ERA21LA316
2021-07-27 · Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport LRO
Current FAA registration · N48UM
- Make / Model
- SOCATA TBM-700 C2
- Year of manufacture
- 2004 · 17 years old at event
- Engine
- P&W CANADA PT6A-64 (700 hp)
- Seats / Engines
- 7 seats · 1 engine
- Last airworthiness date
- 20101101
- ADS-B equipped
- Yes — Mode-S A5E80E
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot’s decision to continue an unstable approach, which resulted in a runway excursion.
Factual narrative
On July 27, 2021, about 1105 eastern daylight time, a Socata TBM-700 C2, N48UM, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident at Mount Pleasant Regional Airport-Faison Field (LRO) Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. The private pilot and five passengers were not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. According to the pilot, his visual approach was “uncomfortably fast.” The airplane crossed over the threshold of the 3,700-ft-long runway at 125 to 130 knots and touched down on “the first 1/3 to the middle 1/3 of the runway.” He applied brakes, but the runway was wet and slick. Unable to stop on the remaining runway, the pilot attempted to move the throttle from beta to full to abort the landing, but the throttle “stuck.” The airplane subsequently came to rest about 325 ft past the end of the runway. According to the Federal Aviation Administration inspector who responded to the accident site and conducted an initial examination of the wreckage, the engine mounts and left wing sustained substantial damage. The flaps were found in the “TAKEOFF” position. All engine and flight controls were intact from the cockpit controls to their respective control surfaces and functioned normally. In addition, examination of the brakes revealed no anomalies. The throttle lever had no binding and operated smoothly through its full range of motion. A pilot’s abbreviated checklist, a quick reference performance guide, and a laminated checklist were located on the airplane, but no Pilot’s Information Manual (PIM) was on board the airplane. According to the PIM, with the flaps in the landing position, the landing distance on a wet runway would have been about 2,700 ft; the PIM recommended an approach speed of 80 knots and a touchdown speed of 65 knots. The pilot’s reported approach speed was about 30 to 40 knots over the PIM recommended approach speed. The pilot reported in the "Operator/Owner Safety Recommendation" section of the Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report (NTSB form 6120.1/2) that "when it was apparent that the approach was not stabilized, I should have performed a go-around.” The pilot stated his visual approach to landing was “uncomfortably fast.” The airplane crossed over the threshold about 30 to 40 knots above the approach speed recommended in the Pilot’s Information Manual (PIM). He applied brakes, but the runway was wet and slick. Unable to stop on the remaining runway, the pilot attempted to abort the landing by moving the throttle from beta to full, but the throttle “stuck.” The airplane subsequently overran the runway and came to rest about 325 ft past the end of the runway. The engine mounts and left wing sustained substantial damage. Examination of the airplane revealed all engine and flight controls were intact from the cockpit controls to their respective control surfaces and functioned normally. In addition, examination of the brakes revealed no anomalies. The throttle lever had no binding and operated smoothly through its full range of motion. The flaps were found in the takeoff position, not in the landing position as they should have been for landing. Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. According to the PIM, when configured correctly and using the recommended approach speed of 80 knots, the landing distance on a wet runway would have been about 2,700 ft of the 3,700 ft available. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.
- — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Incorrect action selection-Pilot
- — Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot
- — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Info processing/decision-Decision making/judgment-Pilot
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2021_ERA21LA316.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 (runway excursion, go-around). All research papers
- SKYbrary (Eurocontrol) 2024 · SKYbrary article Runway Excursion — SKYbrary Knowledge Base
SKYbrary runway excursion review — RE-OE (overruns) + RE-LO (lateral). Risk drivers: long landing, high approach speed, contaminated surface, tailwind, mis-set autobrakes.
- NASA NTRS 2025 · Conference Paper A Training Study to Improve Monitoring During A Go-Around
As part of an FAA program to improve go-around (GA) safety, we were asked to determine if we could improve the performance of the Pilot Monitoring (PM) during a GA maneuver.
- Flight Safety Foundation 2024 · FSF / AeroSafety World Go-Around Safety Forum Findings
Foundation Go-Around Safety Forum technical findings — examines why pilots fail to execute go-arounds when criteria are met (stabilized approach gate not met, energy state out of envelope, traffic con…
- Semantic Scholar 2022 · Article (Journal of Safety Research) Go-around accidents and general aviation safety.
INTRODUCTION Changes in General Aviation (GA) accident rates, specifically in the go-around phase, are examined by comparing the number of accidents, the proportion of fatal accidents, and the proport…
- Semantic Scholar 2021 · Article (Aerospace) Classification and Analysis of Go-Arounds in Commercial Aviation Using ADS-B Data
Go-arounds are a necessary aspect of commercial aviation and are conducted after a landing attempt has been aborted. It is necessary to conduct go-arounds in the safest possible manner, as go-arounds …
- NASA NTRS 2021 · Accepted Manuscript (Version with final changes) Go-Around Criteria Refinement for Transport Category Aircraft
Presently, airline pilots are trained to go around if, when lower than 500 ft above the ground, they are outside of a handful of parameters such as airspeed, position, and rate of descent.