WPR22FA067

Witnesses reported that a high-wing airplane and a low-wing airplane were on final approach for landing to the same runway, with the high-wing airplane ahead of and slightly below the low-wing airplane. An airport employee stated that the pilot of the high-wing airplane was making position reports over the airport’s common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF), but the pilot of the low-wing airplane was not. The employee transmitted via the CTAF that there were two airplanes on final approach, at which time the pilot of the high-wing airplane aborted the landing. That pilot reported that he never saw the other airplane. The pilot of the low-wing airplane (accident airplane) subsequently transmitted that he had been using the wrong radio frequency and aborted the landing approach, entering a right turn away from the runway at low altitude. Witnesses reported that, during the turn, the accident airplane entered a nose-low descent that continued until it impacted the ground. The airplane impacted terrain in a near-vertical, nose-down attitude. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Based on the available information, it is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack while maneuvering away from the runway during the aborted landing approach, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and loss of control at an altitude too low for recovery. It is possible that the high-density altitude conditions and the distraction of looking for conflicting traffic may have contributed to the accident.

According to the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3C): At the same gross weight, airplane configuration, CG location, power setting, and environmental conditions, a given airplane consistently stalls at the same indicated airspeed provided the airplane is at +1G (i.e., steady-state unaccelerated flight). However, the airplane can also stall at a higher indicated airspeed when the airplane is subject to an acceleration greater than +1G, such as when turning, pulling up, or other abrupt changes in flightpath. Stalls encountered any time the G-load exceeds +1G are called “accelerated maneuver stalls.” The accelerated stall would most frequently occur inadvertently during improperly executed turns, stall and spin recoveries, pullouts from steep dives, or when overshooting a base to final turn… Stalls that result from abrupt maneuvers tend to be more aggressive than unaccelerated, +1G stalls. Because they occur at higher-than-normal airspeeds or may occur at lower-than-anticipated pitch attitudes, they can surprise an inexperienced pilot…Failure to execute an immediate recovery may result in a spin or other departure from controlled flight. SOW is a publicly owned, nontower-controlled airport with a reported field elevation of 6,415 ft mean sea level. The airport was equipped with two asphalt runways. Runway 22 was 3,938 ft long, 60 ft wide, and had a left traffic pattern. On December 22, 2021, about 1639 mountain standard time, an experimental, amateur-built RV-6A airplane, N6000Z, was destroyed when it was involved in an accident near Show Low, Arizona. The pilot and passenger were fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. An airport employee reported that he saw two airplanes on final approach for landing; the airplane in front, a Cessna, was at a lower altitude than the accident airplane, which was descending toward the Cessna. The pilot of the Cessna was making radio calls on the airport’s common traffic advisory frequency. He did not hear any radio transmissions from the pilot of the other airplane (the accident airplane). The employee transmitted via radio that the two airplanes were about to collide, and the pilot of the Cessna aborted his landing and turned to the north. Shortly thereafter, the pilot of the accident airplane transmitted via radio that he was on the wrong frequency and aborted his landing to the north. The accident airplane continued its turn at low altitude and appeared to stall, immediately entering a “nosedive” toward the ground. Another witness reported that he also saw the two airplanes close to each other on final approach for landing, with the second airplane descending toward the first airplane. He then saw the first airplane turn north, and about five seconds later, the second airplane turned north. He saw the second airplane’s wing dip, and the airplane entered a nose-low descent toward the ground. The pilot of the Cessna reported that hedid not see the accident airplane, and aborted his landing when he heard the transmission that there were two airplanes on final approach. Based on the environmental conditions on the day of the accident, the density altitude at the accident site was estimated to be about 7,423 ft. The private pilot held a rating for airplane single-engine land. His most recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) second-class airman medical certificate was issued on May 5, 2015, without limitations. The pilot reported on his application that he had accumulated 5 total hours of flight experience, with 5 hours in the previous 6 months since the examination. The pilot’s logbooks were not located during the investigation. Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane impacted terrain near the edge of a dry lakebed. The first point of impact displayed marks consistent with the wings and propeller hub in a near-vertical impact attitude. All major components of the airplane and most of the wreckage debris was contained within the main wreckage site. A post-impact fire consumed most of the airplane. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.