Riverside, CA, USA
N195AF
Cessna 195
The airplane veered off the runway and impacted a ditch during the landing roll. The pilot had completed 10 three-point practice touch-and-go takeoff and landings without mishap, and was attempting his last landing of the day. During the landing roll, the airplane drifted off the centerline to the right. The pilot attempted to counteract the drift by applying left rudder pressure. The airplane continued to veer in a right arc off the side of the runway and encountered a ditch. The airplane impacted terrain, pushing the engine into the firewall and forcing the cockpit floor upward. The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions with the airplane prior to impact. Later, the pilot stated that the factors that he thought contributed to the accident were a quartering right tailwind, lack of left tail wheel steering, impeded rudder control, pilot error/lack of experience for not attempting to steer via the use of differential braking, and the presence of a ditch in close proximity to the runway. He reported that there was a 4-knot right quartering tailwind from 070 degrees. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector examined the airplane and found no evidence of a malfunction or failure with the brake, control, or ground steering systems. The accident flight was the pilot's first solo flight in the make and model, although he had previously accumulated about 140 hours in the same make and model.
On May 1, 2004, about 0955 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 195, N195AF, veered off the runway and impacted a ditch during the landing roll at the Riverside Municipal Airport, Riverside, California. The pilot was operating the airplane under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The private pilot, the sole occupant, was not injured; the airplane sustained substantial damage. The local flight departed Riverside about 0745. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a flight plan had not been filed. During a telephone interview with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge (IIC), the pilot stated he was executing practice touch-and-go takeoffs and landings on runway 27 [100 feet wide]. He had completed 10 three-point landings without mishap, and was attempting his last landing of the day. During the landing roll out, the airplane drifted off the centerline to the right. The pilot attempted to counteract the drift by applying left rudder pressure. The airplane continued to veer in a right arc off the side of the runway and encountered a ditch. The airplane impacted terrain, pushing the engine into the firewall and forcing the cockpit floor upward. The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions with the airplane prior to impact. In a written statement, the pilot reported that he thought there could have possibly be a problem with the right brake and/or tail wheel. He disassembled and examined the right brake and tail wheel, finding no evidence of mechanical malfunction of the brake and locking tail wheel assembly. He did find that, with the tail wheel strut oleo in the midrange position, the steering cables appeared to be misadjusted. He thought that the cable used to turn the tail wheel to the right was the proper length and tension, but the cable used to turn the tail wheel left was loose, and hanging with excess slack. He also noted that the rudder control was impeded in traveling left, due to a tab on the tail cone fairing being bent upward. He did not notice this impediment in flight and stated that the airplane turned to the left normally. The pilot further stated that the factors that he thought contributed to the accident were a quartering right tailwind, lack of left tail wheel steering, impeded rudder control, pilot error/lack of experience for not attempting to steer via the use of differential braking, and the presence of a ditch in close proximity to the runway. He reported that there was a 4-knot right quartering tailwind from 070 degrees. A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector examined the airplane after the accident occurred. He stated that he found no evidence of preexisting mechanical malfunction or anomaly. He noted that the brakes and tires were in good condition, with no evidence of excessive wear or bald spots. He reported that this was the pilot's first solo flight in the make and model, although he had previously accumulated about 140 hours in the same make and model.
the pilot's failure to maintain directional control, resulting in a veer off the runway and collision with terrain.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
