimeter setting was 30.22 inches of mercury.
WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION
The airplane was examined at the accident site on March 19, 2011 by a FAA aviation safety inspector, who also photographed the scene. There was fuel spillage, and the fire department drained approximately 50 gallons of the remaining fuel from the airplane. Examination of the photographs revealed that the right wing was separated by impact, and that the left wing outboard of the wing flap was also separated. The underside of the engine compartment and cockpit showed upward crushing along the right side. One propeller blade was bent aft due to impact. The wreckage was removed from the site and recovered to an automotive repair facility. On April 27, 2011, a wreckage examination and engine run was conducted under the supervision of the FAA. The fuselage was lifted by, and secured to, a forklift. Examination revealed impact damage to the engine mount and several bends in the engine-mount tubing, but no breaks were noted. The exhaust system was restricted due to impact damage, but no breaks in the system were noted. An auxiliary fuel source was plumbed into the fuel system at the electric-driven fuel pump, and a substitute propeller was installed due to the bent propeller blade. The airplane's battery was used for the engine start. The engine started immediately, and ran continuously, but required a few minutes for the spark plugs to "clear" due to the oil that had accumulated while the airplane rested on its side during storage. A magneto check revealed that the left magneto was not operational at the time of the test. The engine was run at various power settings, but could not be accelerated above 2,100 rpm due to the condition of the engine mount. The pilot reported that he departed the airplane's base with full fuel tanks and flew 12 miles to pick up 3 passengers for a flight to a resort destination. The pilot boarded the passengers, loaded an estimated 40 pounds of luggage, and completed the engine start, run-up, magneto check, taxi, and takeoff roll with no anomalies noted. At 80 to 100 feet above the runway, the airplane would not climb. At that time, the pilot perceived a loss of engine power and noted that the engine rpm had decayed. The pilot checked the position of the engine controls, and responded to continuous stall warnings by lowering the nose, which resulted in a steady loss of altitude. He then selected a narrow street in a residential area, 1/2 mile from the airport, for the forced landing. The passengers' accounts of the accident were consistent with the pilot's, with the exception that they each estimated the weight of the baggage to be between 80 and 100 pounds. After the accident, the engine started and ran on the airframe with no anomalies noted. The airplane manufacturer's maximum allowable gross weight was 2,150 pounds. The estimated gross weight at takeoff, using the 40-pound baggage weight was 2,248 pounds. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.
- C Personnel issues-Task performance-Planning/preparation-Weight/balance calculations-Pilot - C
- C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Aircraft capability-Maximum weight-Capability exceeded - C
- C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Aircraft capability-Climb capability-Attain/maintain not possible - C
- C Aircraft-Aircraft power plant-Engine (reciprocating)-(general)-Failure - C
- C Not determined-Not determined-(general)-(general)-Unknown/Not determined - C
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2011_ERA11LA196.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 (stall, maintenance). All research papers
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2023 · Conference paper The Value of Strong Partnerships to Build a Successful Aviation Maintenance Career Pathway Program for Transitioning Military Service Members
The aerospace industry is competing with other industries for a qualified workforce, and many of those competing industries are investing heavily in creating workforce development pipelines.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2026 · Journal article (IJAAA) From Reactive to Predictive: A hybrid Trust-Mediated Adoption Framework for Data-Driven Maintenance in Distributed-Authority Aviation Environments
Modern aviation maintenance operates within increasingly data-intensive technological environments, yet the operational integration of predictive maintenance into routine decision-making remains incon…
- NASA NTRS 2026 · Conference Paper Computational Analysis of Steady State Aerodynamics of Transonic Truss-Braced Wing Configuration in Deep Stall
This study presents a computational investigation of steady state aerodynamics of the Subsonic Ultra-Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW) configuration over a wide range …
- Semantic Scholar 2026 · Article (Reliability Engineering & System Safety) Understanding human error in military aviation maintenance: The role of Performance shaping factors, cognitive workload and error orientation
- Semantic Scholar 2025 · Article (Applied Sciences) Decision-Making Framework for Aviation Safety in Predictive Maintenance Strategies
The implementation of predictive maintenance (PM) in aviation presents unique challenges due to strict safety requirements, complex operational environments, and regulatory constraints.
- Semantic Scholar 2024 · Article (Defence Science Journal) Modelling of Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance Using HFACS ME Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Maintenance Extension and Bayesian Network
Aircraft maintenance is a complex task involving a skilled human workforce, spare parts, and various other resources. Human factors are an inherent element of the human workforce.