Cirrus Design CORP SR22 accident near Gulf Shores, Alabama, June 15, 2022
On June 15, 2022 at about 9:20 pm local time, a 2004 Cirrus Design CORP SR22, registered N432CD, was substantially damaged in an accident during taxi (from runway) near Gulf Shores, Alabama (Gulf Shores International Airp airport). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The improper maintenance of the brake system, which resulted in the brakes overheating and catching fire and subsequent substantial damage to the airplane.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- June 15, 2022 · about 9:20 pm local time
- Place
- Gulf Shores, Alabama · Gulf Shores International Airp · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Cirrus Design CORP SR22, built 2004
- Registration
- N432CD · registry record · serial 0941
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The pilot reported that, about two months before the accident, the airplane’s brakes felt soft after landing. Maintenance personnel bled the brake system and returned the airplane to service. After picking up the airplane from maintenance, the pilot felt that the brakes were “dragging” during taxi; while subsequently bringing the airplane to a stop to contact the maintenance facility, the rudder/brake pedals “went to the floor.” The same maintenance facility replaced the piston O-rings and brake pads on both brake calipers. The pilot flew the airplane for about two months without issue until he returned the airplane to the maintenance facility for its annual inspection. During the annual inspection, which was completed the day before the accident, the maintenance facility replaced the brake pads on both calipers and bled the brake system. On the day of the accident (the first flight following the annual inspection), the pilot performed a preflight inspection and taxied the airplane to the runway. He initiated the takeoff and then realized that the airplane was not accelerating. He aborted the takeoff, exited the runway, and brought the airplane to a stop. When the pilot attempted to taxi back to the maintenance facility, he lost all braking effectiveness. The pilot shut down the engine and the airplane rolled to a stop. After seeing smoke coming from under the airplane, the pilot and his passenger egressed. The pilot was able to extinguish the right main landing gear fire with the onboard fire extinguisher, but was unable to put out the fire on the left main landing gear, and the airplane sustained substantial damage to the left side of the fuselage and the left wing. The airplane utilized a free-castering nosewheel that relied on aerodynamic forces and differential braking for directional control while taxiing. The airplane manufacturer advised that proper braking practices were critical to avoid potential damage to the brakes and that the most common cause of brake damage and/or failure was the creation of excessive heat through improper braking practices; however, review of recorded data did not indicate that the pilot used engine power settings during taxi that would have required excessive braking to slow or steer the airplane. Additionally, the airport was mostly flat and there was no appreciable downslope or upslope gradient that would have caused him to excessively use the brakes. The airplane was equipped with organic brake linings at the time of manufacture. The manufacturer had issued a service bulletin that allowed for an upgrade to metallic brake linings, which also required upgrade of the wheel and brake assemblies. Review of maintenance logs revealed no evidence that the accident airplane had been modified in accordance with this service bulletin, and examination of the brakes and wheel assemblies revealed a mixture of parts from both organic lining brake assemblies and metallic lining brake assemblies. There are major differences between how organic and metallic brake assemblies are designed, and the components of each system are not interchangeable. Examination of the accident airplane revealed that the installed brake linings were metallic, but the brake pistons were not equipped with the piston insulators used with metallic linings. The right brake housing shim was not made from the original equipment manufacturer’s insulative (phenolic) material and therefore did not provide the thermal insulation that the phenolic shim provided. Additionally, the installed brake discs did not meet thickness specifications for use with metallic linings. Based on the available information, maintenance personnel’s improper use of metallic linings in the brake assemblies without piston insulators, with improper brake housing insulative shim material, and with undersized brake discs, greatly increased the probability of overheating and likely resulted in the brake fire.
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
- Miscellaneous/other during takeoff (rejected takeoff)
- Sys/Comp malf/fail (non-power) during taxi (from runway) defining event
- Fire/smoke (non-impact) during standing
The NTSB's findings
- Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Landing gear system › Landing gear brakes system › Incorrect service/maintenance
- Personnel issues › Task performance › Maintenance › Scheduled/routine maintenance › Maintenance personnel
Pilot
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 168 hours in all; 145 in this make and model; 47 in the last 90 days; 9 in the last 30 days; 95 as pilot in command
- Last flight review: December 22, 2021
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (without waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
Passenger
- Seat: rgt
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 2,399 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, June 14, 2022
- Maximum gross weight: 3,400 lb
- Seats: 4
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Cont Motor IO-550-N (piston); 2,390 hours total
- Fire on the ground
The flight
- Departed from: JKA Gulf Shores AL at 9:20 pm
- Destination: DTS Destin FL
- Flight plan: VFR
- Runway 27, 6,962 ft by 100 ft
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: at 6 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: clear
- Temperature: 88°F (31°C), dew point 79°F (26°C)
- Altimeter: 30.03 inHg
- Observation at 3:57 pm from JKA
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 | |||
| Passengers | 1 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
21 documents, released by the NTSB on August 21, 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.
