Event ERA16LA220

Factual narrative

On June 17, 2016, about 0855 eastern daylight time, a Champion, 7AC, N83578, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Gorham, New Hampshire. The private pilot and his passenger were not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. According to the pilot, this was the first time he had flown this particular airplane with a passenger, but he had recently flown an exemplar airplane with two 190-pound individuals and the airplane performed well. Thirteen gallons of fuel were on board for the planned 90-mile flight from Gorham Airport (2G8), Gorham, New Hampshire, to Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport (BHB) Bar Harbor, Maine. The pilot reported that the preflight, runup, and takeoff roll were all “normal.” After becoming airborne, the airplane would not climb out of ground effect and settled back onto the runway. He attempted to climb the airplane again, but the same thing occurred. On his third attempt, the airplane lifted off but never achieved more than 20 ft of altitude, then impacted trees about 90 ft beyond the departure end of the runway. The airplane came to rest upright just inside the tree line. Broken branches about 20 ft up in the trees and scattered branches were observed around the wreckage. Examination of the wooden propeller found signs of rotational damage. One propeller blade was splintered about 12 inches out from the hub. The opposing blade was splintered about 24 inches out from the hub and there was leading edge impact damage to the brass erosion protector. The right outboard portion of the wing separated, and the left wing leading edge was crushed. An examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector revealed oil in the crankcase, and three-quarters of a tank of fuel that was clear of water or debris. A local airframe and powerplant mechanic who was familiar with the airplane was asked to conduct a compression test under FAA supervision; however, he conducted maintenance and performed the examination without any oversight. The mechanic reported to the pilot that the No. 2 cylinder had a compression value of less than 50 psi and the remaining cylinders had compression readings in the mid-70s. No additional records documenting the airplane or engine maintenance history, or the postaccident examination were available for review. The mechanic who completed the examination could not be reached for follow-up. According to FAA airmen medical records, the pilot weighed 212 pounds as of his last medical examination on December 17, 2015. His passenger weighed about 135 pounds and the fuel weighed 78 pounds, which placed the gross weight under the useful load by about 55 pounds. Performance data for the airplane indicate that the takeoff distance required to clear a 50 ft obstacle is about 630 ft, which was about one quarter of the runway’s length. The pilot reported that the airplane’s preflight inspection, runup, and takeoff roll were normal. He stated that, after becoming airborne, the airplane settled back to the runway, and he attempted to climb the airplane again but was unsuccessful. On the third attempt, the airplane lifted off but never achieved more than 20 ft of altitude. It then impacted trees about 90 ft beyond the departure end of the runway. The wooden propeller exhibited signs of rotational damage, indicating it was likely under some power; there was leading edge damage, and the outboard section of the propeller blades were splintered. The airplane was under gross weight at departure. Although a postaccident examination of the engine revealed that one of the cylinders indicated low compression, the examination was not accomplished with oversight of a Federal Aviation Administration inspector; a follow-up examination was not possible. Weather at the time of the accident was not conducive to the formation of carburetor ice. It is likely that the engine experienced a partial loss of power during the takeoff roll and subsequent attempted climb; however, the reason for the reduction of engine power and subsequent airplane performance could not be determined. In addition, instead of making repeated attempts to climb, the pilot should have aborted the takeoff at the first sign that the airplane would not climb. 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).

• — Aircraft-Aircraft power plant-Engine (reciprocating)-Recip engine power section-Unknown/Not determined
• — Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Climb rate-Not attained/maintained
• — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Incorrect action performance-Pilot
• — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Info processing/decision-Decision making/judgment-Pilot