# Accident 19991115032329A: Cessna 172N, Hopedale, MA, November 15, 1999 - Type: FAA accident report (Accident/Incident Data System), as reported - Date: November 15, 1999, 09:00 local time - Place: Hopedale, MA - Airport: Hopedale Industrial Park Airport - Damage: Substantial damage - Phase of flight: Level Off Touchdown - Operating rules: General operating rules (Part 91) - Location: 42.1065° N, 71.5101° W: Placed by OpenAirDocs at HOPEDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK (1B6), within about a mile (OpenAirDocs) - Nearby events: https://openairdocs.org/map.md?lat=42.1065&lon=-71.5101&mi=10 - Aircraft: N738NL, a cancelled registration (https://openairdocs.org/deregistered/N738NL-2010-10-21) (OpenAirDocs) - Registry model: Cessna 172N (registry code 2072434, https://openairdocs.org/model/cessna-172n) (OpenAirDocs) - Registry engine: Lycoming 0-320 series (registry code 41508, https://openairdocs.org/engine/lycoming-0-320-series) (OpenAirDocs) - Reported make and model: CESSNA 172N - Reported engine: LYC O320H2AD - People aboard: 2 - Fatal injuries: 0 - Pilot flight hours: 397 total, 94 in this make and model, 115 in the last 90 days - NTSB investigation: [NTSB IAD00LA006](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb/IAD00LA006) (OpenAirDocs) - FAA source: FAA Aviation Safety Information Portal (https://asip.faa.gov/) - Page: https://openairdocs.org/incident/19991115032329A ## Narrative As the FAA filed it, in capitals; the FAA replaces private details with ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^. (.19) ON NOVEMBER 15, 1999, A 0900 EASTERN STANDARD TIME, A CESSNA 172N, N738NL, SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE DURING COLLISION WITH TERRAIN FOLLOWING A BOUNCED LANDING AT THE HOPEDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK AIRPORT (1B6), HOPEDALE, MASSACHUSETTS. THE CERTIFICATED COMMERCIAL PILOT AND STUDENT PILOT WERE NOT INJURED. VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS PREVAILED FOR THE INSTRUCTIONAL FLIGHT THAT ORIGINATED AT 1B6, APPROXIMATELY 0745. NO FLIGHT PLAN WAS FILED FOR THE FLIGHT CONDUCTED UNDER 14 CFR PART 91. IN A WRITTEN STATEMENT, THE FLIGHT INSTURCTOR SAID: "MY STUDENT AND I ENTERED THE TRAFFIC PATTERN AT 1B6 ON A 45 [DEGREE] ANGLE TO THE DOWNWIND OF RUNWAY 36 AFTER ANNOUNCING OUR INTENTIONS ON 122.8. WE DISCUSSED TRAFFIC PATTERN PROCEDURES. WE REDUCED POWER AND ADDED 10 [DEGREES] OF FLAPS. WHILE ON DOWNWIND, WE CONTINUED TO REVIEW LANDING CHECKLIST. WE TURNED BASE LEG AND ADDED 20 [DEGREES] OF FLAPS, [AND] TRIMMED THE AIRPLANE FOR AN APPROACH SPEED OF 65 KNOTS. WE THEN TURNED FINAL AND DISCUSSED CROSSWIND LANDING PROCEDURES. WE REDUCED POWER, ADDED 30 [DEGREES] OF FLAPS, AND CONTINUED WITH AN APPROACH SPEED OF 65 KNOTS. WE BOUNCED ON LANDING, WITH AN INSUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF RIGHT RUDDER, AND THE AIRPLANE TURNED INTO THE WIND. "I TOOK CONTROL OF THE AIRPLANE AND ADDED POWER IN AN ATTEMPT TO CONTROL THE AIRPLANE AND GET IT BACK OVER THE RUNWAY. WITH AN INSUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF AIRSPEED, WE TOUCHED DOWN UP ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. THE AIRPLANE THEN FLIPPED OVER." IN A WRITTEN STATEMENT, THE STUDENT PILOT REPORTED: "ENTERED TRAFFIC PATTERN, TURNED BASE, ADDED FLAPS, TURNED FINAL, DROPPED TO IDLE, [AND] ADDED LAST OF FLAPS. WIND SLIGHTLY GUSTY. TOUCHED DOWN JUST TO RIGHT OF CENTERLINE [AND] HIT BY GUST OF WIND. INSTRUCTOR ATTEMPTED TO CORRECT, HIT BY MORE GUSTS. INSTRUCTOR ADDED POWER, THEN CRASHED. GUSTS APPEARED TOO STRONG TO CORRECT FROM." IN A TELEPHONE