This accident analysis examines how weight and balance problems contributed to a Challenger 600 runway overrun at Teterboro. Jason Schappert reviews the chain of decisions, the NTSB findings, and the structural issues that allowed the event to occur.
Runway Overrun and Initial Findings
The aircraft overran Runway 6 at a ground speed of 110 knots. It passed through a perimeter fence, crossed a highway, struck a vehicle, and impacted a building. Despite the dramatic sequence, only serious injuries occurred. The NTSB determined the primary cause was improper loading that placed the aircraft outside allowable limits.
Forward Center of Gravity Concerns
The aircraft attempted takeoff with its center of gravity far forward of the forward limit. This configuration prevented normal rotation at the intended speed. The FAA details CG effects and safe-loading principles in the FAA Weight & Balance Handbook, which reinforces why accuracy matters during every loading assessment.
Systemic Oversight Problems
The operator used another company’s Part 135 certificate rather than its own. This arrangement reduced oversight and allowed several performance deficiencies to develop. Manual weight and balance calculations were not performed. No center of gravity determination occurred. The crew relied entirely on FMS inputs rather than verified data.
Incorrect Operating Data
Investigators found that incorrect empty-weight information appeared in the aircraft’s documentation. A revised value had been handwritten into the handbook rather than updated properly. Passenger weights did not follow standard operating procedures. These errors fed directly into the FMS, compounding the weight and balance problems observed.
MAC Percentages and Actual Loading
Swept-wing aircraft use percent MAC to determine the proper CG location. Typical values hover near 25 percent for balanced flight. The accident aircraft showed a value of 12 percent, indicating a severely forward CG. The aircraft was also overweight, and even small excesses can combine with a poor CG to affect performance significantly.
Avoiding Complacency in Loading
Weight limits alone may appear acceptable while the aircraft remains out of balance. Fuel burn shifts CG during flight. Baggage, tools, and unsecured items may move during takeoff or landing. Each factor influences performance. Regular checks inside baggage compartments help ensure nothing remains hidden or unsecured.
Understanding Equipment and Procedures
Electronic tools can simplify calculations, but only when the data entered is accurate. Pilots must understand manual methods, the characteristics of forward and aft CG, and each aircraft’s specific loading sensitivity. Blind reliance on automation can create conditions similar to this accident event.
Key Lessons from the Event
This analysis underscores the need for consistent loading discipline. Weight and balance problems rarely appear dramatic during preparation, yet they hold major influence over takeoff capability and aircraft control. Careful planning, accurate data, and manual verification strengthen safety during every phase of flight.