The private pilot reported that he intended to make two full-stop landings at the airport in Cloverdale, California, before returning to his home base.
He entered the traffic pattern and announced his position as he maneuvered to final approach.
He said the approach was stable, but appeared to be short. He added power and adjusted the pitch for the projected touchdown point beyond the displaced threshold.
When the airplane was over the displaced threshold, the stability of the approach was lost.
He suspected a swirl of wind or updraft was encountered as the wing raised more than he expected from previous landings at this airport.
He tried to regain the runway centerline and level the wings, however he was unsuccessful.
He then made a radio transmission that he was going around. He applied power and raised the flaps (he reported that his intention was to extend the flaps 20°, however post-accident, the flap position was fully retracted).
The Cessna 172 rolled to the left and hit the ground, coming to rest inverted off the side of the runway.
The forward fuselage, left wing, and vertical stabilizer were substantially damaged.
The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
Probable cause: The pilot’s failure to maintain airplane control during the approach and his delayed decision to go around.
NTSB Identification: WPR18CA072
This January 2018 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.
Cloverdale can be a bit of a challenge for a low time pilot [ 11 hrs pic]., with it’s tight pattern near a ridge.
I’ve not experience any gusts landing there… Zenith West Coast dist. is located there.
The pilot at least came to a good conclusion per his statement in the accident report: “This is why I suspect that the better course of action would have been to immediately add full power, rather than attempting to stabilize the aircraft.” And making any calls on the radio before initiating the go-around is completely inappropriate.
Practically everything depends on timely establishing pitch and power first to establish airflow and control. The initial objective is avoiding a stall and just stopping the descent. There usually is no need to immediately establish a climb or retract the flaps, and attempts to do those two things prematurely often result in the opposite, a stall or a reduction of lift resulting in loss of altitude. Most airplanes will climb pretty well with full flaps – in C172R models near sea level on training flights, I always saw about 500fpm rate of climb with full flaps, so dealing with flaps at a critical initial point can be a really unnecessary distraction. This is something which should be tested and demonstrated in a safe manner to know what your airplane’s performance is with full flaps.
Mr. Webb makes a very accurate set of observations. I especially appreciate his total lack of snark.
Cloverdale is a very scenic area.
Totally agree that the time to communicate with Tower is after the airplane is stable in the climb and cleaned up to missed approach configuration. I have seen a few botched go-around myself, and it all usually starts with tower demanding to know the reason for the go-around and rattling off new climb out instructions. As an airline captain, I used to brief my F/O that we would initiate the go-around, clean up to go-around configuration, get set up to fly the published missed approach, THEN talk to tower.
Cloverdale being my home airport has no tower (or even a monitored radio shack), perfect for me. Having a radio on in the approach or take-off can be reckless due to distraction in this small, steep valley where letting your vision slip inside the aircraft can make it seem even tighter and delay necessary actions like go-arounds or aborts. We were thankful no-one was hurt!