The pilot had just purchased the RV-3 and was landing at the airport in Jacksonville, Illinois, after completing his first leg of a cross-country flight.
He told investigators he flared the airplane too early and it bounced twice on the runway.
He decided to go-around, however, he forgot to retract the flaps.
When he applied full engine power, the airplane turned to the left, and stalled over the grass terrain adjacent to the runway.
The airplane hit terrain, came to rest upright, and sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s improper flare during landing, which resulted in an attempted go-around, loss of control, and aerodynamic stall.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This July 2021 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.
I’ve been flying my RV6 for 18 years. At low speed and high AOA it will turn hard left if you apply full throttle. Lots of rudder is required and if you get complacent or distracted I can see this happening. Glad the pilot wasn’t injured.
Yawing left isn’t the main problem. Due to the propeller slipstream around the fuselage in single engine aircraft causing downward pressure on the horizontal stabilizer, and normally if the airplane has been trimmed for the landing (nose-up trim), the power will also cause a pitching up force which requires very strong forward pressure to avoid exceeding the critical angle of attack. I remember in Cessna 206’s, so much forward control wheel and right rudder pressure was needed it was actually painful, like trying to lift a bit too much weight.
All these experts out there!! Webb is right. Airplanes all fly by the same principles. There are nuisance of course but you have to keep the plane flying no matter what and those principles don’t change I own/fly all types bearhawk, C421 and L39. Stalling because you applied full power with full flaps. You might not climb because you have to push the nose forward to keep flying but you are not aerodynamicly stalling the plane. After stabilizing the plane your next task is figuring out why the plane is not climbing gear, flaps spoilers etc..
Lots of arguing for no one to mention rudder input. Full power go around. Left turn and stall. That combo is becoming all too common.
Thanks, guys, for hijacking the thread to
argue who knows more. p
The good news is that he didn’t auger in on his one landing. Obviously, he wasn’t trained by Sinny Sinclair.. for those old and bold pilots still among us
Some how he screwed up, I have few thousand hours in RV’s all models. The RV is a very docile airplane, not the greatest glider and has a spring gear that tend to bounce.
Flaps extended for go a round not an issue. Most likely he got behind the power curve and stalled.
Sorry for the pilot.
At least he didn’t have a worse outcome, it could have been deadly.
I am sorry for the airplane.
Maybe he should have read the POH first. Believe me, l know.
I’m contemplating getting my private pilots certificate and being a part of the flying community. I really enjoy these articles and especially the comments! Thank you!
“he forgot to retract the flaps” then stalled? Flaps lower the stall speed. With full flaps, full power and proper primary flight control input the plane should have flown fine, then retract flaps when speed builds. Flaps should not have been a factor, training or lack of is the problem.
His BFR was in a Cessna 172, which will not climb with 30 or 40 degrees of flaps.!!
So, he probably reacted the way he was trained in the Cessna.
He obviously got no transition training in the RV…Sad that he wrecked his newly acquired RV, a great flying aircraft..!!
Jim – would have to disagree. One thing I did with all students was to simulate a flap failure on a go-around. Obviously it could happen so I wanted the student to be prepared. Of course conditions vary – we were usually in a C172R, near sea level, and just the two of us with less than full fuel. We would execute a go-around and leave the flaps at 30°. The rate of climb would usually be about 500fpm. Of course under different conditions (for ex: 40° degrees flaps, high density altitude, or heavier airplane), it could be drastically different. Those of things that should be explored in slow flight at a safe altitude.
I had flown a C172R, and on page 4-25 of the POH,,, ‘flap deflections greater than 10 deg. are NOT APPROVED for takeoff.’
on page 4-17, Balked landing,’ retract flaps to 20 deg, 10 deg. until obstacles cleared ‘
Taking off with 30 degrees of flap…you’re a test pilot.
