Event ERA15LA022

Factual narrative

On October 20, 2014, about 1220 eastern daylight time, a Nimbus glider, C-FTSI, and a Piper PA-25-235, N8514L, operated by Sugarbush Soaring Association, Inc, were substantially damaged when they collided on the runway following an aborted glider-tow flight at the Warren-Sugarbush Airport (0B7), Warren, Vermont. The commercial pilot in the airplane and the glider pilot in the glider were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for either airplane as they departed on the glider-tow flight of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.In a written statement, the pilot of the tow plane said that during the takeoff roll, with the glider in tow, he noticed fuel spraying on the windscreen. He estimated the airplane had used about 40 percent of the runway and was still on the ground, and that enough runway remained for both aircraft to abort the takeoff. When he aborted the tow, he announced his intention over the radio, and turned the airplane to the right in order to clear the runway for the glider behind. The pilot of the glider was interviewed briefly by telephone by both the FAA and NTSB, and provided a similar accounting of events. He said that when the takeoff was aborted, he turned to the right, but was unable to clear the towplane in front of him, as it also turned to the right and into the glider's path. The glider overtook the towplane, and its left wing passed through the propeller arc while the tail section collided with the airplane's right wing, and separated from the glider. The towplane pilot held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for glider, airplane single-engine land and sea, multiengine land, and instrument airplane. His most recent FAA third class medical certificate was issued April 21, 2014. He reported 5,705 total hours of flight experience, of which 600 hours were in the accident airplane make and model. The glider pilot held Canadian glider-pilot and medical certificates. He estimated that he had 1,000 total hours of flight experience, all of which was in gliders, and 482 hours of which were in the accident glider make and model. The 1251 weather observation at Montpellier, Vermont (MPV), 13 miles east of 0B7 included an overcast layer at 8,500 feet, 10 miles visibility, and variable winds at 4 knots. The glider was recovered and taken to Canada by its owner. Examination of photographs and written descriptions of the damage by the two pilots and a certificated airframe and powerplant mechanic revealed the tail section was separated from the glider, and "propeller slash marks" were visible in the left wing. The right wing tip was of the towplane was visibly damaged, and the mechanic reported visible damage to the right wing spar. Both pilots reported that there were no mechanical anomalies with either airplane that would have precluded normal operation. They also stated that they had not discussed aborted takeoff procedures prior to the flight. The tow plane pilot reported that, in the case of an abort, the tow plane always goes right and the glider goes straight ahead. The glider pilot reported that, at his home airport, the glider always goes right. The towplane pilot reported that the airplane had been serviced with fuel prior to takeoff, and that fuel spilled during the servicing was what found its way onto his windscreen during the takeoff. He reported the airplane did not have a fuel leak before or after the accident. A glider collided with a tow plane on the runway following an aborted glider-tow flight. The tow plane pilot said that, during the takeoff roll with the glider in tow, he noticed fuel spraying onto the windscreen. He estimated that the airplane was about 40 percent of the way down the runway, noted that it was still on the ground, and believed that sufficient runway remained for both aircraft to abort the takeoff, so he chose to abort the takeoff. When he aborted the tow, he announced his intention over the radio and turned the airplane right to clear the runway for the trailing glider. The glider pilot said that, when the takeoff was aborted, he turned the glider right but that he was unable to avoid the tow plane in front of him because it had also turned right into the glider's path. The glider overtook the tow plane, and its left wing passed through the tow plane's propeller arc, and its tail section collided with the airplane's right wing and then separated from the glider. Both pilots stated that they had not discussed the aborted takeoff procedure before the flight. The tow plane pilot reported that the aborted takeoff procedure at the accident airport called for the tow plane pilot to turn right and for the glider pilot to land straight ahead. The glider pilot reported that the aborted takeoff procedure at his home airport called for glider pilot to turn right. Both pilots reported that there were no mechanical anomalies with either airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The tow plane pilot reported that the airplane had been serviced with fuel before takeoff and that it was fuel that had spilled during the servicing that sprayed onto his windscreen during the takeoff. He added that the airplane did not have a fuel leak before or after the accident. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

Hierarchical cause / factor breakdown from the FAA bulk avdata database. Each finding tagged C (Cause) or F (Factor).

• C Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Incorrect action performance-Pilot of other aircraft - C
• C Personnel issues-Task performance-Planning/preparation-Flight planning/navigation-Pilot - C
• C Personnel issues-Task performance-Planning/preparation-Flight planning/navigation-Pilot of other aircraft - C
• C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Use of policy/procedure-Pilot - C
• C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Use of policy/procedure-Pilot of other aircraft - C
• C Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Incorrect action performance-Pilot - C
• C Personnel issues-Task performance-Planning/preparation-Flight planning/navigation-Pilot - C
• C Personnel issues-Task performance-Planning/preparation-Flight planning/navigation-Pilot of other aircraft - C
• C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Use of policy/procedure-Pilot - C
• C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Use of policy/procedure-Pilot of other aircraft - C