WPR24FA215 · Cessna 182

After reviewing a standard operating procedures (SOP) guide for the airport, which strongly recommended an airport checkout, the pilot and the pilot-rated passenger entered the traffic pattern to land at the back country turf landing strip in the slightly over-gross-weight airplane with a slight tailwind. While on the downwind leg, the pilot used a higher-than-recommended traffic pattern altitude and turned to the base leg earlier than published recommendations. The pilot then maneuvered to make the runway while the concerned pilot-rated passenger asked him if he was going to go around. The pilot continued the approach and, after flying over most of the runway, initiated a go-around at an altitude below the recommended abort altitude specified in the SOP; at the lowest point of its approach, the airplane was about 10 to 30 ft above ground level (agl). According to the SOP, “Abort altitudes may vary for every type of aircraft and situation. 200-300 ft AFE [agl] is a good altitude for most aircraft.” During the go-around, the pilot applied power and maneuvered to avoid obstacles; however, the airplane impacted trees and terrain about 1,500 ft southeast of the departure end of the runway. During the go-around, the pilot varied the flap position in a method not detailed in the owner’s manual; benefits of this technique could not be determined by the available data. Engine data monitor (EDM) data indicated that during the go-around, the engine’s speed did not increase to the maximum rpm, despite the maximum manifold pressure being used, which suggests the adjustable propeller may have remained set at a higher-than-desired pitch angle. The impact with the trees substantially damaged the wings, empennage, and fuselage. Examination revealed no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. Postmortem toxicology testing of the pilot detected medications that can cause sedation and psychomotor impairment; however, whether the pilot was impaired at the time of the accident could not be determined from toxicological evidence alone. The pilot-rated passenger reported that the pilot’s skills and decision making seemed fully intact.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset