Piper PA 32RT-300T accident near Lubbock, Texas, February 20, 2015
On February 20, 2015 at about 4:17 pm local time, a 1978 Piper PA 32RT-300T, registered N22267, was substantially damaged in an accident during takeoff (rejected takeoff) near Lubbock, Texas (Lubbock Executive Airpark airport). It was a business flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The pilot's delayed decision to abort the takeoff after the airplane did not lift off as expected due to an inaccurate airspeed indication and tailwind condition, which resulted in a subsequent runway overrun.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- February 20, 2015 · about 4:17 pm local time
- Place
- Lubbock, Texas · Lubbock Executive Airpark · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Piper PA 32RT-300T 300T, built 1978 · all PA 32RT-300Ts on the register
- Registration
- N22267 · no longer on the register · serial 32R-7887252
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Business flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The private pilot was conducting a short-field takeoff from the private, 3,500-ft-long paved runway. He reported that, upon reaching 80 knots indicated airspeed, he applied aft control yoke pressure to rotate; however, the airplane did not respond to his control input. The pilot attempted to rotate a second time using both hands on the yoke, but the airplane still did not rotate, and he aborted the takeoff as the airplane crossed the runway midpoint. The pilot was unable to stop the airplane before it overran the end of the runway into a plowed field, where the landing gear collapsed. Postaccident examination did not identify any flight control system anomalies that would have precluded normal airplane operation; however, testing of the airplane's airspeed indicator revealed that it consistently read 5 knots higher than the calibrated test equipment. Consequently, the pilot likely attempted to rotate at an actual airspeed that was 5 knots lower than intended. The pilot and his passenger both reported that, shortly before takeoff, they heard someone broadcast on the airport frequency that the local surface wind was from the west-southwest at 4 knots with 14 knots gusts; however, a postaccident review of available weather data indicated the prevailing surface wind was likely from the west-northwest between 9 to 15 knots with gusts as high as 23 knots. Wind from this direction would have resulted in tailwind component of 4-8 knots, which would have increased the airplane's takeoff distance and the ground speed required to achieve liftoff. It is likely that the combination of the inaccurate airspeed indication and the tailwind component during takeoff resulted in the airplane's inability to achieve a normal takeoff rotation at the expected point on the runway.
The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.
The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
What happened, in order
- Flight instrument malf/fail during prior to flight
- Other weather encounter during takeoff
- Runway excursion during takeoff (rejected takeoff) defining event
- Landing gear collapse during takeoff (rejected takeoff)
The NTSB's findings
- cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Delayed action › Pilot
- cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Pilot
- factor Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Indicating/recording systems › Instrument panel › Incorrect use/operation
- factor Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Wind › Tailwind › Contributed to outcome
- factor Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Wind › Tailwind › Effect on operation
Pilot
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 722 hours in all; 37.5 in this make and model; 58 in the last 90 days; 19 in the last 30 days; 672 as pilot in command; 0 on instruments
- Last flight review: November 17, 2013
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 5,044.8 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, September 1, 2014; 36 hours since
- Maximum gross weight: 3,600 lb
- Seats: 6
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine: Lycoming TIO-540-S1AD (piston); 0 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: F82 Lubbock TX at 4:17 pm
- Destination: FWS Fort Worth TX
- Flight plan: IFR
- Runway 17, 3,500 ft by 70 ft
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 290° at 9 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: broken clouds at 26,000 ft
- Temperature: 55°F (13°C), dew point 28°F (-2°C)
- Altimeter: 29.79 inHg
- Observation at 3:53 pm from LBB, 11 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 | |||
| Passengers | 1 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.
Other NTSB records under N22267 the same tail number, which may have belonged to a different aircraft at the time
Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.