ASN logo
ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 239849
Last updated: 8 September 2020
This information is added by users of ASN. Neither ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information. If you feel this information is incomplete or incorrect, you can submit corrected information.

Type:Silhouette image of generic MT model; specific model in this crash may look slightly different
Rotorsport UK MTOSport 2017
Registration: N615MW
C/n / msn: RSUK-M01704
Fatalities:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 2
Other fatalities:0
Aircraft damage: Substantial
Location:Springfield Robertson County Airport (M91), Springfield, TN -   United States of America
Phase: Take off
Departure airport:Springfield, TN (M91)
Destination airport:Nashville, TN (JWN)
Investigating agency: NTSB
On August 11, 2020, about 0815 central daylight time, a Rotorsport UK LTD MTOsport 2017 gyroplane, N615MW, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Springfield, Tennessee. The pilot and his passenger were not injured. The personal flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.
The pilot was interviewed by Federal Aviation Administration aviation safety inspectors, and provided a comprehensive written statement that included charts, diagrams, and photographs. According to the pilot, the gyroplane was loaded 6 pounds below its maximum allowable gross weight when he taxied it for an intersection takeoff from runway 4 at Springfield-Robertson County Airport (M91), Springfield, Tennessee. From that takeoff point, about 2,300 ft. of runway remained available for the takeoff rather than the 5,505 ft. available full-length. At 45 knots, the pilot lifted the nose, and accelerated "in ground effect" for his planned climb speed of 55 knots, but the gyroplane would not accelerate past 48 knots. He further stated, "with the throttle fully advanced, and there was no indication of any engine malfunction."
Because of the published best-angle-of-climb speeds (45-50 knots) the pilot chose to continue the takeoff. As the gyrocopter approached the airport boundary, it had "only climbed to probably 50 [ft]" and was not accelerating. The pilot surveyed the highway that ran perpendicular to the takeoff runway off its departure end, and the powerlines on the far side of the road and chose to perform a forced landing between the airport boundary fence and the road. The gyroplane was substantially damaged during the landing.
The pilot provided performance planning information based on the gyroplane's weight and the atmospheric conditions at the time of takeoff. He then plotted the predicted performance in both plan view and overhead view over graphs and images of the takeoff runway. A review of surveillance video that captured the accident flight revealed that the gyroplane was perhaps 10 feet above the runway surface at the point where it should have been in a steady-state climb and clearing a 50-ft obstacle. From that point, approximately 400 ft of runway and 1,200 ft. of turf runway overrun remained.
The gyroplane was examined by the FAA aviation safety inspectors at the scene and flight control continuity was confirmed. An engine start was attempted on the airframe using the gyroplane's own battery and fuel system. The engine started immediately, accelerated smoothly, and ran continuously without interruption.



Revision history:

12-Aug-2020 03:57 Geno Added
12-Aug-2020 17:06 RobertMB Updated [Aircraft type, Narrative]
08-Sep-2020 12:43 ASN Update Bot Updated [Time, Cn, Operator, Departure airport, Destination airport, Source, Narrative, Plane category]

Corrections or additions? ... Edit this accident description