The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB LAX01LA114 · Final report

Air Tractor AT-802 A accident near Maricopa, Arizona, March 10, 2001

On March 10, 2001 at about 5:45 pm local time, a Air Tractor AT-802 A, registered N6059L, was substantially damaged in an accident near Maricopa, Arizona (Gila River West airport). It was an aerial application (crop spraying) flight under agricultural flying rules (Part 137). No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

Inadequate selection of landing facilities and improper placement of vehicles near the runway. An additional factor was the use of a runway which resulted in a downwind landing.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
March 10, 2001 · about 5:45 pm local time
Place
Maricopa, Arizona · Gila River West
Type
Accident · collision on the ground
Injuries
No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Air Tractor AT-802 A
Registration
N6059L · no longer on the register · serial 802A-013
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Aerial application (crop spraying) flight · agricultural flying rules (Part 137)

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

The orientation of the runway was 340 degrees. The weather at the nearest reporting station indicated that the winds were from 100 degrees at 6 knots. This would have resulted in a 4-knot rear quartering tailwind and a 2-knot crosswind from the right. Using the performance data listed in the airplane's pilot operating handbook, the landing distance was calculated to be 2,109 feet, without using reverse. The Gila River West runway on which the accident occurred was 2,400 feet long. Assuming that the airplane was flown at the reference speed of 73 knots, with no wind, and touched down on the threshold, there would have been only 291 feet remaining on the runway. The tailwind present at the time of the accident would have increased the landing distance required, and thereby reducing the available runway. The presence of an irrigation sump at the end of the runway would have eliminated any margin for error, and made it impossible to overrun the runway safely. The placement of a truck along the side of the runway at the departure end further limits available options in the event of a long landing or overrun. Under the conditions at the time of the accident, there would have been no allowance for error either in pilot technique, or in a real or perceived mechanical malfunction. These factors would force the pilot to make sudden, last minute maneuvers to avoid obstacles at the end of the runway. During an engine inspection, performed by factory personnel, and witnessed by an inspector from the Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Manufacturing District Office (FAA MIDO-41), the engine was operated up to 30 percent of its power range with no anomalies noted. The power was reduced to idle several times and the propeller did not feather. The propeller operated throughout the operating range, including beta, with no defects noted. It was noted that with the power lever in the full aft position, the beta plunger was slightly depressed. This may have been enough to allow the propeller to go slightly past the low pitch stop, toward reverse, when the power lever was pulled back to the idle position. It was observed that rubbing had occurred between the two controls. The FAA inspector and assisting personnel attempted to force the throttle lever to move the propeller control lever aft. The two levers did move aft together, only when the power lever was pulled inboard against the propeller control lever. However, the propeller control lever could not be made to move past the feather detent. If the throttle had been closed, the propeller would move to the low pitch (high rpm) position even with the propeller control pulled aft to the control stop.

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

Pilot

  • Certificate: flight instructor, commercial pilot
  • Ratings: single-engine land; instructor: airplane single-engine; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 22,000 hours in all; 65 in this make and model; 65 in the last 90 days; 65 in the last 30 days; 21,500 as pilot in command; 200 on instruments
  • Last flight review: April 25, 2000
  • Medical certificate: Class 2 (valid medical--w/ waivers/lim.)
  • Seat: sngl
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 2,520.2 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, May 31, 2000; 347.5 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 16,000 lb
  • Seats: 1
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: P&W PT6A-65AG (turboprop); 0 hours total
  • Operator: Sarita Aerial Contractors INC

The flight

  • Departed from: NONE Maricopa AZ at 5:30 pm
  • Destination: NONE Maricopa AZ
  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway 35, 2,400 ft by 120 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 100° at 6 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: overcast at 20,000 ft; a few clouds at 3,000 ft
  • Temperature: 64°F (18°C), dew point 50°F (10°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.04 inHg
  • Observation at 6:56 pm from KPHX, 19 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Crew1

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.

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.