NTSB Factual Report

The pilot reported that he was low on the final approach to runway 32 at the mountaintop airport, but thought he could "make the numbers." The airplane encountered a downdraft, and the pilot wasn't able to compensate for it. The airplane impacted terrain about 3 feet short of the runway, bounced, then veered off the right side of the runway and struck an embankment, resulting in substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. The pilot also stated that there was a 7-knot tailwind "from the right," and that the density altitude was about 6,300 feet at the time of the accident. The flight was the pilot’s seventh arrival into the airport, and his first time landing there with a tailwind. There were no preaccident mechanical anomalies noted with the airplane, which "was performing great." According to the airport's pilot manual, runway 32 was the preferred landing runway due to its upslope and fewer obstructions at the arrival end. There was no displaced threshold, and the terrain rose sharply to the approach end of the runway. A visual glideslope indicator was located to the left of the runway. The pilot's manual also advised, "consider flying a steeper approach to compensate for the 'burble' downdraft typically present at the end of the runway," and noted that the hills on either side and the runway's upslope "will combine to produce the optical illusion of being too steep an approach path." The manual further stated, "consider carefully the effects of density altitude on the performance of your aircraft," as well as, "many pilots will not consider landing with SSE winds, and will simply divert" to another airport.

NTSB Probable Cause

The pilot's failure to maintain a proper visual glideslope during final approach.