- Location: Provincetown, MA
- Accident Number: ERA26LA246
- Date & Time: June 15, 2026, 08:10 Local
- Registration: N499CA
- Aircraft: Cessna 402
- Injuries: 1 Minor, 2 None
- Flight Conducted Under: Part 135: Air taxi & commuter - Scheduled
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/203236/pdf
https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/NNumberResult?nNumberTxt=N499CA
On June 15, 2026, about 0810 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 402C, N499CA, was
substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident at Provincetown Municipal Airport
(PVC), Provincetown, Massachusetts. The airplane transport pilot (pilot flying) and commercial
pilot (pilot monitoring) were not injured, while one passenger sustained minor injuries. The
airplane was operated as a Title 14?Code of Federal Regulations Part 135, scheduled
commuter flight.
The pilot flying (PF) stated that the reported weather at the destination airport of PVC prior to
departure was 5 statute miles visibility and an overcast ceiling of 200 ft, while the forecast
weather of a nearby airport indicated a visibility of 3 statute miles and an overcast ceiling of
300 ft. The departure and en route portions of the flight to PVC were uneventful. After leveling
at 3,000 ft msl, the flight crew obtained the current weather for PVC, which included a wind
from 190° at 8 knots, a visibility of 5 statute miles, and an overcast ceiling at 200 ft agl.
Because of the ceiling, the PF chose to execute an instrument landing system (ILS) approach
to runway 07, which would have resulted in a tailwind component less than 3 knots, and was
within the operator’s limitations. The flight was provided with radar vectored by air traffic
control for the ILS runway 07 approach. The localizer and glideslope capture occurred at
PHONY intersection while the airplane was flying at an altitude about 2,000 ft msl. At that time
the airplane configured for landing with a flap setting of 15°. During the subsequent descent,
the PF disconnected the autopilot and extended the flaps to 30° to further reduce airspeed,
then extended the flaps to 45° once the airplane had reached about 600 ft. At decision height,
he visually acquired the approach end of runway 07 and continued the landing approach.
The PF stated that during the visual portion of the landing approach, the airplane was slightly
above the desired glide path and was drifting to left of the runway centerline. The PF reduced
engine power earlier than usual, resulting in a rapid increase in descent rate, and the last
airspeed he recalled observing was 100 knots.
The pilot monitoring (PM) reported that the PF seemed to, “over flare, causing us to float.” The
airplane floated past the runway aiming point markings, then when approaching the mid-point
of the 3,502-ft-long, wet runway, the PM called aloud for a go-around, but he was not sure if the
PF heard him. The PF continued the landing, reporting the touchdown was farther along the
runway than planned. After touchdown, the PF braked more aggressively than normal. As the
airplane approached the departure end of the runway, the PF recognized that the airplane’s
speed was still excessive, so he attempted to exit the runway via the taxiway off the left side of
the runway at the end. The PM reported that he yelled “don’t” and within a second the PF
corrected back. The airplane then departed the end of the runway, the right main landing gear
collapsed, and the airplane came to rest upright in grass. After coming to a complete stop, the
PF secured the airplane and initiated an emergency evacuation of the passenger. Airport and
local emergency response personnel arrived shortly thereafter.
