N54PV Cessna Mustang off runway @ Carlsbad, California . . .

FlightAware Flight Tracker N54PV Cessna Mustang 510-0028 owned by California Natural Products, ran off the side of the runway at McClellan-Palomar Airport on Saturday morning.
The four persons onboard were reported as uninjured.

Great Cessna Forum for Owner/Operator/Maintenance answers/questions.
Cessna Citation Forum

The local NBC website is calling this a “small Cessna plane.” Doesn’t say jet, piston, anything lol… Hazmat was called out due to small fuel leak.

Ths is the latest from the local CBS guys… cbs8.com/stories/story.125354.html#

The above news link has reported the main landing gear
collasped after touch down. hmmm . . .

I notice they had to add this incorrect statement, ‘The plane is of the same class of business jets that Santa Monica officials want to ban at that city’s airport, which does not have an overrun barrier system and is surrounded by houses and apartments.’

I saw another pic of the plane taken at a slightly different angle. Looks like it could have been a potential overshoot, as it is resting at the west end of the airport, south of centerline, close to the ILS antenna. The site is just off of the A5 intersection.
KCRQ’s runway has a nice little wave in it that will get you in trouble if you’re not paying attention. It’s happened more than once. I still remember watching a Wings West Jetstream lock ‘em up after touching down midfield, as well as a Lear 24 (no reversers) running about 50’ off the end. Might not sound like much, until you see that there was no paved overrun at that time. Another 50’ and he would have been toast.


How much flight experience, I wonder, did the pilot have? These new light jets seem very safe and capable. But in the hands of pilots lacking strict operational parameters or adequate training, we’ll see much more of this and worse!

The insurance company is usually the one who sets the requirements for this. I know for someone transitioning to a turboprop like a TBM or Pilatus, they require a full training program and then a mentor pilot for X hours (where x varies based on the prior experience of the pilot). Pure speculation on my part, unimpaired by any factual knowledge of this situation, but wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it was a new owner-pilot used to flying smaller planes who learned the hard way that you have to fly, and land, with much more precision in a heavier, faster plane.

Additional Photos from 10News.com .

Aircraft is located at the very end of runway 24, just off to the left of the end of the runway. Looks like the spin prevented the aircraft from going down the hill.

Maybe a partial gear collaspe due to heavy breaking and a spin, as I can see the main gear? I can only imagine the breaking as your quickly running out of runway!!! This is the same runway Citation 560 N86CE had the overrun on in 2006 with the loss of all 4 on board.

ASN Crash report for N86CE PROBABLE CAUSE: “The captain’s delayed decision to execute a balked landing (go-around) during the landing roll. Factors contributing to the accident include the captain’s improper decision to land with a tailwind, his excessive airspeed on final approach, and his failure to attain a proper touchdown point during landing.”

FAA Prelim:

** Report created 4/21/2008 Record 5 **

Regis#: 54PV Make/Model: C500 Description: 500 CITATION, CITATION 1
Date: 04/19/2008 Time: 1012

Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown

City: CARLSBAD State: CA Country: US


INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

Activity: Unknown Phase: Landing Operation: OTHER

FAA FSDO: SAN DIEGO, CA (WP09) Entry date: 04/21/2008

Looks like someone made a typo on aircraft type…

As a Mustang pilot there is not a single flight I go on that a controller or tower doesn’t ask - “What is a C510”. Its still such a rare aircraft that most mistake the C510 as a typo for the C500.

Horrible thing with the overrun.

Even worse, I’ve seen a typo where C150 is substituted for C510… Slightly different aircraft there.

We got put in as a B20 instead of C550 the other day. I wondered why the controller kept calling us King-air. That’s a BIG typo…

Probably confused him when we were +50kts on the Airbus in front of us!

So sad to see a fine machine in the hand of a careless operator. This is the typical case of a non stabilized approach. I could see the last three hits on the track log and at 400 feet 165 kts. the ref speeds of this plane are from the mid eighties to mid nineties. When I would land the Mustang I could be off taxiway B on runway 26 at CMA with ease. My guess is that over the numbers he was at least 135kts. I would like to meet his mentor and have a beer and find out what he thinks of this guy. Stabilize it and keep our rates on insurance from going out of sight.

Also of note, KCRQ’s runway is ~4900’, Which I think is the shortest runway this plane has seen, going over its history. That length should be a cakewalk in a Mustang. But throw in 135 kts over the numbers, a shorter runway that pilot has likely never operated on, and the tricky wave in the runway that I mentioned before, yep you’re gonna have an overshoot. You might get away with that stuff at KSCK, which appears to be the plane’s home (10,650’)… But you need to be pegged at your vref here. A lot of jet drivers have been surprised their first time into KCRQ.

