What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
The PIC purchased the aircraft on the day of the accident. The PIC verbally stated that they did not have a pilot’s certificate and stated on the questionnaire based on FAA form 8020-23 block 31 pilot information that they have 16 hours of flight time with 2 hours in the last year and 0 hours in the make/model (marked on this form as unknown becaus 0 hours is not an option), and no previous experience in a "pusher type aircraft". They stated that it was their intention to high-speed taxi and “crow hop” the aircraft. When the aircraft left the ground, it veered to the left. The PIC applied power in an unsuccessful attempt to realign with the runway for landing. They stated that there was severe turbulence with both updrafts and downdrafts. The airport manager had previously stated that the weather was mild and the winds were light. They entered the pattern to come around for another unsuccessful attempted landing. They attempted to land from the opposite direction but were again unable to land. The next attempt was in the original direction of travel. At approximately 30 feet above the runway, the aircraft was pushed to the left and downward. Correction attempts were unsuccessful, and the aircraft struck the ground, exited the right side of the runway, spun 180 degrees, and came to rest against the barbed wire fence that borders the airfield. The aircraft sustained significant damage. The PIC stated that there were no mechanical or performance issues with the aircraft before the accident. The annual condition inspection was completed on 10/30/2025.
As the FAA filed it
THE PIC PURCHASED THE AIRCRAFT ON THE DAY OF THE ACCIDENT. THE PIC VERBALLY STATED THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE A PILOT’S CERTIFICATE AND STATED ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE BASED ON FAA FORM 8020-23 BLOCK 31 PILOT INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE 16 HOURS OF FLIGHT TIME WITH 2 HOURS IN THE LAST YEAR AND 0 HOURS IN THE MAKE/MODEL (MARKED ON THIS FORM AS UNKNOWN BECAUS 0 HOURS IS NOT AN OPTION), AND NO PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE IN A "PUSHER TYPE AIRCRAFT". THEY STATED THAT IT WAS THEIR INTENTION TO HIGH-SPEED TAXI AND “CROW HOP” THE AIRCRAFT. WHEN THE AIRCRAFT LEFT THE GROUND, IT VEERED TO THE LEFT. THE PIC APPLIED POWER IN AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO REALIGN WITH THE RUNWAY FOR LANDING. THEY STATED THAT THERE WAS SEVERE TURBULENCE WITH BOTH UPDRAFTS AND DOWNDRAFTS. THE AIRPORT MANAGER HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE WEATHER WAS MILD AND THE WINDS WERE LIGHT. THEY ENTERED THE PATTERN TO COME AROUND FOR ANOTHER UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTED LANDING. THEY ATTEMPTED TO LAND FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION BUT WERE AGAIN UNABLE TO LAND. THE NEXT ATTEMPT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. AT APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET ABOVE THE RUNWAY, THE AIRCRAFT WAS PUSHED TO THE LEFT AND DOWNWARD. CORRECTION ATTEMPTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL, AND THE AIRCRAFT STRUCK THE GROUND, EXITED THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE RUNWAY, SPUN 180 DEGREES, AND CAME TO REST AGAINST THE BARBED WIRE FENCE THAT BORDERS THE AIRFIELD. THE AIRCRAFT SUSTAINED SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE. THE PIC STATED THAT THERE WERE NO MECHANICAL OR PERFORMANCE ISSUES WITH THE AIRCRAFT BEFORE THE ACCIDENT. THE ANNUAL CONDITION INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED ON 10/30/2025.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.