The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily · Carbon Free Flight by 2050
Accidents · NTSB WPR23LA028 · Final report

Eclipse Aerospace INC EA500 accident near Mesa, Arizona, November 4, 2022

On November 4, 2022 at about 2:15 am local time, a 2015 Eclipse Aerospace INC EA500, registered N150NE, was substantially damaged in an accident during landing (landing roll) near Mesa, Arizona (Falcon Fld airport). It was a positioning 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).

Preview. This page is not yet listed for search engines.

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

Maintenance personnel’s failure to properly align the right brake wheel speed transducer, which rendered the right wheel brake ineffective during landing, and the pilot’s subsequent failure to follow the correct procedures to restore braking action during the landing roll. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s failure to attain the proper approach and landing speed, which resulted in the airplane landing excessively fast.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 4, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
November 4, 2022 · about 2:15 am local time
Place
Mesa, Arizona · Falcon Fld · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Eclipse Aerospace INC EA500, built 2015 · all EA500s on the register
Registration
N150NE · registry record · serial 550-1002
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Positioning flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

The accident was the first flight since the airplane had undergone maintenance, which was completed earlier in the day. After an uneventful flight, the pilots began configuring the airplane for landing on the runway, which had a 0.6% downslope, and according to automated weather reports from the airport a 4-knot tailwind. The pilot-in-command reported that the airplane touched down in the landing zone, just beyond the 1,000-ft markings, but that when he applied brake pressure, the airplane did not decelerate and started to drift to the left. The co-pilot then began to also apply brake pressure, and with no significant deceleration and the runway end approaching, he called for the pilot to activate the “ALL INTERRUPT” switch, to which the pilot responded that he already had. The pilot stated that he was also applying full right pedal to try to steer the airplane back toward the runway centerline, but the airplane did not respond. It eventually departed the left side of the runway, crossed over the last two taxiways, and came to rest in a drainage culvert, resulting in substantial damage. Review of ADS-B and recorded onboard data showed that, although the approach path was relatively stable, the airplane’s landing reference and touchdown speeds were about 20 knots above that recommended for its configuration and the runway conditions. Additionally, the data indicated that, at the time of touchdown, the tailwind had likely increased to about 10 knots. Recorded acceleration data indicated that the airplane touched down about 1,300 ft from the runway threshold, consistent with the pilot’s statement; however, due to lift still being created by the airplane’s wings because of the excessive speed, braking action would have been limited. This was corroborated by the weight on wheels (WOW) sensors, which did not activate until the airplane had progressed 2,490 ft down the runway. At this point, the airplane would have had about 2,760 ft of the runway surface remaining, including the blast pad, along with a 500-ft level dirt runoff area. Although performance calculations indicated this would not have been enough runway surface to stop the airplane, extrapolations based on the deceleration data attained from multiple previous flights showed that, with operational brakes, the airplane may still have been able to stop on the 150-ft blast pad, assuming it had not departed the runway to the side. Examination of the runway surface revealed indications of predominantly left tire marks starting just left of the runway centerline about 3,300 ft beyond the landing threshold. The marks continued for the remaining length of the runway, gradually veering left until crossing over a taxiway and becoming darker as they approached the drainage culvert. Examination of the hydraulic brake system did not reveal any evidence of pre-accident failure; however, the right anti-skid brake system (ABS) wheel speed transducer (WST) showed evidence that it had not been properly aligned with the hub cap when the cap was installed following maintenance. Maintenance instructions stated that such a misalignment can damage the brake system and interfere with braking, and subsequent testing revealed that the WST was damaged and not functioning correctly. Under this condition, the ABS would have assumed the right wheel was locked in a skid and released brake pressure, rendering the right brake inoperative. This would have resulted in the degraded brake performance reported by the pilot, and the airplane’s transition to the left side of the runway during the landing roll as observed. The airplane’s emergency procedures stated that, should the brakes become ineffective, or the airplane pulls to one side, the pilot should press and hold the ALL INTERRUPT switch until braking action was restored. Activation of this switch with a failed WST would have disabled the ABS system and restored normal braking. Although the pilot stated that he used the switch as the airplane approached the end of the runway, the onboard data appeared to indicate that the last time it was used was during the approach, when the pilot briefly activated it to confirm that the yaw damper was off.

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

  1. Loss of control on ground during landing (landing roll)
  2. Landing area overshoot during landing (landing roll)
  3. Sys/Comp malf/fail (non-power) during landing (landing roll) defining event
  4. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during landing (landing roll)
  5. Runway excursion during landing (landing roll)

The NTSB's findings

  • Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Landing gear system › Brake › Incorrect service/maintenance
  • Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Landing gear system › Brake › Failure
  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Use of equip/system › Pilot
  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Pilot
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Wind › Tailwind › Awareness of condition
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Wind › Tailwind › Effect on equipment

Pilot

  • Certificate: airline transport pilot, commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; single-engine sea; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 24,960 hours in all; 703 in this make and model; 40 in the last 90 days; 25 in the last 30 days; 21,000 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: May 19, 2022
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

Co-pilot

  • Certificate: flight instructor, commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instructor: airplane multi-engine; instructor: airplane single-engine; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 698 hours in all; 394 in this make and model; 84 in the last 90 days; 37 in the last 30 days; 190 as pilot in command; 18 on instruments
  • Last flight review: June 13, 2022
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: rgt
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 2,704.4 hours
  • Last inspection: continuous airworthiness programme, November 3, 2022; 1 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 6,000 lb
  • Seats: 6
  • Landing gear: retractable
  • Engine 1: Pratt And Whitney PW610 (turbofan); 2,492 hours total
  • Engine 2: Pratt And Whitney PW610 (turbofan); 2,492 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: HND Henderson NV at 1:23 am
  • Flight plan: IFR
  • Runway 22L, 5,100 ft by 100 ft
  • A second pilot was aboard

Weather at the time

  • Light: night
  • Wind: from 050° at 4 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 52°F (11°C), dew point 37°F (3°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.04 inHg
  • Observation at 6:54 pm from KFFZ

Weather report (METAR): METAR KFFZ 040154Z 04004KT 10SM CLR 11/03 A3004 RMK AO2 SLP160 T01060033=

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flig2

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 WPR23LA028.