Mooney Aircraft CORP. M20K accident near Augusta, Georgia, July 18, 2011
On July 18, 2011 at about 4:25 pm local time, a Mooney Aircraft CORP. M20K, registered N777CV, was substantially damaged in an accident during initial climb near Augusta, Georgia (Augusta Regional Airport). It was a flight test under general aviation rules (Part 91). 1 person was killed. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The pilot’s decision to fly the airplane after maintenance personnel advised him that the airplane should not be flown because the pilot provided an incorrect propeller for installation and the subsequent failure of the propeller attachment bolts and the separation of the propeller.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- July 18, 2011 · about 4:25 pm local time
- Place
- Augusta, Georgia · Augusta Regional Airport · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- 1 person was killed.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Mooney Aircraft CORP. M20K
- Registration
- N777CV · registry record · serial 25-0149
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Flight test · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
Maintenance personnel reported that, 2 days before the accident, they were hired by the pilot to prepare the airplane for a maintenance ferry flight following a gear-up landing. While inspecting the airplane, the mechanic noted that the three-blade propeller was bent, so he removed it. Subsequently, the pilot provided maintenance personnel with a two-blade propeller, which they installed. However, when the mechanic attempted to replace the spinner, it would not fit properly. Therefore, he did not sign off the logbooks and advised the pilot that the airplane should not be flown. Review of the airplane's records revealed that the airplane had a supplemental type certificate for an engine conversion kit that required a three-blade propeller. On the day of the accident, another mechanic conducted a run-up of the engine and noted that the propeller was not working correctly. The supplier of the two-blade propeller advised the mechanic that the airplane should not be flown in that condition. The mechanic discussed the anomaly with the pilot and advised him not to fly the airplane until the issue was resolved. The pilot acknowledged the discrepancy but chose to fly the airplane. Shortly after takeoff, witnesses observed the propeller separate from the airplane. Subsequently, the airplane spiraled to the ground in a nose-down attitude. Examinations revealed that the propeller attachment bolts had failed, which resulted in the separation of the propeller from the airplane. Five of the six propeller mounting studs exhibited evidence of high-stress fatigue cracking, which indicates that a severe spectrum of cyclic loading in the propeller/engine system occurred, likely as the result of using an unapproved propeller on the airplane.
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
- Aircraft maintenance event during prior to flight
- Part(s) separation from AC during initial climb defining event
- Loss of control in flight during initial climb
- Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during uncontrolled descent
The NTSB's findings
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft propeller/rotor › Propeller system › (general) › Incorrect service/maintenance
- cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Maintenance › Installation › Pilot
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › (general) › Not attained/maintained
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft propeller/rotor › Propeller system › (general) › Failure
- cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Pilot
Pilot
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; single-engine sea; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 8,000 hours in all; 4,000 in this make and model
- Last flight review: April 3, 2009
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: fatal
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 2,723 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, May 1, 2010
- Maximum gross weight: 3,374 lb
- Seats: 3
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine: Cont Motor TSIO-360 SER (piston); 0 hours total
- Fire on the ground
The flight
- Departed from: AGS Augusta GA at 4:20 pm
- Destination: AGS Augusta GA
- Flight plan: none
- Runway 17, 8,001 ft by 150 ft
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: clear
- Temperature: 90°F (32°C), dew point 63°F (17°C)
- Altimeter: 30.10 inHg
- Observation at 4:53 pm from AGS
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 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 N777CV 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.