What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
Subject aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing in wickham lake short of runway 03 at Warwick Municipal Airport (KN72). A certified flight instructor and student pilot were conducting practice pattern and landing training, the flight instructor stated the following: during the first flight of the day the aircraft was in the traffic pattern for landing,the student pilot turned the carburetor heat on and reduced engine power to start the decent and base leg for landing, at this point the engine RPM started to fluctuate. The flight instructor asked the student if he was adjusting the throttle, the student did not reply and the flight instructor took control of the aircraft.
The flight instructor advanced the engine throttle turned the carburetor heat off and headed for the runway, at that point the engine stopped running.
The flight instructor lowered the nose of the aircraft to see if the propeller would windmill and he could possibly restart the engine,this did not work. As the aircraft was headed for the airport,the instructor felt he would not be able to safely land on the runway,at this point a decision was made to land in the lake. (Note: this aircraft did not have an electric starter motor installed on the engine).
After landing in the lake both pilots safely exited the aircraft and swam to shore. A recovery crew removed the aircraft from the lake and the aircraft was moved to the owners hangar located on airport property.
A visual inspection of the aircraft revealed the following: structural damage was observed to both wings, the elevator and the empennage. The empennage was twisted and severely bent to the right. A review of several photographs taken of the aircraft as it was still in the lake prior to recovery revealed the following: the aircraft was partially submerged under water with the tail section sticking straight up. No visual damage was observed to the tail section of the aircraft after review of the photos. The owner of the aircraft and the certified flight instructor both stated that the majority of the aircraft damage occurred during the recovery from the lake and while moving the aircraft to the hangar.
A visual external inspection of the aircraft's engine showed no obvious abnormalities. A positive determination could not be made at this time as to why the engine stopped running.
As the FAA filed it
SUBJECT AIRCRAFT WAS FORCED TO MAKE AN EMERGENCY LANDING IN WICKHAM LAKE SHORT OF RUNWAY 03 AT WARWICK MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (KN72). A CERTIFIED FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT PILOT WERE CONDUCTING PRACTICE PATTERN AND LANDING TRAINING, THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR STATED THE FOLLOWING: DURING THE FIRST FLIGHT OF THE DAY THE AIRCRAFT WAS IN THE TRAFFIC PATTERN FOR LANDING,THE STUDENT PILOT TURNED THE CARBURETOR HEAT ON AND REDUCED ENGINE POWER TO START THE DECENT AND BASE LEG FOR LANDING, AT THIS POINT THE ENGINE RPM STARTED TO FLUCTUATE. THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR ASKED THE STUDENT IF HE WAS ADJUSTING THE THROTTLE, THE STUDENT DID NOT REPLY AND THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR TOOK CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT.
THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR ADVANCED THE ENGINE THROTTLE TURNED THE CARBURETOR HEAT OFF AND HEADED FOR THE RUNWAY, AT THAT POINT THE ENGINE STOPPED RUNNING.
THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR LOWERED THE NOSE OF THE AIRCRAFT TO SEE IF THE PROPELLER WOULD WINDMILL AND HE COULD POSSIBLY RESTART THE ENGINE,THIS DID NOT WORK. AS THE AIRCRAFT WAS HEADED FOR THE AIRPORT,THE INSTRUCTOR FELT HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAFELY LAND ON THE RUNWAY,AT THIS POINT A DECISION WAS MADE TO LAND IN THE LAKE. (NOTE: THIS AIRCRAFT DID NOT HAVE AN ELECTRIC STARTER MOTOR INSTALLED ON THE ENGINE).
AFTER LANDING IN THE LAKE BOTH PILOTS SAFELY EXITED THE AIRCRAFT AND SWAM TO SHORE. A RECOVERY CREW REMOVED THE AIRCRAFT FROM THE LAKE AND THE AIRCRAFT WAS MOVED TO THE OWNERS HANGAR LOCATED ON AIRPORT PROPERTY.
A VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE AIRCRAFT REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: STRUCTURAL DAMAGE WAS OBSERVED TO BOTH WINGS, THE ELEVATOR AND THE EMPENNAGE. THE EMPENNAGE WAS TWISTED AND SEVERELY BENT TO THE RIGHT. A REVIEW OF SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF THE AIRCRAFT AS IT WAS STILL IN THE LAKE PRIOR TO RECOVERY REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: THE AIRCRAFT WAS PARTIALLY SUBMERGED UNDER WATER WITH THE TAIL SECTION STICKING STRAIGHT UP. NO VISUAL DAMAGE WAS OBSERVED TO THE TAIL SECTION OF THE AIRCRAFT AFTER REVIEW OF THE PHOTOS. THE OWNER OF THE AIRCRAFT AND THE CERTIFIED FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR BOTH STATED THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE AIRCRAFT DAMAGE OCCURRED DURING THE RECOVERY FROM THE LAKE AND WHILE MOVING THE AIRCRAFT TO THE HANGAR.
A VISUAL EXTERNAL INSPECTION OF THE AIRCRAFT'S ENGINE SHOWED NO OBVIOUS ABNORMALITIES. A POSITIVE DETERMINATION COULD NOT BE MADE AT THIS TIME AS TO WHY THE ENGINE STOPPED RUNNING.
Other reports on N3482N · 1
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.