Monday, February 07, 2022

Cessna T240 Corvalis, N420WT: Accident occurred January 28, 2022 near Ravendale Airport (O39), Lassen County, California

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. 

The National Transportation Safety Board did not travel to the scene of this accident.

Additional Participating Entity:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Reno, Nevada

Bernoulli Bros LLC


Location: Ravendale, California
Accident Number: WPR22LA090
Date and Time: January 28, 2022, 14:25 Local 
Registration: N420WT
Aircraft: Textron Aviation TTX Inc T240 
Injuries: 1 Minor, 2 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General aviation - Instructional

On January 28, 2022, about 1425 mountain standard time, a Textron Aviation T240 airplane, N420WT, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Ravendale, California. The two pilots and one passenger onboard were not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight.

The pilot reported that they had flown earlier in the day and the flights were uneventful with no anomalous engine readings or other flight characteristics. During the accident flight they did a go-around during the approach at Ravendale Airport (O39), Ravendale, California, followed by an uneventful landing. They taxied back for takeoff on runway 17 and had planned to do a short field takeoff. The pilot reported that both wing tanks contained about 20 gallons per side and that he departed with the right tank selected. At about 100 ft above ground level, nearing the end of the runway, they experienced a sudden loss of engine power. The pilot lowered the nose and extended the flaps for the off-airport forced landing. The airplane touched down on snow covered terrain, impacting brush as it
came to rest after about 80 ft of sliding. The pilots and passenger egressed the airplane. During the recovery process, structural damage was noted to the fuselage.

The wreckage was relocated to a secured facility for further examination.


Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information

Aircraft Make: Textron Aviation 
Registration: N420WT
Model/Series: TTX Inc. T240 
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Amateur Built:
Operator: 
Operating Certificate(s) Held: None
Operator Designator Code:

Meteorological Information and Flight Plan

Conditions at Accident Site: VMC 
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: KAAT,4378 ft msl 
Observation Time: 13:00 Local
Distance from Accident Site: 1 Nautical Miles
Temperature/Dew Point: -11.7°C
Lowest Cloud Condition: Clear 
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: 15 knots / , 31°
Lowest Ceiling: None
Visibility: 50 miles
Altimeter Setting: 3035 inches Hg 
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Departure Point: Ravendale, CA
Destination: Susanville, CA (1Q2)

Wreckage and Impact Information

Crew Injuries: 2 None 
Aircraft Damage: Unknown
Passenger Injuries: 1 Minor 
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: 
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 1 Minor, 2 None
Latitude, Longitude: 40.809411,-120.36549

9 comments:

  1. Sweet aircraft. The Cessna TTx (initially a Columbia 400) was the fastest single engine piston GA sold, fixed or retract. Unfortunately Cessna stopped making them after 2018 due to low sales. The slower Cirrus SR22 banked them all in that class mostly due to the perceived safety of CAPS which the TTx doesn't have. It was the selling point for family owners. That said, based on KR reports here, that chute has not stopped people from getting killed in them. I'll take the TTx's 20 more knots at 85% power high speed cruise over the SR22T with its safety crutch that may not even save lives anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair, BRS technology in any airframe has a minimum height AGL for deployment, making it unable to assist when an accident sequence starts while too close to the ground.

      BRS benefit is certainly not in dispute for engine outs while at altitude over terrain that is unsuitable for landing.

      Delete
    2. We hear you loud and clear. Your passengers' lives aren't worth 20 knots less cruise speed. Now if it was only 5 knots difference well who knows how that would change the calculus.

      Delete
    3. Such an ignorant comment. Good piloting skills, terrain and visibility are what's influencing calculus with engine out at low AGL, not a parachute. A Cirrus will come down in a similar way as this ttx did given same circumstances.

      Delete
    4. All of you are missing the point: if you are a long time pilot and aircraft owner, you make your buying decision on the best performance for the dollar. If you base your buying decision based on a ballistic chute then perhaps your primary passion is not really flying to begin. It's like people who buy SUVs because they are perceived as safer than a sporty BMW, Audi, or Mercedes wagon: they aren't driving enthusiasts. Hope that clarifies things up.

      Delete
    5. @Etac67 - A buying decision of best performance for the dollar involves more than speed. Decision is based on best mission performance for the dollar.

      A TTX press release article from 1997 linked below admits to TTX having a smaller cabin and asserts that the Cirrus is more capable for family travel. Family travel mission buyers can be expected to view the chute option very favorably.

      The marketplace simply confirmed that a product with broader mission capability can win more sales than one that goes the fastest.

      https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/february/pilot/ttx-prime-performer

      Delete
    6. It's always amusing to see all the Cirrus haters knocking the parachute. To imply that wanting the extra redundancy of the BRS over a few extra knots of performance means someone's not really passionate about aviation is ridiculous. Are pilots who choose to buy a slow Piper J-3 Cub also not real pilots then?

      Thanks for showing that "Macho" hazardous attitude is still alive and well.

      Delete
  2. I'd make an educated guess that people saved by a Cirrus parachute might disagree with your descriptor of "safety crutch".

    ReplyDelete
  3. That Cirrus will burn up very easily on an off field landing, have you seen photo's here, even after chute was used, the chute has saved many people from being burned alive...

    ReplyDelete

All messages must be civil in tone; if critical, must be constructive. This is a place where we learn what not to do next time. Personal attacks and hate speech directed at the NTSB investigators, FAA investigators, Designated Pilot Examiners, Kathryn, as well as other members of the aviation blog, are unacceptable because they are not constructive. Messages that harass, abuse or threaten other persons, such as threats to cause bodily harm, or that contain obscene or otherwise objectionable content, may result in the loss of your posting privileges.