What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
Acft crashed at the approach end of rwy 28 while involved in emergency landing practice. Other circumstances are unknown. (From .4) the instructor and student preflighted the airplane, completed the engine run-up checks, and departed. Then, in the vicinity of a local airport, at 2,500 feet MSL, the instructor initiated the first of two simulated engine failures. The student maneuvered the airplane and executed a touched-and-go. Then, while on downwind, and at 2,000 feet MSL, the instructor initiated the second simulated engine failure. The student insured the carburetor heat was on, simulated checking the throttle, and began maneuvering for the runway. At 400 feet AGL, the instructor realized they would not make the runway. He advised the student, and advanced the throttle, but the engine did not respond. He was able to insure that the throttle and fuel selector were properly set before the airplane struck a tree, stalled, and impacted the ground. There was no evidence of a pre impact failure that would have caused a loss of power. Weather conditions were conducive for serious icing with cruise orclimb power, the FAA recommended, 'that carburetor heat be applied before r educing power and that partial power be used during letdown to prevent icing.....' (-23) instructor and student had been practicing simulated forced landings. During this second simulation, the instructor reduced power to idle in different location than first time. Student did not plan glide correctly and was unable to reach runway. Instructor attempted to add power, but engine did not respond. Instructor believes he applied carburator heat. A/c passed through tops of trees, nosed down, struck ground and slid 150 feet to end of runway.
As the FAA filed it
ACFT CRASHED AT THE APPROACH END OF RWY 28 WHILE INVOLVED IN EMERGENCY LANDING PRACTICE. OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN. (FROM .4) THE INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT PREFLIGHTED THE AIRPLANE, COMPLETED THE ENGINE RUN-UP CHECKS, AND DEPARTED. THEN, IN THE VICINITY OF A LOCAL AIRPORT, AT 2,500 FEET MSL, THE INSTRUCTOR INITIATED THE FIRST OF TWO SIMULATED ENGINE FAILURES. THE STUDENT MANEUVERED THE AIRPLANE AND EXECUTED A TOUCHED-AND-GO. THEN, WHILE ON DOWNWIND, AND AT 2,000 FEET MSL, THE INSTRUCTOR INITIATED THE SECOND SIMULATED ENGINE FAILURE. THE STUDENT INSURED THE CARBURETOR HEAT WAS ON, SIMULATED CHECKING THE THROTTLE, AND BEGAN MANEUVERING FOR THE RUNWAY. AT 400 FEET AGL, THE INSTRUCTOR REALIZED THEY WOULD NOT MAKE THE RUNWAY. HE ADVISED THE STUDENT, AND ADVANCED THE THROTTLE, BUT THE ENGINE DID NOT RESPOND. HE WAS ABLE TO INSURE THAT THE THROTTLE AND FUEL SELECTOR WERE PROPERLY SET BEFORE THE AIRPLANE STRUCK A TREE, STALLED, AND IMPACTED THE GROUND. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A PRE IMPACT FAILURE THAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED A LOSS OF POWER. WEATHER CONDITIONS WERE CONDUCIVE FOR SERIOUS ICING WITH CRUISE ORCLIMB POWER, THE FAA RECOMMENDED, 'THAT CARBURETOR HEAT BE APPLIED BEFORE R EDUCING POWER AND THAT PARTIAL POWER BE USED DURING LETDOWN TO PREVENT ICING.....' (-23) INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT HAD BEEN PRACTICING SIMULATED FORCED LANDINGS. DURING THIS SECOND SIMULATION, THE INSTRUCTOR REDUCED POWER TO IDLE IN DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN FIRST TIME. STUDENT DID NOT PLAN GLIDE CORRECTLY AND WAS UNABLE TO REACH RUNWAY. INSTRUCTOR ATTEMPTED TO ADD POWER, BUT ENGINE DID NOT RESPOND. INSTRUCTOR BELIEVES HE APPLIED CARBURATOR HEAT. A/C PASSED THROUGH TOPS OF TREES, NOSED DOWN, STRUCK GROUND AND SLID 150 FEET TO END OF RUNWAY.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.