WPR25FA145

The flight instructor and the pilot receiving instruction departed on an instructional flight. A witness who spoke to the pilots before their departure stated that the flight instructor occupied the front seat, while the pilot in the rear seat was receiving instruction in preparation for his flight instructor practical test. First responders reported that, upon arriving at the accident site, they observed the airplane engulfed in flames and an individual later identified as the pilot receiving instruction, outside of the airplane. They immediately began extinguishing the fire and providing medical assistance. The pilot was alert and stated to first responders that he had self-extricated from the airplane and that the flight instructor remained inside. He further explained that the flight instructor had been flying the airplane at the time of the accident. During the landing approach, according to the pilot, while on approach to land the flight instructor overshot the runway, initiated a go-around, applied power, and subsequently lost control of the airplane. Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane impacted a 5-ft-tall fence post near the departure end of the 2,600-ft-long runway as well as a 40-ft tall tree along the runway’s extended centerline, before coming to rest at the base of a tree about 585 ft past the departure end of the runway. Examination of the engine did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures; however, thermal damage precluded a detailed examination of the engine. Although witnesses near the accident site did not observe the accident sequence, they reported no anomalies in the engine’s sound around the time of the accident. The airplane’s path past the departure end of the runway appeared to be consistent with the pilot’s statement that the accident occurred following a runway overshoot and subsequent go-around. It is likely that the decision to initiate the go-around was delayed, which resulted in collision with a fence post and trees.

The private airport was equipped with a 2,600-ft-long turf runway oriented 16/34. Publicly available airport information indicated that there were 50-ft tall trees on approach to runway 16. On April 29, 2025, at 1534 Pacific daylight time, a Champion 7ECA airplane, N6310N, was destroyed when it was involved in an accident near the Flying N Ranch Airport (CA04), Cottonwood, California. The flight instructor and pilot receiving instruction were fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight. A witness, who was a friend of both pilots, observed the pilots at the airport about 30 minutes before the accident and approached them for general conversation. He observed the flight instructor seated in the front seat, and the rear-seated pilot was undergoing instruction for his flight instructor certificate. According to the witness, the flight instructor was acting as a “student pilot,” and the rear-seated pilot was acting as a flight instructor in preparation for this upcoming flight instructor practical test. First responders located near the accident site reported that they observed black smoke rising toward the sky. When they arrived at the accident site, they saw the airplane engulfed in flames adjacent to a residence, as well as a person (later identified as the pilot receiving instruction), walking around the area. They began to extinguish the fire and render aid to the patient. The first responders stated that the patient was alert and able to tell them that he self-extricated from the airplane and that the flight instructor was still in the airplane. The patient told the first responders that the “man who was in the plane was flying at the time of the accident and had overshot the runway they were attempting to land on.” He added that the pilot flying “powered up and then lost control of the [air]plane.” The pilot receiving instruction was transported to the hospital and succumbed to his injuries the following day. Witnesses located near the accident site reported that while outside, they could hear the accident airplane overfly the airport. They noted that they could hear the sequence of events from what sounded like landing and then a crash. The witnesses reported that they did not see or hear any anomalies with the airplane or engine. An autopsy of the flight instructor was performed by the Tehama County Coroner. According to the autopsy report, the cause of death was fourth degree thermal burns and charring of the entire body, and the manner of death was accident. An autopsy of the pilot receiving instruction was performed by the Sacramento County Coroner. According to the autopsy report, the cause of death was sequelae of fire related injuries, and the manner of death was accident. Toxicology testing performed at the FAA Forensic Sciences Laboratory found no drugs of abuse. Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane impacted several trees and came to rest ata base of a tree about 585 ft south of the departure end of runway 16. The first identified point of contact (FIPC) was a downed fence post about 40 ft south of the departure end of the runway, aligned on the runway’s extended centerline. The downed fence post was about 5 ft in height and was separated at the base. The downed fence post exhibited a black transfer mark near the top of the post. A tree, about 40 ft tall, was about 380 ft south of the FIPC, exhibited damaged limbs near the top. The debris path was oriented along a heading of about 355° magnetic and about 100 ft in length from the FIPC to the main wreckage. The fuselage came to rest on its left side in an approximate 10° nose-low attitude, on a heading of about 310° magnetic, at an elevation of 538 ft mean sea level (msl). The right wing and left main landing gear were separated from the fuselage and located about 5 to 10 north of the main wreckage. Figure 1: View of accident site diagram. The airplane was mostly consumed by fire. Flight control continuity was established from the cockpit primary flight controls to all control surfaces. The instrument panel sustained thermal and impact damage. Flight controls were observed in both the forward and rear seat stations. The forward flight control was fracture separated at the torque tube attachment point. Numerous separations were noted within the flight control system with signatures consistent with overload separation or due to the recovery process. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Subsequent examination of the forward flight control stick by the National Transportation Safety Board Materials Laboratory, Washington, DC, revealed that the fracture and deformation of the flight control attachment point were consistent with overstress separation during the accident sequence.