The student pilot was performing a short field landing at the airport in Owasso, Oklahoma, with a designated pilot examiner in the right seat of the Piper PA-28.
The student pilot reported that his landing point was at the “top” of the runway numbers.
After the plane crossed over the perpendicular highway that is immediately to the south of the runway, it lost lift and the airplane hit the edge of the runway.
The main landing gear collapsed underneath both wings and the airplane came to rest upright on a grass field.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.
The student pilot told investigators that the accident could have been prevented by “proper inflight preparation of the approach” and “energy management.”
Probable Cause: The student pilot’s failure to maintain a proper descent rate during the short field landing.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This August 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.
How many 100+ hour student pilots are out there? Seems excessive to me unless there is a VERY special situation. Seems to be at least a couple have made the news of late with bent metal.
NOTE;
‘ When conducting a practical test, an applicant is typically considered the pilot in command (PIC) for the flight. FAR 61.47(b) ‘
So a failed test and a broken aircraft.!
That’s hard to believe, was the checker awake? Pull his ticket.
Can’t get much shorter than that…
That one’s on the DPE. Sat right there and watched the aircraft stall. DPEs screw up— there is a DPE that landed gear up on a check ride, and that DPE flies for a major airline. Oops.
The DPE is not your instructor. Yes, the DPE should try and help a pilot candidate not crash. If he had taken over here it would have helped to not bend an airplane. But then on every other check ride as soon as it is not perfect to take over and fail the candidate seems ridiculous.
I’m guessing he failed the checkride.
Looking at the google map of the airport, there is a road 20 ft from the threshold… so landing near the threshold puts the aircraft within 10 ft above it….a bit weird setup.!
So he was accurate at hitting the 20 ft of dirt, vs his mentioned far side of the ‘numbers, which is about 80 ft past the threshold.
Since there was no significant wind, he had to have stalled it short of the runway, and not the 65 kts he stated….which is about 10 kts too high for a short field landing.!
BTW, the runway is 40 x 2,600 , and the student pilot had 122 hrs total, and failed a 2nd check ride.!….
maybe he should try a boat ?
Yes this is a bit of a weird setup. When you come into a runway with a drop-off just in front of it, with you landing into the wind, the wind will curve down following the terrain as you are appraching. That is, the wind tends to follow the terrain. So, you have to have power in until you are over the runway and then take it out.
I’ve landed at an airport like this (flying a Cherokee-180) and the locals told me that they approach high, aiming for about 500′ past the crest.
I wonder if he looked at the airspeed as he got there. He should have lost ~5MPH right as he got there. Vs x1.3 may be your undoing on an approach like that (as it was for this guy). Going around is not a failure, and if the DPE was like the one I had, on the next approach he might have hinted to you to come in a bit higher and aim 100′ further down the runway.
I’m always intrigued when pilots list “loss of lift” as a factor in their “oopsie”. Especially, when it involves (usually) a landing accident.
In this case, he named “energy management” as the culprit. That makes me wonder: What ‘technique’ was he taught for flying a safe, stable, final approach?
Seems like there are lots of variations on the theme of “What-Controls-What”, on final approach.
I see folks floundering with pitch and power inputs, trying to hold an on-speed, stable glide path to the runway. But with a constantly changing ‘picture’ out front, the results are predictable; “unstable” approaches with shifting aim points, excessive +/- airspeed transients, fluctuating descent rates, etc…
I keep it really simple:
Hold the aim point (assuming you picked one that makes sense…) in the same place in the windscreen, using the stick/yoke…and don’t let it move…until you decide to ‘round out’. Control your airspeed with power.
Assuming the rest of the “Stabilized Approach” conditions have been met, including a completed Landing Checklist, the cross check is very straightforward: “aim point, airspeed, aim point, airspeed, aim point…” Repeat as needed. Works like a champ.
The good news: No one was hurt, and he’ll be able to laugh about it…someday. Plus, Cherokees are tough; that’ll buff right out.
Agree 100%. As said in the FAA Handbook, “When over the obstacle, the pilot may reduce power slightly”, the approach should result in “little or no floating during the round out”, but also “Care should be exercised to avoid closing the throttle too rapidly, as closing the throttle may result in an immediate increase in the rate of descent and a hard landing”.