OpenAirDocs.org

19970526017859I

Incident · Minor damage
Open the Markdown

FAA incident report · Cessna 337G · Twentynine Palm, CA · May 26, 1997

FAA Aviation Safety Information Portal

© OpenStreetMap
Date
May 26, 1997 · 08:30 local
Place
Twentynine Palm, CA
Airport
Twentynine Palms Airport
Phase of flight
Forced/Precautionary Landing
Operating rules
General operating rules (Part 91)
Damage
Minor damage
Aircraft
N53704
Reported as
Cessna 337G
People aboard
2
Fatal injuries
0
Pilot’s flight hours
6,000 total15 in this make and model200 in the last 90 days
N53704Registered now · Cessna 337GS/N 33701795 · Built 1977Airframe modelCessna 337GEngine modelContinental IO-360 seriesReciprocating

From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

What happened

The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.

Narrative: according to the owner of the aircraft, the purpose of this flight was the accomplishment of a biennial flight review (bfr). The instructor disputes that statement saying he was "just in the airplane." The owner of the airplane (hereafter called the student) was 11 months past the time limit on his last bfr, so he could not function as the pilot-in-command (PIC) on this flight. Accordingly, the instructor was the PIC. The instructor was not rated in multiengine airplanes, either on his commercial pilot certificate or on his flight instructor certificate. During this flight the instructor requested the student to perform several simulated engine failures on takeoff maneuvers. The student performed two such maneuvers with the front engine simulated "failed". On each of the previous maneuvers the instructor believed the student was not raising the landing gear early enough in the maneuver. On this last maneuver, the instructor told the student when to raise the gear. The student believes that when the gear doors opened, the increased drag exceeded the capability of the airplane to fly on just only the front engine (the rear engine on this airplane develops most of the thrust). The airplane impacted the ground 1/4 mile beyond the departure end of the runway. This incident is closed.

As the FAA filed it

NARRATIVE: ACCORDING TO THE OWNER OF THE AIRCRAFT, THE PURPOSE OF THIS FLIGHT WAS THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A BIENNIAL FLIGHT REVIEW (BFR). THE INSTRUCTOR DISPUTES THAT STATEMENT SAYING HE WAS "JUST IN THE AIRPLANE." THE OWNER OF THE AIRPLANE (HEREAFTER CALLED THE STUDENT) WAS 11 MONTHS PAST THE TIME LIMIT ON HIS LAST BFR, SO HE COULD NOT FUNCTION AS THE PILOT-IN-COMMAND (PIC) ON THIS FLIGHT. ACCORDINGLY, THE INSTRUCTOR WAS THE PIC. THE INSTRUCTOR WAS NOT RATED IN MULTIENGINE AIRPLANES, EITHER ON HIS COMMERCIAL PILOT CERTIFICATE OR ON HIS FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATE. DURING THIS FLIGHT THE INSTRUCTOR REQUESTED THE STUDENT TO PERFORM SEVERAL SIMULATED ENGINE FAILURES ON TAKEOFF MANEUVERS. THE STUDENT PERFORMED TWO SUCH MANEUVERS WITH THE FRONT ENGINE SIMULATED "FAILED". ON EACH OF THE PREVIOUS MANEUVERS THE INSTRUCTOR BELIEVED THE STUDENT WAS NOT RAISING THE LANDING GEAR EARLY ENOUGH IN THE MANEUVER. ON THIS LAST MANEUVER, THE INSTRUCTOR TOLD THE STUDENT WHEN TO RAISE THE GEAR. THE STUDENT BELIEVES THAT WHEN THE GEAR DOORS OPENED, THE INCREASED DRAG EXCEEDED THE CAPABILITY OF THE AIRPLANE TO FLY ON JUST ONLY THE FRONT ENGINE (THE REAR ENGINE ON THIS AIRPLANE DEVELOPS MOST OF THE THRUST). THE AIRPLANE IMPACTED THE GROUND 1/4 MILE BEYOND THE DEPARTURE END OF THE RUNWAY. THIS INCIDENT IS CLOSED.