Event ERA17LA014

Factual narrative

On October 13, 2016, about 1000 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 525B, N518AR, was substantially damaged during a runway excursion at North Central State Airport (SFZ), Pawtucket, Rhode Island. The commercial and airline transport pilots, and four passengers were not injured. The airplane departed Allegheny County Airport (AGC), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, about 0900. The airplane was registered to A R Wings LLC and operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 business flight. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the personal flight. According to a written statement provided by the commercial pilot (pilot flying), they departed from AGC around 0900. The reported weather conditions at SFZ included a 200-foot ceiling, ½ to 1-mile visibility. They elected to conduct an instrument approach to runway 5. Upon breaking out of the clouds at an altitude of 850 feet, the flight crew "…saw runway could not stop. Brakes and tires not gripping the runway. Hit a fence and went into the ground." During a postaccident interview the pilot stated that the weather at SFZ was below approach minimums, but the crew elected to fly the instrument approach to and see if they could break out of the clouds. The airplane subsequently broke out of the clouds at an altitude of 800 to 850 ft mean sea level (msl). The pilot further stated that during the approach the airplane's airspeed was, "a little too fast" at 130 to 135 knots. After touching down he "slammed on the brakes" and the anti-skid system engaged. The pilot felt like the brakes were not working as they were supposed to and said that they felt, "a little spongy." The non-flying pilot stated that during the landing, both pilots were applying the brakes. He stated it appeared that the brakes and the anti-skid system were working. A witness, who was also a pilot, was at SFZ on the morning of the accident. Between 0900 and 1030, he was standing in the main hangar at the airport waiting for the fog to lift in order to depart in his single-engine airplane for an IFR flight. He estimated that the airport weather observation-reported ceiling of 200 feet agl was accurate by watching another airplane depart. He watched as the accident airplane broke out of the clouds on approach to runway 5. He thought that the airplane appeared "high" as it crossed the runway threshold and estimated that the airplane was "well above the surface" as it passed the touchdown zone of the runway. As the airplane passed directly in front of his location, located about 2,100 feet down the runway, the airplane's wheels were about 20 to 30 feet above the surface. He then began shouting, "Go around! Go around!," knowing that only half of the runway remained. The airplane touched down on the runway near the B4 taxiway, or with about 2,000 feet of runway remaining. He did not hear the sound of thrust reversers, screeching brakes, nor an impact. As he started to look for the airplane he saw an airport vehicle as it proceeded to the accident site. Runway 5 at SFZ was 5,000 feet-long by 100 feet-wide, and the airport was located at an elevation of 441 msl. Based on data from the Aircraft Flight Manual the airplane's calculated landing distance would have been 2,650 ft. The calculated approach speed, Vapp, would have been 114 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS). The Vref speed, or threshold crossing speed, would have been 105 knots KIAS. These calculations were based on zero wind conditions and the use of the ground flaps after touchdown. Postaccident examination of the airplane by an FAA inspector revealed that it had struck several localizer antennae located beyond the departure end of runway 5, the came to rest is trees and bushes located about 20 feet down an embankment. The airplane's wings and fuselage sustained substantial damage to the right aileron and wing tip, left wing leading edge, and nose landing gear. Cursory examination of the brakes and hydraulic brake lines revealed no evidence of any preimpact anomalies. Additionally, the inspector observed intermittent tire skid marks near the departure end of the runway. The pilot held a commercial certificate with single-pilot type ratings for the Cessna CE-525 airplane. His most recent third-class medical certificate was issued on January 2, 2015. The pilot reported 8,000 hours of flight experience, of which 400 hours were in the accident make and model. The airline transport pilot in the right seat held single-pilot type ratings for the Cessna CE-525 airplane. He was the non-flying pilot for the accident flight and described that generally his role was to be primarily responsible for flight planning and would fly alternate flying legs with the pilot. He reported 6,000 hours of flight experience, and 700 hours in the accident airplane make and model. His most recent third-class medical certificate was issued on June 19, 2016. At 1023, the weather reported at SFZ included wind calm; visibility 3 statute miles in mist, an overcast ceiling at 200 feet; temperature, 15° C; dew point, 14° C; and a barometric altimeter setting of 30.09 inHg. After an uneventful instrument flight rules flight, the flight crew of the turbofan-powered airplane conducted an instrument approach to the 5,000-ft-long runway. The commercial pilot, who was the pilot flying, reported that the airplane's airspeed during the approach was "a little too fast" at 130 to 135 knots. A witness watched as the airplane flew beyond the runway touchdown zone and touched down on the runway with about 2,000 ft remaining. The flying pilot stated that he then "slammed on the brakes," and the airplane's antiskid system engaged. The airplane subsequently departed the end of the runway, struck several localizer antennae, and came to rest in trees and bushes beyond the departure end of the runway. Although the flying pilot reported that the brakes felt "a little spongy" during the landing, the nonflying pilot stated that, during the landing, both pilots were applying the brakes and that it appeared that the brakes and the antiskid system were working. Postaccident examination of the brakes and brake lines showed no evidence of any preimpact anomalies, and intermittent tire skid marks near the end of the runway appeared consistent with braking and operation of the airplane's antiskid system. Postaccident calculations showed that the airplane's approach speed should have been about 114 knots; the airplane's actual approach speed was more than 130 knots. Additionally, the airplane's calculated landing distance was 2,650 ft; however, there was only about 2,000 ft of runway available when the airplane touched down. Given this information, it is likely that the flight crew approached the runway at an excessive speed and touched down with insufficient runway remaining to stop the airplane and prevent a runway overrun. 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-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
• C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Descent/approach/glide path-Not attained/maintained - C
• C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Airspeed-Not attained/maintained - C
• — Environmental issues-Physical environment-Object/animal/substance-Tower/antenna (incl guy wires)-Contributed to outcome