The pilot of the Beech Musketeer was undergoing a flight review at the airport in La Grande, Ore. There was a passenger in the back seat. As the airplane overflew the airport, the CFI simulated an engine failure by pulling the throttle to idle.
The pilot initiated a spiral descent to traffic pattern altitude and entered the downwind leg for the runway. As he turned towards the runway he inadvertently stalled the plane about 200 feet above the ground.
The CFI took over the flight controls but could not stop the plane from hitting the ground hard enough to break off the right main landing gear. The airplane bounced back into the air.
The CFI climbed to a safe altitude, then made a landing on the grass next to the runway. No one was hurt.
The NTSB determined the probable cause of the accident was the pilot’s failure to maintain control and the CFI’s failure to monitor the pilot during a simulated emergency landing.
NTSB Identification: WPR13CA261
This June 2015 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.
Having experienced three engine failures, I think it is essential that CFI’s challenge pilots to practice engine out procedures from start (loss of power) to landing. Lack of practice in emergency procedures is likely a major contributor to the NTSB listed “power plant malfunction” defining event for the second largest number of GA aircraft accidents in 2012 and 2013. If we add the number of forced landings that result from fuel issues (exhaustion or starvation) then piston engine failures equal, and in some years probably exceed power plant mechanical failures. Failure to practice realistic emergency scenarios for due to concerns that something might go wrong is misplaced fear. Had the Musketeer lost power WITHOUT the CFI in the right seat, that stall at 200′ AGL during the training maneuver would likely have resulted in far more damage, and possibly fatalities.
Good example of why I believe the flight review program to be a scam which only benefits CFI income (and not much of that).
Aviation, like most human activities, involves a certain amount of risk which cannot be eliminated. Empowering a CFI to instruct another pilot to engage in an unusually risky maneuver in the name of training is fine if one is in the military and won’t be held accountable for accidents, but makes no sense in a hyper-safety-conscious realm like recreational aviation. This is the reason the FAA no longer requires spin training.
I fly a relatively high performance E-AB and would never defer to the “judgment” of a CFI for anything more risky than a basic stall. Last BFR, my plane was down for maintenance and I had to rent a Cherokee 140 which I had never flown before and will probably never fly again.
Hope the pilot and his passenger do not quit flying after this pointless, and no doubt expensive, accident.
How is it you think a military pilot won’t be held accountable for causing or contributing to an aircraft accident? I guarantee you, the military pilot who causes an accident or contributes to one will absolutely be held accountable especially given the price tag of military equipment.
I suspect this CFI was not paying close enough attention. This stall and/or high sink rate likely didn’t happen without ample warning of its approach evidenced by decaying airspeed, much like the Asiana 777 that pranged the seawall at SFO a while back with two senior Captains up front who basically sat there fat dumb and happy while the airspeed steadily decreased well below Vref permiting an otherwise perfectly good airplane to run out of energy, stall and crash. This CFI should have given a speed check warning the instant the speed dipped below whatever Vref speed was being used and immediately taken the airplane around if there was inadequate response from the flying pilot when that close to the ground.
While this truncated report makes no mention of surface wind conditions, a power off glide to landing with variable gusty surface winds is a dangerous scenario and should be avoided simply because the response time for an piston engine to wind up and deliver sufficient prop thrust can be too slow for a sudden loss of airspeed due to a drop in wind speed that induces a high sink rate.