The flight instructor reported that, following simulated instrument flight instruction to a private pilot-rated student, he took the controls of the Cirrus SR20 while on approach to the airport in Sanford, Florida.
He added that it had started to rain, but that the runway was still visible.
Before touchdown, the CFI kept the airplane in ground effect to reduce the airspeed, and the airplane touched down about halfway down the 3,578-foot-long runway, bounced twice, and touched down again.
He then applied brakes, and the student “got the flaps up.”
After exiting the runway onto a taxiway, the instructor applied brakes, but the “airplane was still traveling too fast when it entered the ramp,” and it veered slightly left of the taxiway centerline and hit three unoccupied airplanes on the ramp.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and left-wing spar box.
The airport’s automated weather observation station reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 200° at 16 knots, gusting to 23 knots; visibility was 1 statute mile; broken clouds at 3,900 feet; temperature 81°F; dew point 73°F; and heavy rain. The instructor landed the airplane on Runway 27C.
Probable cause: The flight instructor’s failure to maintain an appropriate approach speed in crosswind conditions, which resulted in the airplane landing long on the wet runway and his subsequent loss of directional control when he attempted to exit the runway at high speed onto a taxiway, which resulted in the airplane hitting three airplanes on the ramp.
NTSB Identification: GAA18CA445
This July 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.
Pilot factories and low time CFI’s. The Cirrus aircraft are not for amateur’s either. Besides that I never liked the swiveling nose gear on any aircraft experimental or certified.
The CFI was inexperienced (550 hours TT). Don’t know what the culture is at his employer’s flight school. Was there an unstated expectation that once on short final a landing must follow? He said it was raining, yet he was also braking hard and not slowing down… IOW, hydroplaning likely. His after event analysis was good, however. Landing elsewhere, or simply holding for awhile was a better option in the rear view mirror. As is often the case in aviation, life lessons can be expensive. His teachable moment will cost big bucks to fix four bashed aircraft. He is not the first CFI to get caught in the expectation bias pit trap. I noticed he omitted the current weight of the aircraft from his report. There’s no doubt that with just two aboard and likely far less than full fuel his float distance would be longer and actual landing airspeed much shorter than at GTOW. Considering his likely light to very light aircraft weight and the wind conditions that suggested adding a few knots it’s easy to see why he had both a long landing and challenges slowing the aircraft once it was wheels down.
Bottom line? There be lessons here for us Wednesday Morning Quarterbacks! 🙂
I can’t help but wonder why this kind of accident continues to happen after all the similar historical events that have occurred beforehand. Sadly, this wasn’t the first and it won’t be the last.
Some folks just don’t have the required ability for conducting flight. There were so many incorrect checked boxes with this. I wonder what accountability the FAA determined was acceptable for the CFI? The level of egregiousness should determine an appropriate form of accountability. I’d have him/her redo their CFI certificate with a CFI who knows what they are doing. Too severe? Think about it. Would you send your wife or kid up with this CFI with just a tsk-tsk and a slap on the wrist?
I would blame poor training and poor testing (incl checkrides) rather than the CFI or any other pilot. Practically every day what I read indicates to me it will not get any better. Landing approaches involve a number of skills that will result in precise airplane performance and good judgement of projecting the outcome. What I see repeatedly is instruction at a rote level – i.e. at the end of the downwind, set rpm to this and pitch to this airspeed. This will result in a good approach. It is done with good intentions, but in reality, it leaves the pilot with inadequate skills.
Yes, although the CFI needs to be held accountable, and perhaps even the pilot-mill school he obtained his CFI from and works for.
I specialize in teaching backcountry and tailwheel flying. Thoughtless rote flying doesn’t cut it where there are no conventional traffic patterns, runway markings, sometimes no go around possibility due to terrain, combined with ill attention to airspeed and profile control.
Even in aviation, there is playing chopsticks and then there is Bob James or Diana Krall on the keyboard. Know your limitations and press on accordingly.
Wow – so many things scream “how did this guy get his CFI in the first place?” In addition to all of the other comments, he lands on the shortest runway and the only one without an approach in 1 mile and heavy rain. Then there is the wind, runway 18 would have been more only had a 20 degree crosswind instead of 70 and it’s 2000 feet longer. This was supposed to be a private pilot getting instruction? All the wrong kind from what I can see.
You should not need half a runway in an SR20 to ‘slow down’ unless you are over the numbers too fast…and there is the problem. Taxiing in an SR20 faster than 1000 RPM is also outside the POH. Both excessive use of brakes and loss of control result when violating standards.
“Before touchdown, the CFI kept the airplane in ground effect to reduce the airspeed, and the airplane touched down about halfway down the 3,578-foot-long runway, bounced twice, and touched down again.“
That statement from the report is telling. CFI? Wow. So many things wrong here and the probable cause is “failure to maintain an approach speed”. How about failure to display judgement. How about poor airmanship. How about not recognizing the need for a go around. How about a recheck for his CFI credentials. How about we go back to teaching people how to fly airplanes?
Yes. The most common thing I see is blaming these incidents/accidents on too much speed on final when there are a number of other factors involved. The problem then is good judgement to recognize the hazards that are developing right in front of your nose and the effect they will have on the outcome never get developed properly. In this case, the CFI had that moment of insight by the time he finished writing the NTSB report sighting the hazards facing him and the options he had. Too bad that analysis was not made earlier.
The number one top most-often made error, hands-down, is an unnecessarily high approach speed. All that extra speed quickly becomes your enemy once you’re near the runway. Most pilots simply do not have the flying skill or confidence to use an appropriately low airspeed on approach. Landing any small airplane half way down any runway is a demonstration of low skill and incompetence. If you aren’t on the ground and slowing within 200′ of the threshold with then you have blown the approach and may as well go around.