What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
Description of the event:
Aircraft owner/builder is a student pilot who was flying with his CFI practicing landings. They had been flying out of the nearby paved air strip that morning and the CFI decided that the student's landings were going well and they could fly over to the student's Private grass airstrip to practice landings. The next day, the CFI brought the plane over to the student's strip to pick up the student and begin grass strip landing practice.
The student and CFI departed the runway and came back around for their first landing of the day. Upon landing, the student bounced the aircraft back into the air. The student added throttle to go around but they were rapidly running out of runway and obstruction clearance. The CFI took the controls and knew that they were going to crash, so he elected to turn the aircraft a few degrees to the right in order to crash the aircraft between two large trees.
The aircraft impacted the trees upright and the main energy of the crash was absorbed by the large trees. The CFI and the student both suffered injuries requiring hospitalization.
Upon visiting the student and the CFI in the hospital on the day of the accident it was apparent that there was a miscommunication during the landing and attempted go-around. The student stated that he thought he heard the CFI say "don't land" after the bounce, so he applied full power to try and go-around with insufficient room remaining in the departure path. The CFI stated that after the student bounced he told the student to "land." The CFI assumed the student was going to reduce power to idle and land on the remaining runway and the CFI was caught off-guard when the student added full power and pitched up. By this time the CFI realized they were out of time and took the controls leading up to the crash. The CFI admitted that the crash was fully his responsibility and he should have taken the controls sooner.
Based on the investigation and the cfi's extensive background in backcountry operations it is evident that the while the CFI may have high time operating in remote airstrips, he may not have the proficiency to be instructing in this type of environment. Therefore, a competency check in accordance with usc 44709 is being issued.
Triggered 44709 ptrs NM05201902771
As the FAA filed it
DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENT:
AIRCRAFT OWNER/BUILDER IS A STUDENT PILOT WHO WAS FLYING WITH HIS CFI PRACTICING LANDINGS. THEY HAD BEEN FLYING OUT OF THE NEARBY PAVED AIR STRIP THAT MORNING AND THE CFI DECIDED THAT THE STUDENT'S LANDINGS WERE GOING WELL AND THEY COULD FLY OVER TO THE STUDENT'S PRIVATE GRASS AIRSTRIP TO PRACTICE LANDINGS. THE NEXT DAY, THE CFI BROUGHT THE PLANE OVER TO THE STUDENT'S STRIP TO PICK UP THE STUDENT AND BEGIN GRASS STRIP LANDING PRACTICE.
THE STUDENT AND CFI DEPARTED THE RUNWAY AND CAME BACK AROUND FOR THEIR FIRST LANDING OF THE DAY. UPON LANDING, THE STUDENT BOUNCED THE AIRCRAFT BACK INTO THE AIR. THE STUDENT ADDED THROTTLE TO GO AROUND BUT THEY WERE RAPIDLY RUNNING OUT OF RUNWAY AND OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE. THE CFI TOOK THE CONTROLS AND KNEW THAT THEY WERE GOING TO CRASH, SO HE ELECTED TO TURN THE AIRCRAFT A FEW DEGREES TO THE RIGHT IN ORDER TO CRASH THE AIRCRAFT BETWEEN TWO LARGE TREES.
THE AIRCRAFT IMPACTED THE TREES UPRIGHT AND THE MAIN ENERGY OF THE CRASH WAS ABSORBED BY THE LARGE TREES. THE CFI AND THE STUDENT BOTH SUFFERED INJURIES REQUIRING HOSPITALIZATION.
UPON VISITING THE STUDENT AND THE CFI IN THE HOSPITAL ON THE DAY OF THE ACCIDENT IT WAS APPARENT THAT THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION DURING THE LANDING AND ATTEMPTED GO-AROUND. THE STUDENT STATED THAT HE THOUGHT HE HEARD THE CFI SAY "DON'T LAND" AFTER THE BOUNCE, SO HE APPLIED FULL POWER TO TRY AND GO-AROUND WITH INSUFFICIENT ROOM REMAINING IN THE DEPARTURE PATH. THE CFI STATED THAT AFTER THE STUDENT BOUNCED HE TOLD THE STUDENT TO "LAND." THE CFI ASSUMED THE STUDENT WAS GOING TO REDUCE POWER TO IDLE AND LAND ON THE REMAINING RUNWAY AND THE CFI WAS CAUGHT OFF-GUARD WHEN THE STUDENT ADDED FULL POWER AND PITCHED UP. BY THIS TIME THE CFI REALIZED THEY WERE OUT OF TIME AND TOOK THE CONTROLS LEADING UP TO THE CRASH. THE CFI ADMITTED THAT THE CRASH WAS FULLY HIS RESPONSIBILITY AND HE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE CONTROLS SOONER.
BASED ON THE INVESTIGATION AND THE CFI'S EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND IN BACKCOUNTRY OPERATIONS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE WHILE THE CFI MAY HAVE HIGH TIME OPERATING IN REMOTE AIRSTRIPS, HE MAY NOT HAVE THE PROFICIENCY TO BE INSTRUCTING IN THIS TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT. THEREFORE, A COMPETENCY CHECK IN ACCORDANCE WITH USC 44709 IS BEING ISSUED.
TRIGGERED 44709 PTRS NM05201902771
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.