Bombardier INC DHC-8-202 accident near Sterling, Virginia, August 29, 2009
On August 29, 2009, a Bombardier INC DHC-8-202, registered N367PH, was substantially damaged in an accident near Sterling, Virginia (Unknown airport). It was flown under scheduled airline rules (Part 121). The NTSB record does not give the injuries.
Preview. This page is not yet listed for search engines.
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
Undetermined.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 4, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- August 29, 2009
- Place
- Sterling, Virginia · Unknown · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- The NTSB record does not give the injuries.
- Weather
- not recorded
- Aircraft
- Bombardier INC DHC-8-202
- Registration
- N367PH · registry record · serial 511
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Flight · scheduled airline rules (Part 121)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
On an unknown date and at an unknown time, the airplane sustained substantial damage to the bottom of the fuselage tail section. The damage was found during a maintenance C-check inspection on August 29, 2009. The damage was found when maintenance personnel were inspecting the inside of the tail section and noticed bowing and bending in the support structure and damage to nearby rivets. The damage was consistent with tail strike damage and had resulted in a puncture of the pressure vessel of the airplane. According to the maintenance task cards for different inspections of the airplane, an exterior inspection was to be completed prior to any other work. At least three exterior inspections were completed within the weeks preceding the discovery of the damage, including the inspection in which the damage was discovered. Each inspection required examination of the damaged area. Because maintenance personnel likely missed the damage during these inspections, pilots performing preflight checks of the airplane would be just as likely to miss the damage. Due to the height of the damage personnel would likely need to bend down in order to see it.
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
- Abnormal runway contact during unknown defining event
The NTSB's findings
- cause Not determined › Not determined › (general) › (general) › Unknown/Not determined
Crew member
No details recorded.
Crew member
No details recorded.
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 23,810 hours
- Last inspection: continuous airworthiness programme, August 21, 2009
- Seats: 40
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine 1: P&W Canada PW123 (turboprop); 0 hours total
- Engine 2: P&W Canada PW123 (turboprop); 0 hours total
- Operator: Champlain Enterprises INC
The flight
- Departed from: UNK Unknown
- Destination: UNK Unknown
- Flight plan: IFR
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Temperature: 0°F (-18°C), dew point 0°F (-18°C)
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.
About this page
Everything above comes from the NTSB's public accident database: the narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words, and the coded tables behind its report (pilot, aircraft, flight, weather, injuries, sequence of events) are written out in plain English. Pilots' ages, home towns and medical details are left out on purpose. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, the folder of records gathered during the investigation, shown as the NTSB released them (the NTSB redacts some personal details first) and listed under the NTSB's own titles. This site's own text never names pilots, passengers or anyone else involved. A preliminary report describes what is known soon after the event and can change; the final report, with the probable cause, usually follows one to two years later and this page is refreshed when it does. Case number ERA09LA529.