ERA13LA374
2013-08-24 · Marco Island, Florida, United States · Minor · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport MKY
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot’s improper pitch trim setting before takeoff, which resulted in the airplane’s rapid, nose-high pitch at takeoff and the pilot’s subsequent loss of control.
Factual narrative
On August 24, 2013, about 1030 eastern daylight time, a Mooney M20J, N3700H, was substantially damaged when it impacted swampy terrain during a takeoff attempt from Marco Island Airport (MKY), Marco Island, Florida. The airline transport pilot sustained minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the flight, to Wing South Airpark (FA37), Naples, Florida. The personal flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. According to the pilot, he set the flaps at 15 degrees for takeoff, and the flap indicator and trim indicator next to each other appeared to line up, which was normal. However, during the takeoff, at an approximate rotation speed of 63 knots indicated, the airplane pitched up more rapidly than normal and the stabilizer trim did not seem to be working. The event occurred so suddenly that the pilot did not have an opportunity to abort the takeoff with a power reduction. "It was an uncommanded pitch-up and the yoke would not respond to counteract the pitch and turn The rudder and ailerons were stuck in the neutral position and would not move in the direction to initiate a right counteracting turn. Although the left turning tendencies are well known on takeoff with high power and angle of attack ("P" factor, torque and slipstream affect all work together requiring lots of right rudder), something caused the stab trim to go forward and prevent the normal rudder and aileron coordination for a turn to the right to counteract the left turning tendencies." The airplane then descended into the swamp to the left of the runway. According to the pilot's operating handbook (POH), "Push-pull tubes with self-aligning rod end bearings actuate the primary flight control surfaces. A spring-loaded interconnect device indirectly joins the aileron and rudder control systems to assist in lateral stability during flight maneuvers." In addition, "For pitch control, the entire empennage pivots on the tail cone attachment points to increase or decrease the horizontal stabilizer angle. This design allows flight trim establishment with minimum control surface deflection. A trim indicator on the console indicates stabilizer trim position. In flight, forward rotation of the trim wheel lowers the nose; rearward rotation raises the nose." A photograph of the trim/flap annunciator taken at the accident site by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector showed separate indicators for each, with positions noted as "Down", "Takeoff" and "Up." The flap indication was in the "Takeoff" position, while the trim indication was in the "Up" position. A corner of the photograph also showed the autopilot controller, which indicated the autopilot as being "Off." According to a representative of Mooney, and as verified in the M20J Illustrated Parts Catalog, trim position was established via a "trim screw assembly" (worm drive) which would not have been movable as a result of ground impact. The representative also noted that according to a company engineer, earlier models of the airplane "could jam if the trim was electrically or manually run hard up against the stops. The jack screw and jam nuts have since been re-designed to resolve the issue." After the airplane had been moved to a storage facility, the FAA inspector tested the trim electrically to the stops and noted no binding. According to the pilot, he was a partial owner of the airplane and the only one to fly it. He did not run the trim to the stops during the preflight checks, and he didn't know why the trim would have been in the "Up" position. Per the M20J Pilot Operating Handbook, Before Takeoff checklist, "Trim – Takeoff Setting." The pilot stated that he set the flaps at 15 degrees for takeoff and that the flap position indicator and the adjacent pitch trim position indicator appeared to "line up," which was normal. However, during the takeoff, the airplane pitched up more rapidly than normal, and the pitch trim did not seem to be working. The event occurred too quickly for the pilot to abort the takeoff, and, because of the relatively low airspeed and the high engine torque and P-factor, he was unable to counteract the airplane's left turning tendency. The airplane subsequently descended into a swamp left of the runway. At the accident scene, the airplane's flap and trim position annunciators indicated that the flaps were in the "takeoff" position but that the pitch trim was in the "up" position; the Pilot's Operating Handbook stated that the pitch trim was to be set to the "takeoff" position for takeoff. For pitch trim control, the airplane's entire empennage would have pivoted to increase or decrease the horizontal stabilizer angle. The system used a worm gear, which would have prevented the annunciated trim position from moving when the airplane impacted the ground. Pitch trim was subsequently tested electrically to the stops with no binding noted. The pilot did not report any runaway pitch anomalies. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.
- — Aircraft-Aircraft systems-Flight control system-Stabilizer actuator-Incorrect use/operation
- C Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Incorrect action performance-Pilot - C
- C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2013_ERA13LA374.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 (loss of control, autopilot). All research papers
- arXiv 2026 · arXiv preprint Robust Adaptive Sliding-Mode Control for Damaged Fixed-Wing UAVs
Many unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can remain aerodynamically flyable after sustaining structural or control surface damage, yet insufficient robustness in conventional autopilots often leads to mis…
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2025 · Journal article (JAAER) A Scoping Review of Aviation Loss of Control Inflight Research
Loss of control – inflight (LOC-I) contributes to aircraft accidents at unacceptably high rates. Significant industry efforts and research have aimed to improve LOC-I prevention, detection, and recove…
- arXiv 2025 · arXiv preprint ROSflight 2.0: Lean ROS 2-Based Autopilot for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
ROSflight is a lean, open-source autopilot ecosystem for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Designed by researchers for researchers, it is built to lower the barrier to entry to UAV research and acceler…
- arXiv 2025 · arXiv preprint ROSplane 2.0: A Fixed-Wing Autopilot for Research
Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) research requires the integration of cutting-edge technology into existing autopilot frameworks.
- SKYbrary (Eurocontrol) 2024 · SKYbrary article Loss of Control In-Flight (LOC-I) — SKYbrary Knowledge Base
SKYbrary comprehensive knowledge-base entry on Loss of Control In-Flight — definitions, contributing factors, accident case studies (Air France 447, Colgan 3407), and prevention strategies.
- Semantic Scholar 2024 · Article (International Conference on Networking and Services) Risk Assessment of Loss of Control In-Flight Trajectories for Urban Air Mobility Safety
In Urban Air Mobility (UAM), maintaining a minimum separation between aircraft is a safety requirement, which becomes challenging amidst congested air traffic and off-nominal conditions, such as Loss …