The flight instructor in the multi-engine airplane reported that during a biennial flight review the pilot released the brakes and added full power for takeoff.
During the takeoff roll the CFI utilized the left engine mixture control to simulate a left engine failure, but the pilot “froze” at the flight controls and the Beech 76 veered to the left.
The flight instructor attempted to fail the right engine via the right mixture control in an attempt to regain directional control, but his hand came off the mixture control and the airplane left the runway at the airport in Davis, California, and the nose landing gear collapsed.
During the runway excursion, the flight instructor said he “finally got his hand back on the right mixture and pulled it to idle cut-off.”
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.
The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
Probable cause: The pilot’s failure to maintain directional control during a simulated left engine failure during takeoff. Also causal to the accident was the flight instructor’s delayed remedial action to maintain directional control and reduce the right engine mixture control.
NTSB Identification: GAA17CA056
This November 2016 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.
You can’t “fail’ a bi-annual review. If you don’t perform up to spec, the CFI lists it as ‘dual given’. If I was going to fail an engine on takeoff (and I am far from being a CFI!) I’d have at least gone over what to do in the pre-flight meeting, and maybe failed an engine at altitude before landing, and then failing the engine on takeoff.
I agree with the other comments about the CFI failing to adequately ensure the safety of the flight.
We have two Richards on this site.
Since we’re all striving for accuracy here…when it was a BFR, seven or so years ago, the B in BFR was biennial, meaning every two years. Biannual means twice a year. Now, it is just Flight Review, with the thinking that the FR could be done more often than every two years for the sake of proficiency…so you could do the FR biannually, if you like, even though it is required biennially.
Bonus: Aircraft hangar is not spelled ER and turbulence is not spelled ANCE. “Whatever” need not apply.?
A Gold Seal CFI and FAASTeam representative…
When I was teaching in multis I also used to “fail” an engine using the mixture control. Engineering advice was that using the mixture was kinder on the engine than using the throttle, for shock cooling considerations. No matter how it is achieved we must expose students and give experience of engine failures at the worst time before they are let loose on unsuspecting passengers. The mitigation is that the instructor must be ready if the student doesn’t react in a timely or correct manner, including unfailing the engine if required. I wasn’t there, but it seems that in this cas the instructor wasn’t ready to take control if required, for whatever reason.
I had one instructor in a Piper Cheyenne that kept the engine going but feathered the engine to simulate failure. All ok, but it took something like 8 seconds for the prop to unfeaher. Might as well be shut down …
The CFI should be sacked.
Look a bit deeper who’s the idiot that tort the CFI to pull the mixture on T/O or is it self modified behaviour that has crept into instructors
I agree 1000%
Dumb idea to actually fail an engine on T/O for any reason!
Mr. Greg Wilson you are SPOT ON !!!
The problem starts with this,
“the CFI utilized the left engine mixture control to simulate a left engine failure, “, That is NOT a simulation, using the mixture to “simulate” will stop the engine. A stopped engine is a failed engine whether it was intentional, accidental or by mechanical failure. When an engine fails due to fuel exhaustion it is a failure. It is still a failure if the engine stopped because of a tank failure, the pilot selecting an empty tank or the mixture being moved to idle cut-off. In this case the CFI failed in their primary duty of protecting the flight by causing an intentional engine failure. The CFI should have been held in violation of FAR Part 91.13 ‘Careless or Reckless operation at the very lest.
The “BFR” has been called a Flight Review for quite some time now. FWIW…
If you mess with my engine controls during takeoff, your’e gonna get slapped, CFI or not. Couldn’t this have been done at altitude?
I presume the pilot getting the review didn’t get signed off for his biennial. If he froze, he should maybe consider giving up flying in my opinion. If that had actually occurred on a flight with passengers, we might be reading about a fatal accident.
I don’t totally agree with the comment that maybe he shouldn’t be flying if he froze. The article doesn’t mention how long it has been since he has flown. I didn’t fly for 17 years, and my first time getting back in the cockpit for a review, I was pretty rusty on my emergency procedures, and was hesitant on what to do when the CFI pulled the power on that first flight. Afterwards, I did some studying and the next time up I was ready for anything he threw at me. If this pilot hadn’t flown for many years, I can understand, and maybe the CFI should have been better prepared for this pilot to not react properly. If this pilot is flying regularly, then I might have issues with his reaction. But will withhold judgement without knowing all the facts.
I was wondering about that, but why would he be taking a bienniel flight review. Seems he would have been taking dual. I figured he had been flying since it was a bienniel. Oh well, what the heck do I know?