WPR11LA434
2011-09-05 · Saratoga, Wyoming, United States · Serious · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport SAA
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
A loss of engine power during an attempted go-around for reasons that could not be determined because postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
Factual narrative
On September 5, 2011, about 1420 mountain daylight time, a Cessna T210M, N761NZ, sustained substantial damage when it impacted terrain following a loss of engine power during an aborted landing at the Shively Field Airport (SAA), Saratoga, Wyoming. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The private pilot and his three passengers sustained serious injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for the personal flight. The cross-country flight originated from Wichita, Kansas, approximately 1145 central daylight time, with an intended destination of SAA. The pilot reported that as he approached runway 23, the wind began to blow the airplane left of the runway centerline. The pilot said that he decided to abort the landing and initiate a go-around due to the wind. As the airplane approached the departure end of the runway, the engine suffered a complete loss of power. The pilot initiated a forced landing straight ahead of his position to an open area on the airport property. During the landing roll, the airplane struck an airport parameter fence and impacted a road embankment. Subsequently, the airplane nosed over. Examination of the airplane by local law enforcement revealed that the airplane came to rest inverted about 800 feet beyond runway 23. The left wing and fuselage exhibited structural damage. The wreckage was recovered to a secure location for further examination. Recovery personnel reported that during recovery of the wreckage, in excess of 10 gallons of fuel was removed from each wing fuel tank.
TESTS AND RESEARCH
Examination of the recovered airframe revealed that the empennage and both wings were removed by the wreckage recovery personnel to facilitate transport and storage. Flight control cable continuity was established from the cockpit controls throughout to all primary flight control surfaces. All separations noted within the flight control cables were either cut or disconnected by wreckage recovery personnel. The flap actuator and flap position was found at a 30-degree flap setting, or fully extended. The flap handle and flap indicator were observed at the 10-degree position. The cockpit trim actuator was measured and found to be in a position consistent with the elevator trim in the tab up, 15 degree position. The elevator trim indicator was destroyed by impact damage. The airframe fuel strainer was removed and found to be free of debris. A small amount of liquid, consistent with 100 low lead fuel was observed. The liquid was tested using water finding paste with negative results. Continuity was established throughout the airframe fuel system. Impact damage was noted to various portions of the fuel line between the fuel selector valve and gascolator. Both the left and right wing fuel vents were free of obstructions. Examination of the recovered fuel injected engine, a Continental Motors TSIO-520-R, serial number 512558, revealed that it remained partially attached to the airframe via its mounts. The top spark plugs, fuel pump, and rocker box covers were removed. All cylinders were inspected using a lighted borescope. The internal combustion chambers, intake and exhaust valve faces, and piston heads were unremarkable. The engine crankshaft was rotated by hand using the propeller. Rotational continuity was established throughout the engine and valve train. Thumb compression was obtained on six cylinders and both magnetos produced spark on all ignition leads. No evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunction was noted during the examination of the recovered airframe and engine. The pilot reported that following an aborted approach and subsequent attempted go-around, the engine lost power as the airplane approached the departure end of the runway. The pilot initiated a forced landing to an open area, and during the landing roll, the airplane struck a fence and embankment. A postaccident examination of the airframe and fuel injected engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.
- C Not determined-Not determined-(general)-(general)-Unknown/Not determined - C
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2011_WPR11LA434.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). 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…