Cessna 560 accident near Pagosa Springs, Colorado, December 27, 2024

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

During the takeoff roll, the airplane accelerated through the decision speed (V1) of 96 kts and rotation speed (Vr) of 103 kts but did not rotate, although the pilot applied full aft deflection of the control yoke. At an airspeed of 120 kts, the pilot performed a rejected takeoff with maximum braking and full reverse thrust. The airplane departed the end of the runway and continued into the grass beyond the runway, pivoting to the left before coming to a stop. The crew and passengers exited the airplane and were met by airport personnel. The pilot provided conflicting statements as to whether the airplane accelerated normally during the takeoff roll or more slowly than expected. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engines revealed no evidence of any pre-accident flight control or engine anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Weather around the time of the accident included light snow. The pilot stated that she performed a standard preflight inspection of the airplane and noted only liquid on the wings. However, airport surveillance video showed accumulated snow on the wings as the pilot and copilot walked to the airplane, and snow was falling while the passengers loaded the airplane. Airport personnel brushed snow from the wings three times over a span of about 11 minutes, but contamination was still visible on the wings when the airplane began taxiing, and the ramp pavement was wet. After the airplane taxied from the ramp, the snowfall rate appeared to increase, and about 20 minutes passed from the last time snow was brushed from the wings to when the airplane started its takeoff roll. The pilot reported the airplane’s takeoff weight was about 15,700 lbs, which was also the maximum takeoff weight for the airplane. Using weights and seating positions provided by a passenger, the airplane’s takeoff weight was about 16,502 lbs, and the center of gravity was near the forward limit. Thus, the airplane’s takeoff weight was likely outside of the operating envelope. The airplane’s overweight condition and contaminated wings would have negatively affected its takeoff performance, and likely resulted in the airplane not rotating at the pilot’s calculated rotation speed. The wet runway surface also likely increased the airplane’s stopping distance during the pilot’s rejected takeoff above the decision speed. The airplane required two flight crewmembers and was not certified for single-pilot operations. The pilot, who was acting as pilot-in-command (PIC), required a second-in-command (SIC) to exercise the privileges of her certificate and was not qualified to act as a single-pilot PIC in the airplane. Additionally, the copilot did not meet the requirements to act as SIC or PIC. Thus, neither pilot possessed the proper pilot ratings and qualifications for the flight.

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.

About this page