20180424024139A

Accident · Substantial damage

FAA accident report · Piper PA-28-181 · Wickenberg, AZ · April 24, 2018

Date
April 24, 2018 · 16:30 local
Place
Wickenberg, AZ
Airport
Wickenburg Municipal
Phase of flight
Landing: Approach
Operating rules
Pilot school (Part 141)
Operator
2FQS
Damage
Substantial damage
Aircraft
N922PA
NTSB investigation
NTSBGAA18CA234
Reported as
Piper PA-28-181
Reported engine
Lycoming O-360 series
People aboard
2
Fatal injuries
0
Other injuries
0
Pilot’s certificates
Commercial pilot, flight instructor, private pilot
Pilot’s flight hours
965 total650 in this make and model200 in the last 90 days

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.

On April 24, 2018 at approximately 16:30 local time, aircraft N922PA, crashed short of the runway at the Wickenberg municipal airport (E25), in Wickenberg Arizona. On board the aircraft at the time of the event, were a student pilot and a certificated flight instructor.

Review of the aircraft logbooks and maintenance records indicate that there were no maintenance or performance issues with the aircraft that contributed to this event.

Written statements from the flight instructor and student pilot, subsequent interviews with both individuals and interviews with the part 141 flight school management, provided the following facts of this event. The student pilot had over 20 flights and a total of 36.5 flight hours with instructors prior to the event as well as several hours of simulator time. The flight on the date of the event was the student?s second attempt of his stage one check flight. The student failed his first attempt of stage one as the instructor had to take controls on two separate landing attempts and failed to recognize an alternator failure. He was referred back to his primary instructor for further instruction prior to the second attempt. During this check flight the student failed to properly execute the first landing in Wickenberg by landing short of the intended mark. According to the instructor the intended mark was ?past the numbers? And the student landed significantly short but still safely on pavement.

The flight instructor asked the student to simulate an engine failure emergency landing. According to the chief instructor of the school, the school?s curriculum is intended to have the student identify a safe landing spot and configure the aircraft to carry out the safe landing, but is not intended for the student to fully land the aircraft. Based on the chief instructor?s statement, the flight instructor went beyond the curriculum and asked the student to land the aircraft under the scenario. According to the chief instructor, the student had not had prior instruction to prepare him for this maneuver. Review of the training files of this student we found this statement to be inaccurate, in fact the student had training on emergency approach and landing procedures as is required by 14 CFR 61.87 on February 28 and again on March 19.

From this point on the accounts of the event from the student and instructor differ significantly. According to the student, on the downwind the instructor reduced power to idle and the student set full flaps once on final. According to the instructor the student went to 10 degree flaps then turned base and increased the flaps to 25 degrees. The instructor asked if he thought he was going to make it to the runway and asked the student to recover then the student put the flaps to 40 degrees. According to the students account he was afraid he would not make the runway and adjusted the flaps to 25 degrees and left the power idle. The student stated that the aural stall warning horn went off but the instructor stated that there was no stall warning. The instructor stated that the student made no attempt to increase power. By the students account he stated that he had increased to full power. According to the student after the warning horn sounded he became nervous and accidently went to 0 degrees on the flaps as the instructor took the controls. By both accounts the aircraft was well below 500 feet from the ground before the instructor made the decision to take control of the aircraft. The instructor also stated that the student froze and still had one hand on the yoke trying to pull up while the instructor was pushing forward. The instructor was unable to recover and the aircraft struck a tree with the right wing and then contacted the ground approximately 600 feet from the runway. Shortly after hitting the ground the nose landing gear collapsed due to the rough terrain, the aircraft came to a stop, the instructor secured the plane and both individuals exited with no injurie

As the FAA filed it

ON APRIL 24, 2018 AT APPROXIMATELY 16:30 LOCAL TIME, AIRCRAFT N922PA, CRASHED SHORT OF THE RUNWAY AT THE WICKENBERG MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (E25), IN WICKENBERG ARIZONA. ON BOARD THE AIRCRAFT AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT, WERE A STUDENT PILOT AND A CERTIFICATED FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR.

REVIEW OF THE AIRCRAFT LOGBOOKS AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS INDICATE THAT THERE WERE NO MAINTENANCE OR PERFORMANCE ISSUES WITH THE AIRCRAFT THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THIS EVENT.

