What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
1. Description:
On January 22, 2026, at approximately 11:15 CST, aircraft privacy data omitted was engaged in a dual instructional flight. During an approach and landing on runway 32L, the student pilot allowed the aircraft to flare high and deplete available airspeed. Despite the flight instructor (CFI) applying full power, the aircraft impacted the runway forcefully.
The impact resulted in a momentary total power loss to the primary flight display (PFD) and the activation of the emergency locator transmitter (ELT). The CFI attempted to reset the ELT via the cockpit switch; however, the reset was unsuccessful, and the unit continued to broadcast. The crew performed a post-flight inspection of the landing gear but failed to identify structural damage to the propeller. The aircraft was returned to the ramp and remained in service until a subsequent pre-flight inspection identified the damage at 12:50 CST.
2. Causal/contributing factors:
• Instructional oversight: failure to maintain a stabilized approach and a lack of timely intervention by the CFI when the airspeed decayed below safe limits during the flare.
• Stabilized approach criteria: the approach was continued beyond safe parameters, resulting in a high-sink rate impact.
• Inspection bias: following the "hard landing," the post-flight inspection was localized to the landing gear, neglecting the propeller and engine assembly.
3. Root cause analysis (rca):
The root cause was a failure in pilot in command (PIC) responsibility and instructional supervision. The CFI permitted the landing maneuver to exceed safety limits before attempting to take control. Furthermore, the decision to continue the flight after the momentary loss of avionics (PFD) and an ELT activation indicates a failure to recognize these events as definitive indicators of structural or electrical system failure.
4. ATC actions that contributed to the event:
• None.
5. Technical findings (post-incident inspection):
A subsequent inspection by FAA maintenance personnel and certified mechanics revealed the following:
• Propeller: one blade tip (approximately the last two inches) was bent aft, consistent with a low-power propeller strike.
• Engine: internal crankshaft damage was identified, requiring engine removal and a sudden stoppage inspection per Lycoming and FAA directives.
• Airframe: damage was noted on the nose gear axle and the tire rim, with scuffing present on the left tire sidewall.
6. Actions taken to correct the problem and prevent recurrence:
The FAA has resolved the instructional portion of this investigation through the FAA compliance program. The following actions were taken:
• Regulatory counseling: the CFI received formal counseling regarding 14 CFR 91.3 (PIC authority) and 14 CFR 91.7 (airworthiness determination).
• Reporting education: the CFI was counseled on NTSB part 830 regarding the mandatory reporting of avionics failures and structural malfunctions.
• Remediation: the inspector is satisfied that the CFI has re-established a proper safety mindset, specifically acknowledging that any landing resulting in an ELT activation or avionics interruption constitutes an immediate grounding of the aircraft for maintenance.
As the FAA filed it
1. DESCRIPTION:
ON JANUARY 22, 2026, AT APPROXIMATELY 11:15 CST, AIRCRAFT ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ WAS ENGAGED IN A DUAL INSTRUCTIONAL FLIGHT. DURING AN APPROACH AND LANDING ON RUNWAY 32L, THE STUDENT PILOT ALLOWED THE AIRCRAFT TO FLARE HIGH AND DEPLETE AVAILABLE AIRSPEED. DESPITE THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR (CFI) APPLYING FULL POWER, THE AIRCRAFT IMPACTED THE RUNWAY FORCEFULLY.
THE IMPACT RESULTED IN A MOMENTARY TOTAL POWER LOSS TO THE PRIMARY FLIGHT DISPLAY (PFD) AND THE ACTIVATION OF THE EMERGENCY LOCATOR TRANSMITTER (ELT). THE CFI ATTEMPTED TO RESET THE ELT VIA THE COCKPIT SWITCH; HOWEVER, THE RESET WAS UNSUCCESSFUL, AND THE UNIT CONTINUED TO BROADCAST. THE CREW PERFORMED A POST-FLIGHT INSPECTION OF THE LANDING GEAR BUT FAILED TO IDENTIFY STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE PROPELLER. THE AIRCRAFT WAS RETURNED TO THE RAMP AND REMAINED IN SERVICE UNTIL A SUBSEQUENT PRE-FLIGHT INSPECTION IDENTIFIED THE DAMAGE AT 12:50 CST.
2. CAUSAL/CONTRIBUTING FACTORS:
• INSTRUCTIONAL OVERSIGHT: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A STABILIZED APPROACH AND A LACK OF TIMELY INTERVENTION BY THE CFI WHEN THE AIRSPEED DECAYED BELOW SAFE LIMITS DURING THE FLARE.
• STABILIZED APPROACH CRITERIA: THE APPROACH WAS CONTINUED BEYOND SAFE PARAMETERS, RESULTING IN A HIGH-SINK RATE IMPACT.
• INSPECTION BIAS: FOLLOWING THE "HARD LANDING," THE POST-FLIGHT INSPECTION WAS LOCALIZED TO THE LANDING GEAR, NEGLECTING THE PROPELLER AND ENGINE ASSEMBLY.
3. ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS (RCA):
THE ROOT CAUSE WAS A FAILURE IN PILOT IN COMMAND (PIC) RESPONSIBILITY AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISION. THE CFI PERMITTED THE LANDING MANEUVER TO EXCEED SAFETY LIMITS BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO TAKE CONTROL. FURTHERMORE, THE DECISION TO CONTINUE THE FLIGHT AFTER THE MOMENTARY LOSS OF AVIONICS (PFD) AND AN ELT ACTIVATION INDICATES A FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THESE EVENTS AS DEFINITIVE INDICATORS OF STRUCTURAL OR ELECTRICAL SYSTEM FAILURE.
4. ATC ACTIONS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE EVENT:
• NONE.
5. TECHNICAL FINDINGS (POST-INCIDENT INSPECTION):
A SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION BY FAA MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL AND CERTIFIED MECHANICS REVEALED THE FOLLOWING:
• PROPELLER: ONE BLADE TIP (APPROXIMATELY THE LAST TWO INCHES) WAS BENT AFT, CONSISTENT WITH A LOW-POWER PROPELLER STRIKE.
• ENGINE: INTERNAL CRANKSHAFT DAMAGE WAS IDENTIFIED, REQUIRING ENGINE REMOVAL AND A SUDDEN STOPPAGE INSPECTION PER LYCOMING AND FAA DIRECTIVES.
• AIRFRAME: DAMAGE WAS NOTED ON THE NOSE GEAR AXLE AND THE TIRE RIM, WITH SCUFFING PRESENT ON THE LEFT TIRE SIDEWALL.
6. ACTIONS TAKEN TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM AND PREVENT RECURRENCE:
THE FAA HAS RESOLVED THE INSTRUCTIONAL PORTION OF THIS INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE FAA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM. THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WERE TAKEN:
• REGULATORY COUNSELING: THE CFI RECEIVED FORMAL COUNSELING REGARDING 14 CFR 91.3 (PIC AUTHORITY) AND 14 CFR 91.7 (AIRWORTHINESS DETERMINATION).
• REPORTING EDUCATION: THE CFI WAS COUNSELED ON NTSB PART 830 REGARDING THE MANDATORY REPORTING OF AVIONICS FAILURES AND STRUCTURAL MALFUNCTIONS.
• REMEDIATION: THE INSPECTOR IS SATISFIED THAT THE CFI HAS RE-ESTABLISHED A PROPER SAFETY MINDSET, SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT ANY LANDING RESULTING IN AN ELT ACTIVATION OR AVIONICS INTERRUPTION CONSTITUTES AN IMMEDIATE GROUNDING OF THE AIRCRAFT FOR MAINTENANCE.