The pilot of the Cessna 172 was practicing touch-and-go landings on a narrow, ice-covered road with snow banks on each side in Vineland, Minn.
The plane encountered a rough area and skidded left.
The left main landing gear collided with a snow bank on the left side of the road, and the plane flipped over, sustaining substantial damage to the cowling, wings, vertical stabilizer, and rudder.
The NTSB determined the probable cause was the pilot’s decision to attempt a touch-and-go landing on a narrow, ice-covered road with snow banks on each side.
NTSB Identification: CEN13CA176
This February 2013 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.
open and shut case, NTSB got it right, what else could it be? T&G on a narrow snow covered icy road with snow banks on each side, doesn’t take a NASA scientist to figure it out. you can not train for common sense !!!!
The pilot/operator report in the docket describes what is essentially a landing on a runway with unknown surface conditions by a pilot with low time. He made an effort to be careful, however his lack of experience operating from confined and contaminated runways could also be a factor in the accident not mentioned in the NTSB report. While he says he carefully selected the stretch of road to be away from “fishermen and other traffic”, yet aligned with the wind perhaps a visit to the landing field would have been a good idea. The pilot said his nose wheel hit ‘rough ice’, perhaps a rut in a less-than-well-plowed road. It’s easy to see how a rut or ridge that a ground vehicle might traverse with just a bump (because of 3 other traction tires, lower speeds, and much higher forward momentum) would grab the nose wheel and result in an unrecoverable diversion. The pilot suggested a “wider road”, perhaps with more traffic, would have mitigated his problem with rough ice and loss of directional control. That raises an interesting question: Is it better for the nose wheel to catch an unnoticed rut resulting in an excursion into a snow bank, or to hit an unnoticed vehicle with passengers? Maybe his decision to conduct a T&G on a rural road of unknown surface conditions was the real problem to avoid.
I wonder how much of our money that decision cost???
Pretty smart guys those NTSB guys!
Really?