The pilot decided to conduct a low approach over a private airstrip near Yakima, Washington, to familiarize himself with the area.
He approached the airstrip from the north and entered a left base. After turning final, the Cessna 172 was on a stabilized approach.
About 20 feet above the airstrip he applied full power, pitched the nose up, and retracted the flaps. The airplane would not gain altitude and the uphill elevation of the airstrip was quickly rising.
The airplane narrowly cleared the hill at the end of the airstrip, but continued to lose altitude. The plane touched down, went over an embankment, and nosed over, coming to rest inverted.
The airplane’s fuselage and wings were substantially damaged. The pilot sustained minor injuries in the crash.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s failure to attain sufficient altitude during a go-around, which resulted in impact with hilly terrain.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This April 2020 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Probably had the carb heat on and didn’t push it back in, resulting in a loss of available power.
Warren…great points…especially on the flaps & Vx issues. Here’s my theory:
It’s a 1976 172N model that has a 180 HP conversion. There’s an STC for @ 250# MGW increase with the 180 HP engine; but, I believe the MGW increase requires available flap deflection to now be limited to 30-degrees.
He lists his gross weight as 2300#, the standard weight for a stock 172N; so, I’ll bet this one doesn’t have the MGW STC, and still has 40-degrees of Big Flaps available.
However…his USEFUL load is now cut to @ 767 lbs…not the ‘standard’ useful load of @ 920-ish….#
He’s got 3 adults on board & 38 gallons of gas (which means it must also have the long range tanks w/48 gal useable). It lists the accident weight as “2155 lbs” …145 lbs short of MGW, but still fairly heavy.
The density altitude was @ 2700’ (70F @ 1600’MSL) & the wind was 160/6, so he actually had a slight quartering tailwind on an approach to an uphill-sloping, skinny Runway 6.
He’s also a relatively low-time pilot.
I think when he attempted his “go-around from 20 feet AGL”, he dumped the flaps completely from 40-degrees down to full up. He then panicking when the bottom dropped out; he couldn’t level off in ground effect (the ground was rising to meet him) & he couldn’t climb, even with 180 HP, without yanking back on the yoke a little bit more…& a little bit more…until the stall horn came on & he staggered along on the “backside of the power curve” until the ground intervened.
Great news there were only minor injuries. I wonder what kind of conversation they were having inside the cabin
Caveat: If you look at the photos, the flaps do still appear to be extended just a bit…so…who knows. (…“panicked“…)
Tom
Using an elevation finder website, the approximate elevation indicated at the approach end of the runway is 1397′ and at the departure end is 1574′ – close to a five degree upslope. About 4000′ past the runway on extended centerline I got a 2204′ elevation. The pilot said he barely made it over the first hill past the runway and then “lost lift”, I guess another way of saying he stalled. He didn’t include enough details about his flap setting and airspeed to indicate how close he was to optimum climb performance. Mentally it can be quite a challenge because to get maximum performance especially from a go-around, you may have to lower the nose to establish Vx which can be a very hard thing to do when you see higher terrain directly in front of you. Of course, in preparation, careful calculations for takeoff should be made making sure to factor in the runway slope and terrain slope, which in this case was substantial. That may have indicated that for this aircraft it was really a one-way in/one-way out (opposite direction) runway.
Brings to mind a maneuver I was taught in the sixties , but seems to have gone the way of the Dodo now—- how to drag a strip prior to a possible precautionary or actual landing .
First , to circle the strip at ~ 200’ AGL to get a general view of the topography ( and to see and avoid possible wires ) , followed by a pass parallel to and offset from the strip at about 20’ AGL with no more than ~ 15 degrees of flap . This will give the optimum low speed for observation ( and chase away any fauna ) commensurate with near max climb performance at the far end , since best angle or rate is always at zero flap .
This should at least be covered in ground school these days , if not feasible in flight training ; it might have avoided the unfortunate event above , anyway .
There is a lot of issues that can be resolved within the Aviation community: one is the verbage used by the NTSB to describe the results of an incident, occurance or accident between Man, Machine, and Mother Earth.
Many of you seem to be, and some of you actually are “subject matter experts” of how an accident, incident or occurance should be briefed by the NTSB and I concur with you. But, instead of the anger of the method used or lack there of, maybe a better way to make that change toward getting a more sound and informative brief; you (“the seem to be and those who actually are”) subject matter experts out there should volunteer or employ yourselves within the FAA and the NTSB (who “Maybe” understaffed) to help bring forward what an actual brief pertaining to an accident, incident or an occurance within our aviation community. This may actually fix things forward, the way they should be.
Respectfully! Here’s a quote from my father: “When you point your finger at anyone or anything, there are three of them(fingers) pointing at you; fix them first and then direct all fingers at the issue.” Just sayin’!
Reprint due to spelling errors!
VR
Joseph Bush (Student Pilot)
There is a lot of issues that cna be resolved within the Aviation community, one is the verbage used to disscribe the results of an incident, occurance or accident between Man, Machine, and Mother Earth. Many seem to be, and some actually are “subject matter experts” of how an accident, incident or occurance should be briefed by the NTSB. l concur with you, but instead of the anger of the method or lack there of, maybe a better way to make a change to get the most sound and informative brief you (“the seem to be and theose who actually are”) subject matter experts should volunteer or employ yourselves within the FAA and the NTSB who “Maybe” understaffed. To help bring forward what an actual brief concerning an accident, incident or an occurance within our aviation community. This may actually fix things forward, the way it should be.
Here’s a quote from my father: “When you point your finger at anyone or anything, there are three of them pointing at you; fix them first and then direct all fingers at the issue.” Just sayin’!
VR
Joseph Bush (Student Pilot)
Sounds like it may have been a one way departure airstrip….at least in a 172.
What a stupid conclusion. He crashed because he failed to stay above the ground! How about some analysis of WHY this happened. Is that too much to ask?
Yes that is too much to ask. NTSB has a limited budget, or so it seems, when a crash is not involving a revenue flight (read that as 135/12x).
If you read many of the NTSB reports that come through here, there is a rubber stamp that gets used for GA pilots: Probable cause was pilots failure to maintain control….
And you can tell, after thinking about it, it is a rush to judgement. And had it happened to a two man professional crew with a union, the probable cause would have required them to actually look at what happened seriously.
Such as the case where a pilot got their foot caught under a rudder peddle. That would have gotten an AD to repair a design or something like that. But it was a pilot error thing….. sigh.