What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
On June 17, 2012, at approximately 1239 PDT, Cessna 182P airplane, N7437Q, crashed while attempting a go-around after landing on runway 36 at Watts-Woodland Airport (O41), Woodland, California. The pilot was seriously injured and two passengers sustained minor injuries; the airplane was substantially damaged by impact forces. The airplane was operating under the provisions of 14 CFR part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. FAA investigators received a statement from a witness, who indicated that he had observed the accident from his home adjacent to the runway, that the airplane was on approach for runway 36. Then he heard an increase in engine power, the airplane pitched straight up, and it rolled into a right bank. According to the pilot, as the result of a hard landing, he initiated a go-around procedure by applying full power and selecting flaps to the up position. However, he didn't think the airplane had enough airspeed to maintain lift, and then he felt a sudden right turn toward the east. Consequently he lost control; the airplane winged over to the left, and then impacted the ground near mid-field between the taxiway and the runway. The airplane caught fire in the windshield firewall area. The pilot also stated that, upon impact, a passenger remarked that the yoke was in a full aft position. During post-accident investigation, FAA inspectors found a tip of a propeller on the runway and later matched it to the airplane's propeller. Inspection of aircraft components did not reveal any mechanical irregularities.
As the FAA filed it
ON JUNE 17, 2012, AT APPROXIMATELY 1239 PDT, CESSNA 182P AIRPLANE, N7437Q, CRASHED WHILE ATTEMPTING A GO-AROUND AFTER LANDING ON RUNWAY 36 AT WATTS-WOODLAND AIRPORT (O41), WOODLAND, CALIFORNIA. THE PILOT WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED AND TWO PASSENGERS SUSTAINED MINOR INJURIES; THE AIRPLANE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED BY IMPACT FORCES. THE AIRPLANE WAS OPERATING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 14 CFR PART 91. VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS PREVAILED AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT. FAA INVESTIGATORS RECEIVED A STATEMENT FROM A WITNESS, WHO INDICATED THAT HE HAD OBSERVED THE ACCIDENT FROM HIS HOME ADJACENT TO THE RUNWAY, THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS ON APPROACH FOR RUNWAY 36. THEN HE HEARD AN INCREASE IN ENGINE POWER, THE AIRPLANE PITCHED STRAIGHT UP, AND IT ROLLED INTO A RIGHT BANK.ACCORDING TO THE PILOT, AS THE RESULT OF A HARD LANDING, HE INITIATED A GO-AROUND PROCEDURE BY APPLYING FULL POWER AND SELECTING FLAPS TO THE UP POSITION. HOWEVER, HE DIDN'T THINK THE AIRPLANE HAD ENOUGH AIRSPEED TO MAINTAIN LIFT, AND THEN HE FELT A SUDDEN RIGHT TURN TOWARD THE EAST. CONSEQUENTLY HE LOST CONTROL; THE AIRPLANE WINGED OVER TO THE LEFT, AND THEN IMPACTED THE GROUND NEAR MID-FIELD BETWEEN THE TAXIWAY AND THE RUNWAY. THE AIRPLANE CAUGHT FIRE IN THE WINDSHIELD FIREWALL AREA. THE PILOT ALSO STATED THAT, UPON IMPACT, A PASSENGER REMARKED THAT THE YOKE WAS IN A FULL AFT POSITION. DURING POST-ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION, FAA INSPECTORS FOUND A TIP OF A PROPELLER ON THE RUNWAY AND LATER MATCHED IT TO THE AIRPLANE'S PROPELLER.INSPECTION OF AIRCRAFT COMPONENTS DID NOT REVEAL ANY MECHANICAL IRREGULARITIES.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.