NYC01LA042
2000-11-25 · FREMONT, Ohio, United States · Minor · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport 14G
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot's failure to obtain a proper touchdown point while landing. Factors were the pilot's improper weather evaluation, rain, a low ceiling, and a tailwind.
Factual narrative
On November 25, 2000, at 1406 Eastern Standard Time, a Piper PA-28-161, N1305H, was substantially damaged while landing at Fremont Airport (14G), Fremont, Ohio. The certificated private pilot and two passengers were not injured, and a third passenger received minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight that departed Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport (YNG), Youngstown, Ohio. No flight plan was filed for the personal flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91. The non-instrument rated pilot stated that he departed YNG about 1245, and intended to fly from YNG to La Crosse, Wisconsin. He added that before departing YNG, he obtained a weather briefing from the Cleveland Automated Flight Service Station (FSS). The pilot further stated that the weather along the route of flight was forecasted as marginal visual flight rules (VFR). After departing YNG, the pilot was able to maintain VFR by flying below a 4,000-foot ceiling. He added that light rain and mist decreased visibility. After passing Toledo, Ohio, the pilot encountered deteriorating weather, and instrument meteorological conditions (IMC. The pilot then made a 180-degree turn, and flew east. The pilot stated that Fremont Airport was still visual meteorological conditions (VMC), so he flew a downwind, base, and final leg for Runway 27. Runway 27 was 4,137 feet long, and 60 feet wide. During landing, the airplane floated and touched down with approximately 2,000 feet of runway remaining. The pilot applied brakes, but the airplane traveled off the end of the runway, into a ditch. The pilot stated that in retrospect, he should have performed a go-around. However, he did not want to go-around in the deteriorating weather conditions. Examination of the wreckage by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector did not reveal any pre-impact mechanical malfunctions, nor did the pilot report any. The inspector observed substantial damage to both wings, the propeller, and the landing gear. Review of a tape recording from the Cleveland FSS revealed that the pilot did not request a full briefing. He telephoned the FSS about 1210, and advised he had stopped for fuel. He stated that he was viewing a computer at YNG, and observed precipitation along his planned route flight. The pilot told the FSS specialist that he planned to fly over the cloud layers en route, and his destination was VFR. The pilot then inquired as to the height of the cloud layers. The FSS specialist advised the pilot that area forecasts were for cloud layers extending to 24,000 feet and 25,000 feet over Ohio and Indiana-Illinois respectively. He also provided pilot reports, current weather conditions, and current areas of precipitation. The specialist included that Toledo, Ohio was 2100 overcast, and a special report was issued because visibility had reduced to 1 1/4 miles with light rain. He added that the precipitation would move into the pilot's route of flight within an hour. The pilot stated that he was going to attempt the flight. The specialist then advised the pilot of airmen meteorological information (AIRMETs) for instrument flight rules conditions in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. At 1416, the reported weather at TOL was: wind from 100 degrees at 11 knots; visibility 1 3/4 statute mile; light rain and mist; ceiling 500 feet broken, 3,300 feet overcast; temperature 39 degrees Fahrenheit, dewpoint 37 degrees; altimeter 29.92 inches Hg. The non-instrument rated pilot stated that he obtained a weather briefing from flight service prior to departure, and the forecast was for marginal VFR conditions. About 1 hour into the flight, the pilot experienced deteriorating weather conditions, including lowering visibility and rain. He made a 180-degree turn and diverted to an airport. The pilot landed long on Runway 27, but did not want to go-around in the deteriorating weather conditions. The airplane traveled off the end of the runway, into a ditch. Review of the pilot's weather briefing revealed that he was advised of cloud layers up to 25,000 feet along his planned route of flight, and AIRMETs for IFR conditions. About the time of the accident, the reported weather at an airport approximately 25 miles away was: wind from 100 degrees at 11 knots; visibility 1 3/4 statute mile; light rain and mist; ceiling 500 feet broken, 3,300 feet overcast; temperature 39 degrees Fahrenheit, dewpoint 37 degrees; altimeter 29.92 inches Hg. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2000_NYC01LA042.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 (go-around, imc). All research papers
- 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.
- NASA NTRS 2019 · Conference Paper Validation of Proposed Go-Around Criteria Under Various Environmental Conditions
This paper evaluates the effects of environmental conditions on touchdown performance under varying approach states and validates proposed go-around criteria developed using data from a previously con…