According to the FAA inspector who responded to the accident near Monongahela, Pennsylvania, witnesses reported that the Aeronca 7AC departed Rostraver Airport (KFWQ) in Monongahela, Pennsylvania, and was practicing touch-and-go takeoffs and landings when, after takeoff, the airplane pitched up “sharply, then went straight down.”
The pilot, who was seriously injured in the crash, told investigators that he was in the process of purchasing the airplane when the accident occurred.
On the day of the accident, he performed several takeoffs and landings at another airport before flying to KFWQ to get fuel. He performed a few takeoffs and landings in the traffic pattern at KFWQ, and “assumed” that, during the final takeoff, the airplane “got too slow and stalled.”
Examination of the airplane at the accident site revealed that both wings remained attached to the fuselage, with the outboard leading edges impact damaged. The wooden propeller remained attached to the engine; one propeller blade was splintered along the entire span and the other blade was splintered about half its span.
Examination of the airplane after recovery revealed continuity of the flight controls to all control surfaces. The engine was examined, and compression and suction were observed on all cylinders. Crankshaft and valvetrain continuity were confirmed when the propeller was rotated by hand. The cylinders were examined with a lighted borescope and no anomalies were noted with the piston faces, cylinder walls, or valves. The magnetos were removed and produced spark on all towers. There were no anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation before the accident.
A review of the pilot’s logbooks revealed that he did not have any documented flight experience in the accident airplane make and model.
The seller of the airplane stated that the accident flight was the pilot’s first flight in the accident airplane.
The pilot’s tailwheel endorsement was completed on April 20, 2022, in an American Champion 7ECA Citabria, however, there was no documented flight time associated with the endorsement.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack during the initial climb, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This May 2022 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.
Insurance may require experience in exact make and model to cover PIC
I think after refueling plane was not climbing as well as pilot thought it should.
“landed at different strip to refuel” Now he’s heavy, or at least much heavier than the previous touch and gos. A heavy and slow pitch up oopsie. Fortunate to be alive.
Some buyers are heavy enough to make the Aeronca legally a single place.
For some reason I had to go read the NTSB report. Now I am more curious than ever.
Young guy 32, VFR no strange weather or wind, no density altitude issues, etc.
The pilot is low time, 180 TT but only 40 PIC? OK, a new pilot who spent a lot of time in training maybe. 140 hours?
Sort of, it get more strange. He has both a SEL and a Helicopter rating? So maybe that is why the numbers look strange?
Failure to log hours? Maybe, maybe not. Does not show much follow through for a low time pilot.
The owner, strange move to me to toss the keys and say go give it a try. (Maybe he knew him? related?) I would have flown with ANY person wanting to buy my plane, first to make sure they saw how the plane was supposed to be operated, second so they didn’t hurt or kill themselves (or someone else) and third to make sure they didn’t damage my airplane. Once sold, it is on them, but while it belongs to me, it is my rules.
Sad part, injured buyer – maybe badly injured. Destroyed airplane. Probably lawsuits will follow.
Not much to go on here but it sounds as the pilot involved was not very skilled in flying period! Also the owner never should have let any one fly his plane that he really didn’t know.
Why would the owner let another pilot fly his plane solo?
Scott is right , he just didn’t write it down
What a mess for the current owner. There is lesson here in allowing.a prospective buyer to have the (Airplane, Motorcycle, Car) alone before the buy. An absolute certainty that what his insurance pays out, after deductible, will not equal his selling price. I imagine that the difference in prices, while significant, will not cover the attorney cost if the owner sues the prospective.
I agree with JeffO. May have thought he was in an F-16 headed for the Wild Blue Yonder. Nope. Headed for the woods.
/J
The article mentions nothing about his previous flight experience except to say he had “an endorsement’ with no time recorded. Was he otherwise inexperienced?
It would be meaningless if he never even had any taildragger time regarding “Time in “type” . And not sure, but time in model is not the same as type. I don’t have a taildragger endorsement, but I would be inclined to think that a Citabria and Aeronca are similar enough that time in either would meet the rules. Anyone have an answer?
Sounds like the cause was someone testing the performance to ‘see what she’ll do’ and made a big mistake.
Not understanding the significance of no documented flight time when he’s been shooting touch and goes all day. Did he suddenly completely forget how to fly due to no previous logged time in type?
“Thanks for letting me take her up around the patch, I’ve got to think it over and talk to the missus. I’ll be in touch “.