According to the flight instructor, the student pilot was high on the approach to the airport in Winterville, North Carolina, but he allowed her to continue as he determined the landing was achievable based on visual references and cues.
The student performed the landing flare and the Cessna 140 “hit hard and bounced quite high,” then pitched nose up to about a 45° angle.
The flight instructor assumed control of the airplane, pushed the nose downward and applied full engine power to recover from the “imminent stall.”
The CFI told investigators the airplane lacked the power, airspeed, and altitude to out climb the trees to its front and continued to fly the airplane “right at stall speed” until it settled into an area of small trees and heavy brush beyond the departure end of the landing runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane’s fuselage and wings, and minor injuries to the CFI and student pilot.
Probable Cause: The student pilot’s improper recovery from a bounced landing. A factor in the accident was the instructor’s delayed remedial action which resulted in an inability to recover the airplane from an aerodynamic stall.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This September 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.
It says in the NTSB doc that he flew 19.1 hours—IN THE LAST YEAR. Whoa.
Not sure where you’re getting that info.
He actually reported 19.1 hours in the last 90 days and 97.6 hours in the last year.
Just watched a security video on YouTube of a 600 hour CFI, CFII and a private pilot on a refresher flight turn a 172M into scrap. While they were practicing engine out landings, the CFI let the pilot get too low and too slow before he told the pilot to go around. Long story short, a botched go around made worst by the late react of the CFI. The CFI was “shocked” this happened. Sadly it sounds like he intends to keep instructing.
The lawyers and insurance companies are going to be the undoing of this country.
This 73-year old CFI (BTW, still flying with a Class 2 medical, not Basic Med) had 3,523 hours, including 1,883 tailwheel hours, and @ 140 hours in this, his own, airplane.
Not quite a 200-hour “wonder(?)” and most definitely not a “Cowboy”…
As far as the “unstable approach” and “go around”-related comments; I suggest reading the entire NTSB docket before you pass judgement.
These CFI incidents are becoming a trend because most very experienced pilots refuse to go back into primary instruction due to liability concerns. I suspect many very experienced and capable pilots/instructors just say, “no thanks, I have too much to lose”. So you get the 200 hour winders doing all the training.
Makes no sense why the CFI would let a student try and “save” an obviously unstable approach when the ideal and correct action would be either to order the student to go around or execute the maneuver himself.
Trying to land when you the approach is unstable is not something PICs should be teaching students… Never. Always instill the appropriate reaction to any given aviation problem.
When flying with a student or “rusty” pilot always have your right elbow tucked in and right hand ready to stop excessive rearward movement of the yoke, same with stick, and left hand is ready to add power. Student won’t notice what the right side of your body is doing so they still gain confidence and you get to avoid the crash.
When I did my initial training in a Cirrus at Duluth, I already had thousands of hours. But I noticed from the very first landing, as we got close to the runway, the factory instructor would slowly slide his right hand up close to the side stick to be ready in a split second. I didn’t need any help but there was no way for him to know what may happen. It was impressive.
Again this demonstrates the lack of safety concerns of the instructor to take control when at first trouble began! This instructor should be “decertified” to ensure that he does not hurt or damaged any aircraft again in a “instructional capacity”. This was inexcusable and a lack of responsibility to handle this situation. I wonder what has he done is the past that was improper with other students. If I had a “flight school” he would be “fired” on the spot”.
There is “no excuse” for not being in a safe flying state of mind! Especially when training a “flight student”.
The CFI was pic, especially since the article says “STUDENT PILOT”, and the FAR says that the pic is the sole and final authority for the safe operation of flight. He abdicated that role by continuing to allow the student to fly a steep/to high approach.
All students should be taught to fly a stabilized approaches or go around. And CFI’s should make certain that they understand that concept.
Rick Mason
ATP/COM ASMELG,CFII ASMEL(retired)
Wright Bro’s Master Pilot
Maybe part of the problem with this ‘training scenario’ is teaching a ‘fresh tail dragger student’ on a country runway surrounded by trees.
Start all training… on flat, level, wide open airfields… simply to gain the skills and instructor-student coordination needed for solidly operating [any] aircraft… much less a squirrely/under-powered C140 tail-dragger.
THEN and ONLY THEN…start on a smaller/more restricted runway… and THEN and ONLY THEN… with instructor-student familiarity should the team transition to airfields with obstacles and distractions… trees, wildlife, narrow, hot-humid-high altitude, etc concerns.
History continues to repeat itself with regard to CFI reluctance to grab the wheel and save the day. I again (and again) raise the issue of regulations: Is there a means to discipline a CFI for incompetence — possibly defrocking him/her through decertification? I’ll answer my own question: of course not! This is General Aviation — the last bastion of freedom of the skies!
This is America! Cowboys used to sing Don’t Fence Me In. Now it’s flying cowboys saying keep your dirty hands off me and my little toy airplane. Freedom! The freedom to injure and kill people in the aircraft and on the ground; to destroy expensive airplanes, to raise insurance rates, and give responsible GA owners/pilots a black eye. I rest my case.
Regards/J
I knew a CFI who was on a training flight when the airplane ran off the end of the runway a bit (2300ft runway with obstacle). I think one runway end light was damaged and there was damage to one main wheel strut cover. The CFI had to do an evaluation (ground and flight) with an FAA inspector. There is CFI discipline in GA.
Good to know, thanks. What ultimately happened to that CFI? Just a good tongue-lashing, or de-certification? Inquiring minds want to know!
Regards/J
He did a good job with the FAA Inspector and was approved to continue instructing with no limitations. This happened probably 15 years ago maybe close to 20. He was an established instructor at the field and airplane owner. The left seat pilot I think was certificated (PVT) but landed long on a short runway – similar to many other stories where the instructor just waited too long. CFI’s know that they need to let the pilot make corrections so they will learn, but sometimes let it go too far. Actually that can happen at any level as in the Asiana crash at San Francisco.
What we do NOT need are more FAA regulations! There are and always have been great and poor flight instructors. More FAA regulations will NOT change that!
Au contraire, Crandy. Taking a rogue CFI out of the cockpit takes away one more opportunity for death and destruction lest he/she sit in the right seat of another student’s airplane and exhibit the same latency of reaction time to grab the stick. Not all regulations are burdensome and onerous. Some, e.g., drunk driving laws, are essential to civil society. This coming from a red hat guy.
Regards/J
Amen brother
The CFI’s fault, of course, 100%. Gotta be ready to take over in a heartbeat, save the situation. All the rest of the talk about the pitch angle of the airplane or the trees or the blah blah blah doesn’t matter if you’re not gonna take over.
No, the student was just being a student. The instructor failed to control the situation, particularly given the trees. I would think let her get close to the runway, then assist her in a go around while demonstrating why her landing wouldn’t work. It’s called a teachable moment.
Seems these incidents are becoming a CFI trend.
That’s what you call ‘fly it as deep into the crash as you can’!
My dad always told me when I got my flight instructors ticket at 18 he said if your let a student hurt an airplane while u are instructing it all on u