INTERVIEW, THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR SAID, "WE BOUNCED APPROXIMATELY 8 FEET INTO THE AIR. WE DIDN'T BOUNCE THAT HARD, SO IT APPEARED THAT WE WERE ASSISTED BY THE WIND. OVER THE FENCE, THE WIND DIMINSHED AND THE AIRPLANE SETTLED TO THE GOUND." THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR SAID THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE A WEATHER BRIEFING PRIOR TO DEPARTURE. HE SAID THAT HE MADE A WEATHER DETERMINATION BASED ON THE "WEATHER CHANNEL", THE ANEMOMETER AT THE AIRPORT, AND MONITORING THE AUTOMATED TERMINAL INFORMATION SERVICES (ATIS) AT AREA AIRPORTS. THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR STATED THAT AFTER AN HOUR IN THE TRAINING AREA, THE WIND SPEEDS INCREASED, AND HE DECIDED TO RETURN TO HIS HOME AIRPORT. WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT THE AIRWORTHINESS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE AIRPLANE, THE PILOT RESPONBDED: "THE AIRCRAFT WAS PERFORMING FINE. IT JUST CAME OUT OF A 100 HOUR INSPECITON. I'VE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE AIRPLANE." THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR REPORTED APPROXIMATELY 40 HOURS OF FLIGHT EXPERINCE, OF WHICH 150 WAS IN THE CESSNA 172. HE SAID THE STUDENT PILOT HAD APPROXIMATLEY 7 HOURS OF FLIGHT EXPERIENCE. WINDS REPORTED AT PAWTUCKET, RHODE ISLAND, 10 MILES SOUTH OF HOPEDALE WERE FROM 310 DEGREES AT 12 KNOTS GUSTING TO 21KNOTS. (-23)1. STUDENT MADE APPROACH TO LANDING AND BOUNCED AIRCRAFT ON RUNWAY, AIRPORT HAD GUSTING CROSSWINDS AND WINDSHEAR. AFTER BOUNCING, THE AIRCRAFT STARTED TO DRIFT OFF RUNWAY TO THE LEFT SIDE. 2. INSTRUCTOR WAS LATE IN CORRECTIVE ACTION, ADDED FULL POWER AND TRIED TO FLY THE AIRCRAFT. THE AIRCRAFT DRIFTED OFF RUNWAY OVER CHAINLINK FENCE AND CONTACTED GROUND TAIL FIRST, STRUCK ROCKS, SHEARED OFF NOSE GEAR STRUT AND FLIPPED OVER AND CAME TO REST UPSIDE DOWN. 3. STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR STATEMENTS STATE THAT THE FLAPS WERE FULL DOWN ON FINAL APPROACH AND NO CONTROLS WERE TOUCHED AFTER IMPACT, BUT FAA INSPECTORS FOUND FLAPS IN THE FULL UP ("0") POSITION. (.4)THE STUDENT PILOT RETURNED TO HIS HOME AIRPORT WITH HIS FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR. THE STUDENT ATTEMPTED THE LANDING WITH A 50 DEGREE LEFT CROSSWIND OF 12 TO 21 KNOTS. THE AIRPLANE BOUNCED, 'TURNED INTO THE WIND', AND DEPARTED THE LEFT SIDE OF THE RUNWAY. THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR ASSUMED THE FLIGHT CONTROLS BUT WAS UNABLE TO RECOVER THE AIRPLANE BEFORE IT CROSSED A FENCE LINE PARALLEL TO THE RUNWAY, STRUCK THE GROUND, AND NOSED OVER. ## The NTSB's investigation of this event (1) From the NTSB's public API. Aircraft are matched to registry aircraft by N-number and event date, checked against the reported serial number, make and model; the registry's history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model. - [NTSB IAD00LA006](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb/IAD00LA006), Nov 15, 1999: Cessna 172N (N738NL), Hopedale, MA, substantial damage. Probable cause: was the student pilot's improper flare that resulted in a bounced landing and the flight instructor's delay in taking remedial action. From the FAA Accident/Incident Data System. Reports are matched to registry aircraft 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. For accidents, the NTSB's own investigation is the fuller record. --- OpenAirDocs.org is an independent research project of [Contrail Labs](https://contraillabs.com/). It is not affiliated with the FAA or the NTSB. Source documents are U.S. government works in the public domain.