The designated pilot examiner (DPE) and student pilot were conducting a private pilot check ride.
The DPE reported that, during climbout, he retarded the throttle to simulate an engine failure. The student attempted to recover the Cessna 172 by lowering its nose to maintain controlled flight. However, the airplane descended.
The DPE terminated the simulated engine failure, took control of the airplane, and attempted to recover full engine power, but the engine remained at idle power, and the airplane descended into trees near Norfolk, Virginia.
A post-accident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no mechanical malfunctions or failures, and the engine was test run with no anomalies noted.
The reason for the engine’s failure to regain full power could not be determined.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the engine’s failure to regain full power after a simulated engine failure for reasons that could not be determined during post-accident examinations and testing.
NTSB Identification: ERA15LA094
This January 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.
I don’t care who you are, CFI, DPE, FAA, if you pull the power back to simulate an engine failure shortly after takeoff, or at low altitude, you are violating exactly what you are trying to teach or ensure that every pilot has; decision making skills and risk management.
Ntsb — flunked this check ride — I guess if no one dies you just give up and say you don’t know why.
Um, is that even standard practice?? Pulling to idle on takeoff? Not safe at all.
Don’t ‘spose there’s any chance, at all, that the DPE mis-reported what actually happened… is there? Like maybe he/she waited to long to “terminate the simulated engine out”. Or perhaps even commenced the engine out too soon after take off. Before there was sufficient altitude. No possible chance of that… right?
FWIW, the DPE ‘interview’ form in the Docket is blank, as is the Pilot/Operator Report. The aircraft had a fuel injected engine. The engine ran great, responded promptly, and started easily after the aircraft was recovered. If there’s a lesson here it’s practice EP where there’s an “out”. The other lesson is “fly the plane ’til it comes to rest”. The DPE’s airmanship was beyond reproach. Neither he or the pilot-applicant suffered injury.
Beyond reproach except for the fact that his decision to pull the power on climbout resulted in the crash. Is this part of ACS? There’s sure as hell nothing in the PTS about recovering from an engine-out on takeoff.
So, the DPE created an emergency in which he couldn’t recover himself. I sure hope that DPE is now an ex-DPE and he paid for that airplane.
Problems happen. Suppose it had been an FAA inspector who had done this.
Meanwhile I wonder if this was some kind of contamination problem. Since the after crash inspection used fuel supplied by the inspectors, we don’t know if the fuel was contaminated (not stated in the report when you click on the link) and it was just an interesting coincidence that the retarding of the throttle and the contamination “hitting” were simultaneous.
The other thing that puzzles me is, it is stated that engine continued to run at idle even with full throttle commanded.
Given that there is a fuel pump in this 172, it most likely was an injected system, so there is no carb heat (no 172 using a carburetor I’ve flown has an aux fuel pump).
One thing of note is, the student (Private Candidate) didn’t turn on the fuel pump as the DPE requested… This was the ultimate failed check ride.
I also wonder how this engine passed the mag check with an oil fouled plug… Most 172s I’ve flown would have been shuddering horribly on the mag check with one cylinder not firing, and the RPM drop would have been excessive.
I guess I have too many questions for this NTSB report.
Everything you say indicates the DPE has poor decision making skills. Yes, problems happen. When you induce a “simulated abnormality”, you have to be prepared for it to become a real problem. The ultimate end to this is that the DPE’s actions caused the aircraft to crash. The DPE was at the controls of the aircraft when it met the earth, not the student.