NTSB CAROL · Event
Event SEA01LA002
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
Clearance from an obstruction was not maintained during the go-around. The pilot's failure to maintain directional control during the landing roll was a factor.
Factual narrative
On October 8, 2000, about 1400 Pacific daylight time, a WSK-PZL Warzawa-Okecie PZL-104 Wilga 80, N80EG, registered to and operated by the airline transport pilot as a 14 CFR Part 91 personal flight, veered off the runway at Stark's Twin Oaks Airpark, Hillsboro, Oregon, and collided with ground debris. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and no flight plan was filed for the local flight. The aircraft was substantially damaged and the pilot and his passenger received minor injuries. During a telephone interview and subsequent written statement, the pilot reported that the landing on runway 2 was normal with the main landing gear touching first, then the tail wheel. The pilot reported that the aircraft was rolling out at approximately 25-30 knots when it suddenly veered to the left. The pilot applied full right rudder control with little braking action. The aircraft continued to the left and the pilot applied full right braking action with no effect. The airplane exited the side of the runway onto the grass heading for a debris pile located about 75 feet from runway centerline. The pilot reported that he then applied full power to takeoff for the go-around. The aircraft straightened out and the pilot pulled back on the control stick. The airplane lifted off just prior to the left side elevator striking a three-foot high concrete block among the debris pile. The aircraft touched down beyond the debris pile and nosed over. Later the pilot reported that the tail wheel axle broke on touch down and caused the airplane to veer to the left. During a telephone interview with the passenger, she reported that everything seemed normal until the landing roll when the airplane suddenly veered to the left "steeply" and exited the side of the runway onto the grass. She stated that she saw the pile of debris and that the pilot added power. She stated that she thought that the airplane did lift off, but then nosed down and over. Witnesses reported that the aircraft had just landed when it suddenly veered to the left. Engine power was heard to increase as the aircraft exited the side of the runway at about mid-field. The aircraft traveled about 40 feet when the aircraft struck a pile of debris. The airplane then nosed down and subsequently nosed over, coming to rest inverted. The Federal Aviation Administration Inspector from the Hillsboro, Oregon, Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), who responded to the accident site reported that he observed a single tire tread mark that departed the left side of the runway and continued in the grass for about 80 feet. The debris pile was located about 40-feet from the runway edge. The debris pile was approximately 50 feet beyond and in line with the end of the tire mark in the grass. A cement block measuring about three feet in height was among the debris in the pile. The inspector noted red, white and blue paint chips on and around this block. About 10 to 15 feet from the cement block, the inspector found a damaged section of the horizontal stabilizer STOL fence which is painted red, white and blue. About 80 feet from the debris pile, the main wrecked came to rest inverted. The tail wheel was found about half way between the debris pile and the wreckage. The inspector reported that he inspected the main wheel assemblies. The left main wheel was undamaged and free spinning. The brake assembly appeared intact and functional. The right main wheel was damaged, but the brake assembly appeared intact. The tail wheel assembly appeared intact, however, the tail wheel attachment/pivot point was damaged. On October 31, 2000, another inspector from the FSDO inspected the main wheel brake assembly and the steerable tail wheel assembly. The inspector reported that the brake cylinder and housing was functional. The hydraulic piston did not bind on application and the housing was free to follow the action of the brake disc. During the inspection of the tail wheel, the inspector found that the tail wheel axle shaft was broken. The axle shaft was taken to Northwest Labs, Seattle, Washington, by the pilot's insurance company's insurance adjuster from Pac Northwest, Redmond, Washington. The metallurgist visually inspected the axle shaft and reported that the failure was due to overload. The pilot reported that during the landing roll, the tail wheel equipped airplane suddenly veered to the left and exited the side of the runway onto the grass. The pilot applied corrective action and opted to go-around when he observed a debris pile in his line of travel. The aircraft did not clear the debris pile and the horizontal stabilizer collided with an obstruction. The airplane nosed down and over, coming to rest inverted. During the accident sequence, the tail wheel separated from the attachment/pivot point, and the axle shaft was broken. An independent metallurgist visually inspected the axle shaft and reported that the failure was due to overload. No mechanical failures or malfunctions were found during the main landing gear inspection of the wheel brake assembly. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2000_SEA01LA002.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Beyond the agency record
Search this event elsewhere.
Pre-filled searches into the sources where news + community discussion of aviation events lives. External sources are reported, not agency. Treat them as signal that something happened, not as fact about what happened.
Entity-clustered aviation events in the press — last 24 hr + 30-day archive.
Official agency record + docket.
Investigative docket: factual reports, photos, transcripts.
Long-running aviation incident database (Flight Safety Foundation).
Community NTSB synthesis blog — often has photos and witness reports.
Gold-standard aviation incident blog.
Aviation industry news search.
GA pilot forum — informed but rumor-prone.
GA pilot subreddit search.
Tail-number page — flight history (free tier limited).
AOPA Air Safety Institute search.
Mainstream press coverage. Recent events only.
Privacy-preserving news search.
External links open in a new tab. We don't ingest their content; we deep-link search queries.
Related research
What the literature says.
Academic papers and agency reports matching this event's aircraft type or causal vocabulary (go-around). Sourced from NASA NTRS, NTSB Safety Studies, FAA CAMI, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons, arXiv, and the Semantic Scholar academic graph.
- 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…
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