The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB CEN22LA389 · Final report

Air Tractor AT502 accident near Appleton, Minnesota, August 10, 2022

On August 10, 2022 at about 2:30 pm local time, a 1988 Air Tractor AT502, registered N73194, was substantially damaged in an accident during takeoff near Appleton, Minnesota (Appleton Municipal Airport). It was an aerial application (crop spraying) flight under agricultural flying rules (Part 137). No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The pilot’s failure to maintain directional control during the takeoff roll with a quartering tailwind.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
August 10, 2022 · about 2:30 pm local time
Place
Appleton, Minnesota · Appleton Municipal Airport · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Air Tractor AT502, built 1988
Registration
N73194 · registry record · serial 502-0014
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Aerial application (crop spraying) flight · agricultural flying rules (Part 137)

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

The pilot stated that he listened to the airport’s automated weather station broadcast before taxi and, at that time, the surface wind was from 080° at 8 knots. However, while he taxied to runway 13 the airport’s windsock direction was consistent with a surface wind from the north-to-northeast. Before takeoff, he relistened to the airport’s automated weather station broadcast, which still reported the surface wind was from 080° at 8 knots. Believing the automated weather station report was accurate, the pilot continued with a takeoff on runway 13. The pilot stated the takeoff was conducted with 10° of flaps extended but recalled that the takeoff roll was longer than normal. He kept the control stick full aft and to the left (into the wind) during the initial takeoff roll. After the airplane accelerated to 60 mph, he pushed the control stick forward to raise the tail, but the airplane suddenly veered left and off the left side of the runway into a drainage ditch. The pilot was unable to regain directional control with a full right rudder input. During the runway excursion, the right main landing gear separated which resulted in substantial damage to both wings when they impacted the ground. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with the airplane that would have prevented normal operation. The pilot believes a left quartering tailwind may have contributed to his loss of directional control during takeoff. He also opined that the surface wind direction reported by the airport’s automated weather station was incorrect, which led him to believe using runway 13 was appropriate for the reported wind direction. A review of the airport’s automated weather station data revealed the reported surface wind direction was 080°-090° in the minutes before and after the accident. A postaccident weather model for the airport included an east-northeast surface wind (061°) at 4.5 knots. Based on the pilot’s windsock observation, the unintentional left veer during the takeoff roll was likely due to the pilot not maintaining directional control with a left quartering tailwind.

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

  1. Other weather encounter during takeoff
  2. Loss of control on ground during takeoff defining event
  3. Attempted remediation/recovery during takeoff
  4. Runway excursion during takeoff

The NTSB's findings

  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Pilot
  • Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Directional control › Not attained/maintained
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Wind › Tailwind › Effect on operation

Pilot

  • Certificate: airline transport pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 11,182 hours in all; 2,550 in this make and model; 11,182 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: March 26, 2021
  • Medical certificate: Class 2 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: sngl
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 12,354.8 hours
  • Last inspection: 100-hour inspection, August 7, 2022; 15.6 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 8,000 lb
  • Seats: 1
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-15AG (turboprop); 10,714 hours total
  • Operator: Schwenk Aircraft Inc.

The flight

  • Departed from: AQP Appleton MN at 2:30 pm
  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway 13, 3,500 ft by 75 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 080° at 8 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: scat at 6,000 ft
  • Temperature: 73°F (23°C), dew point 63°F (17°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.20 inHg
  • Observation at 9:33 am from AQP

Weather report (METAR): KAQP 101433Z AUTO 08008KT 10SM SCT060 SCT090 23/17 A3020 RMK AO2 P0001

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report

4 documents, released by the NTSB on March 7, 2024. View them here, or download them; the NTSB redacts some personal details before release, and this site shows the NTSB's own titles rather than its file names.

The same docket at the NTSB · documents without a copy here are fetched from the NTSB when you open them.

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.