I didn’t say intentionally taking off with flaps. We do a go-around, a required training maneuver, and normally, the airplane is at full flaps when a go-around is done. When you get to the flaps retraction to 20 degrees on the checklist, there’s no guarantee that the flaps are going to move. I’ve had flap failures in Cessna’s during the landing approach – it could happen at any time. It is no different than being prepared for an engine failure.
Poor training on go around procedures.
A good landing you can walk away from, a great landing you can reuse the plane.
10-4, any landing you walk away from is considered a good one!!
Can’t fault thinking.
Insufficient training is causing insurance rates to be unaffordable
That comment drives me crazy. First, if humans didn’t make mistakes we wouldn’t need insurance in the first place. Second, no way that plane had insurance on it anyway with a guy transitioning from a 172 to a single place hotrod. I have over 4000 hours in tailwheels airplanes and over 100 types. I had to get 5 hours dual to insure a Cessna 180 even though I had time in a 185 and many high performance biplanes such as Pitts, Skybolts, Christian Eagles and quite a bit of Stearman time. And I have never had a claim in close to 50 years of flying. This guy needed transition training in an RV 8 with someone. Accidents happen now and always will. Yea, Jim Tweeto drove up the rates for my 180. That’s ridiculous. He was one of the best out there and he made a simple mistake. It happens. No one here has made it through life without making mistakes.
One lucky man
As a cfi for 50 years I am so sorry for the guy that bought it. It is a great little plane
He just need some transitional instruction.
Gee, Warren! I had no idea that a C-150 and a Curtis C-46 fly the same! Thanx!
Tell me some differences as you see it.
I suspect that this pilot did not get any transition training, with 1.5 hrs in it.
an RV flies very differently than a C172, on short final.
Differently? How so? I’ve flown the majority of models tricycle and conventional single and multi you would see at any GA airport and to me they all fly the same.
Really? All planes may “fly the same”,
But they don’t all land in the same way. How many hours do you have in different “GA” aircraft?
Over 16,000 hours spread out in many different airplanes. And I do the same action with the controls in all airplanes for flying and landing.
So a beer is a beer and a coffee is a coffee; you obviously don’t pay attention to details.
Well the correct fundamentals apply to all airplanes. In cars and even the largest trucks, aren’t the controls used the same? When there’s a discussion in the Airplane Flying Handbook about technique on the controls, the handbook doesn’t say one technique applies to this airplane and this other technique applies to this other airplane. They emphasize in the introduction that the controls are universal.
The ‘short wing’ RVs don’t glide, [ about 9:1], so the pilot has to carry power to the landing.
In a Cessna 172, you can pull the power to idle and make a very nice landing, with whatever flap setting you use.
The sight picture is different, with the RV pilot sitting closer to the mains.
Aahh – another Piper Arrow, famous for turning into a brick when power is reduced or lost. Well, that’s not what you usually see in a Skyhawk, but it can happen in a Skyhawk too, for example when it is heavy, in a strong headwind, or in a downdraft, or some combination. What applies to all airplanes is that the power should be used on the approach, flare, and landing as needed to avoid a stall. So if a pilot isn’t taught that or doesn’t do that, it can be a problem in any airplane.
The sight picture of course is different in every model, but if that’s the only thing someone was taught to use for landing, then there are some fundamentals that were missed. I.e. the fundamentals for the flare and landing are to transition to a line of flight that is parallel to and inches above the runway surface at the proper landing speed. The pilot therefore has to manage the correct height above the runway surface (inches), the correct rate of descent (near zero), and the correct speed (whatever is needed with power, in many cases idle). If that is performed, the airplane will be in the proper landing attitude, but of course that’s something else that should be monitored before allowing runway contact. But the attitude is accomplished by controlling the performance of the airplane (height, rate of descent, speed) so it doesn’t matter what the model is.
While the hapless pilot might have gotten some valuable training in a similar model, the RV-3 is a single place aircraft. His first flight could not have been dual.
Sad for the plane but hey, if you can walk away and tell the tale, feel lucky. Not many pilots get to tell the tale of how they have hours for a solo cross-country flight with a “0” entered for the number of landings.
He can log “one” landing now.