Mooney M20J accident near Pittstown, New Jersey, September 25, 2016

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

The private pilot rented the airplane for a personal flight, flew to another airport, and picked up the passenger. The pilot and the passenger then flew to the airport where the accident occurred. During the first landing attempt, the airplane appeared to be traveling too fast on the final approach. During the touchdown, the airplane bounced, and the pilot aborted the landing, climbed out, and joined the traffic pattern. During the second landing attempt, the airplane was again fast on the approach, and it touched down about halfway down the runway on the nose wheel, then touched down on the main landing gear, bounced, and became airborne. The airplane bounced twice more, then touched down about 400 to 500 ft before the end of the runway and stayed on the runway surface. As the airplane approached the end of the pavement, witnesses heard the engine power increase as the pilot aborted the landing, and the airplane began to climb. According to some witnesses, the engine was not producing full power. As it approached a row of trees off the end of the runway, the airplane appeared to climb steeply, cleared the row of trees, and then abruptly banked steeply to the left, pitched nose down, and descended in a steep, nose-down attitude to ground impact. Postaccident examination of the runway revealed propeller strike marks and a nosewheel tire mark about 1,747 ft from the threshold of the 2,900-ft-long runway, indicating that the pilot touched down past midfield in an improper nose-low attitude. Examination of the propeller revealed chordwise transfer marks and tip curling and polishing indicative of a propeller strike, which would have degraded the efficiency of the propeller and resulted in a loss of thrust during climb. The loss of control observed by the witnesses was consistent with the pilot attempting to climb even with the loss of thrust due to the damaged propeller, and exceeding the airplane's critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall. Security camera video recordings and wind information from a nearby airport indicated that a slight tailwind existed for landing on the chosen runway, which would have slightly increased the airplane's ground speed and ground roll during the landing. However, according to the airplane's pilot operating handbook, the landing ground roll under worse case conditions (maximum gross weight and an outside air temperature of 40°C) would have been about 956 to 1,118 ft; therefore, the runway length was adequate for a safe landing if the proper touchdown point had been achieved. Although the pilot had 36 hours of flight experience in the accident airplane make and model, his most recent flight in this make and model was 10 months before the accident. Further, his most recent flight before the accident flight was in an airplane of lesser performance equipped with fixed landing gear and a fixed pitch propeller, and was about 8 months before the accident.  According to his logbook, he did not meet the Federal Aviation Administration recent experience requirements to act as a pilot in command of an airplane carrying passengers.

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.