A witness reported that he observed the Cessna 150 at an altitude of between 800 to 1,000 feet above ground level about two miles from his location.
About the same time, he also heard the airplane’s engine sputter, and he then observed the airplane in a vertical, nose-down attitude for three to four seconds before it went out of sight behind a hill.
The wreckage was found about two hours later in remote mountainous, rocky terrain near Santa Clara, Utah. Both occupants of the plane were killed in the crash.
An on-site examination of the airframe and engine revealed that the airplane hit terrain upright in a flat orientation on a 27° downslope.
Based on observed impact signatures, the airplane’s forward momentum was negligible just before it hit terrain.
Based on the witness’s observations and the physical evidence observed at the accident site, it is likely that the airplane was in a steep descent at a low altitude and that the flight instructor failed to pull the airplane up and out of the nose-down attitude at a sufficient altitude to preclude impact with terrain.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the flight instructor’s failure to arrest the airplane’s descent and maintain clearance from mountainous terrain while maneuvering at a low altitude.
NTSB Identification: WPR14FA183
This May 2014 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.
Learn from the misfortune of others
Sign up now to receive NTSB Accident Reports and GA news in your email inbox. Join 110,000+ fellow aviators.
Somehow the whole conclusion of making a steep descent and not pulling out in time just does not sound like it fits. They noted negligible forward velocity and the witness saw the aircraft in a vertical nose down attitude. If it was a steep descent than an attempt to pull out under such drastic conditions would probably tear the airplane apart prior to impact which did not happen. And a vertical attitude does not sound like any steep descent I ever did in a C150. It is just my own wild but educated guess that either there was a serious control system failure or it was intentional, I really cannot come to any other conclusions based on the limited data.
Without reading the full NTSB report………. and only reading the information provided in the article…. what does the headline…… training flight in the mountains have to do with the accident…….???????? And, by the way, one cannot train in the mountains… one can train around the mountains, one can train above the mountains…. one can fly over the mountains…. but one cannot train “IN” the mountains….. one can train in what the FAA has designated as mountainous terrain.
Are you implying that thin air and the consequence of less horsepower by the engine, less air for the propeller to move, the lessened ability of the wing to move enough air molecules and maybe the effect of less oxygen to the PIC’s brain were all factors in the results found by the persons who went to the wreckage…????? If that is the case… then why not state that in your headline and help aviators understand that it might have been the poor judgement or lack of understanding upon the PIC regarding the situation the PIC put the aircraft into……… soooooo…. maybe a headline like the following may have been appropriate. “PIC makes poor decisions, two dead” or “Investigators believe PIC used poor judgement, two dead”
You are pedantic, ad nauseam.
*yawn
Pray tell, what maneuvers would one do in a mountainous area at such a low altitude.