WOODLAND, CA, USA
N606F
Diamond Aircraft Industries DA-20-A1
The student pilot reported that while landing at the airport she made a very steep approach that resulted in what she described as a hard landing with several bounces on the runway. The runway surface was made out of asphalt. She found no damage during a postflight inspection and decided to continue the flight back to Santa Rosa. She said the run-up was normal and then departed. After climbing 200 hundred feet, the pilot felt that something was wrong with the way the airplane was performing since it was not gaining much altitude. Following a check of the power instruments and control positions, the pilot continued in the climb. The airplane climbed very slowly and reached 1,000 feet agl, about 10 miles from the airport. At that time, the pilot realized she should have been much higher and both the engine and airplane seemed like it did not have enough power. The student then turned back toward the airport as the airplane began descending. About 4 miles from the runway the aircraft was at 700 feet agl and still descending. The pilot then selected a field and set up for a forced landing. She stated that the airplane touched down and then spun around 180 degrees. An FAA inspector examined the airplane and engine. According to the inspector's statement, no preimpact discrepancies were noted with the airframe, engine, or fuel system. The propeller was deformed and exhibited both tip end damage and chordwise scratches. The propeller damage was not consistent with the nature of the field in which the pilot landed, but was consistent with asphalt contact.
On August 18, 1998, at 1345 hours Pacific daylight time, a Diamond Aircraft DA-20-A1, N606F, collided with ground obstructions during a forced landing following takeoff from the Woodland, California, airport. The forced landing was precipitated by a loss of engine power during the climbout from the airport. The aircraft was owned and operated by American Aviation Flight School, Inc., of Santa Rosa, California, and was on a student solo cross-country instructional flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and a VFR flight plan was filed. The aircraft sustained substantial damage and the student pilot, the sole occupant, was not injured. The aircraft had made an en route stop at Woodland and departed at 1330 from Woodland on the return leg to Santa Rosa. The runway, which the student pilot used at Woodland was 36, was comprised of asphalt. In her written statement, the student pilot reported that while landing at the Woodland airport she made a very steep approach that resulted in what she described as a hard landing with several bounces on the runway. After parking the aircraft and closing her flight plan, she inspected the airplane, found no damage and decided to continue the flight back to Santa Rosa. She started the engine, taxied to the run-up area and performed the standard preflight checks, which she said were normal. The student then departed on runway 18. After climbing 200 hundred feet, the pilot felt that something was wrong with the way the airplane was performing since it was not gaining much altitude. She took off her headset and listened to the engine, which was still running. Following a check of the power instruments and control positions, the pilot continued in the climb. She said the airplane climbed very slowly and reached 1,000 feet agl about 10 miles from the airport. At that time, she realized she should have been much higher and both the engine and airplane seemed like it did not have enough power. The student then turned back toward the airport as the airplane began descending. About 4 miles from the runway the aircraft was at 700 feet agl and still descending. The pilot then selected a field and set up for a forced landing. She stated that the airplane touched down and then spun around 180 degrees. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector from the Sacramento, California, Flight Standards District Office examined the airplane and engine. According to the inspector's statement, no preimpact discrepancies were noted with the airframe, engine, or fuel system. The propeller was deformed and exhibited both tip end damage and chordwise scratches. He said the propeller damage was not consistent with the nature of the field in which the pilot landed, but was consistent with asphalt contact.
The pilot's failure during a preflight inspection to detect the damaged propeller from the previous hard landing. The damaged propeller degraded the climb performance capability of the airplane.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
