The flight instructor reported that while on a downwind leg of the traffic pattern at the airport in Newnan, Georgia, abeam the runway numbers, he simulated an engine failure for the student pilot.
The student pilot performed checklist items, but the Cessna 172 was getting too low and far from the runway.
The flight instructor then told him to turn directly toward the runway, which he did.
The student pilot stated that he wanted to go-around, but the flight instructor said to keep going.
By the time the flight instructor realized the airplane was not going to reach the runway threshold, he increased power, but the tail hit a runway light.
The airplane subsequently landed uneventfully.
Post-accident examination of the airplane confirmed that the empennage had been substantially damaged.
The flight instructor stated that there were no pre-impact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Probable Cause: The flight instructor’s inadequate remedial action during a simulated engine failure and low approach, which resulted in a collision with a runway light.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This November 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.
One option for practicing simulated engine failures is to assume some point further down the runway threshold is actually the beginning of the runway. If you don’t quite make it to that point, it could be considered not making it to the runway and more practice is needed, but at least you are still landing safely on the runway.
Yet another case where a flight instructor failed do demonstrate his superior judgment–or lack thereof. What are student pilots paying for anyway?
Regards/J
I’m surprised this one hasn’t triggered a torrent of comments.
The 18-hour student pilot’s correct decision was overridden by the CFI, and the result was a bent plane.
What’s more concerning is they knew they had likely damaged the airplane, but they continued to fly the rest of their ‘mission’ as planned.
So…
We have a 25-year-old, 1400+ hour CFI with over 1000 hours of dual given, including 129 hours in the last 30 days…that’s over 4 hours a day, every day…not including pre/post time.
Sounds like someone sprinting towards that “hours required for my ATP” finish line…a pretty common scenario out there right now.
Is it possible just plain old “fatigue” may be an issue?
Do you think the flight school’s “safety culture” may have been a factor?
Those are rhetorical questions.
(BTW; that flight school is permanently closed.)