The pilot reported that, during a biennial flight review, he was briefed by the flight instructor to expect a simulated engine failure during takeoff and an engine-out approach to a perpendicular runway.
He departed Runway 21 at the airport in Sandy Valley, Nevada, and about 400 feet above ground, reduced power and turned left for the dirt runway 12. He overshot the dirt runway, banked to 40°, and felt a “strong sink.”
He leveled the wings of the Flight Design CTLS and added full power at about 150 to 200 feet, but the plane continued to descend.
The airplane landed hard, the right main landing gear struck a “rabbit hole,” the airplane veered right, and the left main landing gear separated. The plane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.
The instructor stated he considered taking the flight controls, but the pilot maintained control.
The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The automated weather observation station located about 26 miles to the east reported that, about four minutes before the accident, the wind was from 220° at 10 knots, temperature 72°F, dew point 34°F, altimeter setting 29.79″ Hg. The pilot reported that the wind was variable at 5 to 15 knots, gusting to greater than 15 knots, temperature 80°F. The pilot added that there was severe windshear and, later in the day, the assistant airport manager reported observing a dust devil over the accident site.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s steep bank turn at low altitude, which resulted in a rapid descent and hard landing.
Simulating an engine failure on takeoff with an intent to maneuver to a landing leaves very little room for error (especially with a poorly maintained dirt runway as the planned option?) At the very least, this simulation should have been discontinued a lot sooner with time to recover. Usually a CT with 912 has plenty of power (overweight?) Poor planning and supervision by the CFI is indicated here.
This May 2019 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 refuse any manuever in a biannual flight review…you cannot flunk one. Why take such chances?
Indeed and in this case the flight instructor was not the owner and may well have not understood the “average” capability of the aircraft.
I once had an instructor request a 360 turn at 60* bank. A hot day at gross in a stock 65 hp Champ I dropped the nose and made the turn. He wanted it with out altitude loss and knowing my aircraft i simply told him he could have 60* bank or we can hold altitude, he couldn’t have both in those conditions.