I don’t even have a clue how the wheels could touch the runway with 135kts ref speed. The plane would have so much lift - especially with the flaps out - that it would never land. You would have to force the plane on the runway. Even in a no flap landing in the Mustang the ref speed at max gross is about 118kts. It just doesn’t make sense. The Mustang also is fine coming in to sub 4000 foot runways let alone sub-5000. The mechanical the pilot referenced with the auto-pilot being kicked off is nothing to panic over. Its a known bug with the g1000 and the AFCS circuit breaker gets reset and the problem is resolved. I am glad everyone is okay.

I was flying over LA last night during a quiet ATC time and heard this exchange:

A Colombia 400 checked in with LA Center: "Cessna, formerly Colombia, 400, 5000 climbing 8000.

The controller replied: say type aircraft.

Pilot: We’re a Cessna 400, it used to be called a Columbia 400 until Cessna bought the company.

Another pilot on the frequency: “it’s the plane formerly known as Prince”

Yet another pilot: Sounds like a plane with an identity crisis to me.

Back on topic, here’s the NTSB Preliminary. A part of it reads:

The airplane crossed the runway threshold configured with the wing flaps fully extended [30 degrees] and flying about 15 knots faster than his predetermined landing speed; the pilot had previously calculated a Vref speed of 87 knots. From looking at the airspeed indicator, he noted that the airplane was fast for landing but thought the runway would be long enough to accommodate the likely delayed touchdown. As the airplane progressed down the runway he approached the small uphill slope that was located around the middle. The airplane approached the apex of the sloping runway and the pilot began to clearly distinguish where the runway surface ended, which was sooner than he had anticipated.

The touchdown occurred far down the runway surface, past the middle location. The pilot realized that despite his braking attempts and extension of speed brakes, the airplane was going to continue off the runway surface over a small downsloping cliff at the end. He determined that he would not be able to abort the landing due to the airplane’s diminished groundspeed and elected to perform a 180-degree course reversal by rapidly turning the control yoke. The airplane ground looped, coming to rest in a dirt area south of the runway; the main landing gear collapsed and the flaps folded under the wings.

They have the upslope part correct, but they fail to mention that the runway actually slopes DOWN a little, before going up. Lots of float & slams happen there.
Also mentioned in the report was that the plane had electrical issues and had to be hand flown to the airport when the autopilot failed. That started during the initial descent around FL280 or so.

Aero-News NTSB Info, and flight background.

Owner of the company that owned the aircraft, was also PIC. He described multiple electrical failures, disengagement of autopilot and what he described as heavy control forces on the control yoke that he had to exert to fly the aircraft. Flickering PFD’s, electric pitch trim failure . . .

There is a known bug in the G1000 software.

I have seen it in a G58 Baron I used to fly and the Mustang I fly now. At completely odd times, maybe in climb, maybe on descent or in cruise, there will be a red PITCH/TRIM warning that can follow an AFCS failures. This is not an actual run-away trim, but the system thinks it is and kicks off the auto-pilot and disables the electronic trim. In the Baron there was not a means to correct and you would just hand fly the plane until you got on the ground and were able to cycle the avionics. At that point the problem would be solved. The Mustang has an AFCS circuit breaker. When that circuit breaker is cycled in flight the problem is corrected and usually the rest of the trip will proceed uneventfully. I don’t know if they teach this at Flight Safety as I got my types in the plane, but I would hope it would be part ofthe curriculum. Even if the pilot did not know to cycle the AFCS to solve the problem, the only systems that would have been lost is the auto-pilot and the electric trim. He still would have had manually trim wheel and he could hand fly the plane just fine. My guess about why he said he had to exert himself on the controls is that the plane was not trimmed because he lost his electric trim and as he desended and changed the configuration of the plane with flaps, gear, etc he did not correct the trim with the manual wheel. All that has been described is very explainable if you know the aircraft. Happy that no one got hurt.

Air Safety week adding perspective to this accident;

Click Here

WOW :open_mouth:

Poor guy lost the copilots display and autopilot.
Resulting in fatigue from **Hand Flying (OMG!) *** the airplane.
Beings so fatigued as he was he couldn’t fly a proper visual approach.
:unamused: :unamused: :unamused:

This is why I feel that pilots should learn to fly in an old noisy taildragger with bad radios.*