WRITTEN STATEMENTS FROM THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT PILOT, SUBSEQUENT INTERVIEWS WITH BOTH INDIVIDUALS AND INTERVIEWS WITH THE PART 141 FLIGHT SCHOOL MANAGEMENT, PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING FACTS OF THIS EVENT. THE STUDENT PILOT HAD OVER 20 FLIGHTS AND A TOTAL OF 36.5 FLIGHT HOURS WITH INSTRUCTORS PRIOR TO THE EVENT AS WELL AS SEVERAL HOURS OF SIMULATOR TIME. THE FLIGHT ON THE DATE OF THE EVENT WAS THE STUDENT?S SECOND ATTEMPT OF HIS STAGE ONE CHECK FLIGHT. THE STUDENT FAILED HIS FIRST ATTEMPT OF STAGE ONE AS THE INSTRUCTOR HAD TO TAKE CONTROLS ON TWO SEPARATE LANDING ATTEMPTS AND FAILED TO RECOGNIZE AN ALTERNATOR FAILURE. HE WAS REFERRED BACK TO HIS PRIMARY INSTRUCTOR FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTION PRIOR TO THE SECOND ATTEMPT. DURING THIS CHECK FLIGHT THE STUDENT FAILED TO PROPERLY EXECUTE THE FIRST LANDING IN WICKENBERG BY LANDING SHORT OF THE INTENDED MARK. ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTOR THE INTENDED MARK WAS ?PAST THE NUMBERS? AND THE STUDENT LANDED SIGNIFICANTLY SHORT BUT STILL SAFELY ON PAVEMENT.

THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR ASKED THE STUDENT TO SIMULATE AN ENGINE FAILURE EMERGENCY LANDING. ACCORDING TO THE CHIEF INSTRUCTOR OF THE SCHOOL, THE SCHOOL?S CURRICULUM IS INTENDED TO HAVE THE STUDENT IDENTIFY A SAFE LANDING SPOT AND CONFIGURE THE AIRCRAFT TO CARRY OUT THE SAFE LANDING, BUT IS NOT INTENDED FOR THE STUDENT TO FULLY LAND THE AIRCRAFT. BASED ON THE CHIEF INSTRUCTOR?S STATEMENT, THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR WENT BEYOND THE CURRICULUM AND ASKED THE STUDENT TO LAND THE AIRCRAFT UNDER THE SCENARIO. ACCORDING TO THE CHIEF INSTRUCTOR, THE STUDENT HAD NOT HAD PRIOR INSTRUCTION TO PREPARE HIM FOR THIS MANEUVER. REVIEW OF THE TRAINING FILES OF THIS STUDENT WE FOUND THIS STATEMENT TO BE INACCURATE, IN FACT THE STUDENT HAD TRAINING ON EMERGENCY APPROACH AND LANDING PROCEDURES AS IS REQUIRED BY 14 CFR 61.87 ON FEBRUARY 28 AND AGAIN ON MARCH 19.

FROM THIS POINT ON THE ACCOUNTS OF THE EVENT FROM THE STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY. ACCORDING TO THE STUDENT, ON THE DOWNWIND THE INSTRUCTOR REDUCED POWER TO IDLE AND THE STUDENT SET FULL FLAPS ONCE ON FINAL. ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTOR THE STUDENT WENT TO 10 DEGREE FLAPS THEN TURNED BASE AND INCREASED THE FLAPS TO 25 DEGREES. THE INSTRUCTOR ASKED IF HE THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO MAKE IT TO THE RUNWAY AND ASKED THE STUDENT TO RECOVER THEN THE STUDENT PUT THE FLAPS TO 40 DEGREES. ACCORDING TO THE STUDENTS ACCOUNT HE WAS AFRAID HE WOULD NOT MAKE THE RUNWAY AND ADJUSTED THE FLAPS TO 25 DEGREES AND LEFT THE POWER IDLE. THE STUDENT STATED THAT THE AURAL STALL WARNING HORN WENT OFF BUT THE INSTRUCTOR STATED THAT THERE WAS NO STALL WARNING. THE INSTRUCTOR STATED THAT THE STUDENT MADE NO ATTEMPT TO INCREASE POWER. BY THE STUDENTS ACCOUNT HE STATED THAT HE HAD INCREASED TO FULL POWER. ACCORDING TO THE STUDENT AFTER THE WARNING HORN SOUNDED HE BECAME NERVOUS AND ACCIDENTLY WENT TO 0 DEGREES ON THE FLAPS AS THE INSTRUCTOR TOOK THE CONTROLS. BY BOTH ACCOUNTS THE AIRCRAFT WAS WELL BELOW 500 FEET FROM THE GROUND BEFORE THE INSTRUCTOR MADE THE DECISION TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT. THE INSTRUCTOR ALSO STATED THAT THE STUDENT FROZE AND STILL HAD ONE HAND ON THE YOKE TRYING TO PULL UP WHILE THE INSTRUCTOR WAS PUSHING FORWARD. THE INSTRUCTOR WAS UNABLE TO RECOVER AND THE AIRCRAFT STRUCK A TREE WITH THE RIGHT WING AND THEN CONTACTED THE GROUND APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET FROM THE RUNWAY. SHORTLY AFTER HITTING THE GROUND THE NOSE LANDING GEAR COLLAPSED DUE TO THE ROUGH TERRAIN, THE AIRCRAFT CAME TO A STOP, THE INSTRUCTOR SECURED THE PLANE AND BOTH INDIVIDUALS EXITED WITH NO INJURIE

NTSB investigation

The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.

Other reports on N922PA · 3

Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.