Mooney M20J N201HK and Boeing A75N1(PT17) N53488 accident near Farmington, Delaware

Probable cause

Both pilots' failure to maintain visual separation during landing at non-towered airport. Contributing to the accident was the Mooney pilot's lack of prompt evasive action once the biplane had been spotted on the same runway.

Both pilots' failure to maintain visual separation during landing at an uncontrolled airport. Contributing to the accident was the Mooney pilot's lack of prompt evasive action once the biplane had been spotted on the same runway. In addition, the biplane pilots failure to ensure a clear runway.

NTSB analysis

According to the pilots of the Mooney and the Boeing tail-wheel biplane, they arrived at the non-towered airport and entered the traffic patterns for opposing sides of the 3,588-foot-long by 37-foot-wide runway at approximately the same time. The Mooney entered the pattern on a left downwind for runway 34. The pilot stated he made radio calls over the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency at each leg of the traffic pattern. The pilot of the biplane entered the left 45-degree entry for downwind to runway 16 because winds appeared to favor that runway. The biplane was not equipped with a two-way radio. As the pilot of the Mooney touched down on runway 34, he saw the biplane on the opposite end. The Mooney pilot stopped his airplane on the runway about 300 feet from the biplane, and observed the biplane continue to taxi towards him. When it appeared that the biplane was not going to stop, he applied power and took take evasive action to the left. The pilot of the biplane had limited forward visibility due to its nose high, tail-wheel configuration, and he was unable to "s-turn" the biplane as he taxied due to the runway's narrow width. He did not did not see the Mooney until it passed under his right wing and they collided. Neither pilot reported any mechanical problems with their respective airplanes. Federal Aviation Administration inspectors examined both airplane's after the accident noted that each had been substantially damaged during the collision. The Mooney tail assembly was partially detached from the fuselage and bent 25 degrees to the left, while the bottom right wing spar of the biplane was damaged.

According to the pilots of the Mooney and the Boeing (Biplane), they arrived at the uncontrolled field and landed on opposing sides of the runway at approximately the same time. The Mooney entered the left downwind pattern for a landing on runway 34. He stated he made radio calls over the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency at each leg of the traffic pattern. The pilot of the Biplane entered the left 45 degree entry for downwind for runway 16. He stated he was not equipped with radios, but scanned the area for traffic and did not see the any other aircraft in the pattern. The Biplane landed on runway 16 and proceeded to roll out. The Mooney landed on runway 34 and came to a stop when he saw the Biplane on the runway. According to the pilot of the Mooney, he first saw the Biplane on landing roll at the opposite side of the runway and thought he was going to stop. When it appeared that the Biplane was not going to stop, he gave it full power and attempted to take evasive action to the left. The pilot of the Biplane did not see the other airplane until it passed under his right wing and he felt the subsequent collision. Both pilots reported they did not see the other airplane in the pattern or during landing. Neither pilot reported any mechanical problems with their respective airplanes. Federal Aviation Administration Inspectors arrived on scene and confirmed substantial damage to both airplanes. The Mooney tail assembly was partially detached from the fuselage and bent 25 degrees to the left. The bottom right wing spar of the Biplane was damaged.

Text from the NTSB. Open the NTSB docket for ERA16CA057 for the full record.