Leesburg, FL, USA
N13394
CESSNA 172M
The flight instructor and student pilot were conducting practice touch-and-go takeoffs and landings in the airport traffic pattern. The instructor stated that the runway was wet from rain earlier in the day. During the fifth landing, the student landed the airplane right of the runway centerline. The flight instructor described the landing as "soft" and "slow." The student applied left rudder to steer the airplane back toward the centerline, but the airplane continued to drift left. The flight instructor stated that he took the flight controls, applied left rudder, and then applied left brake, but the airplane "did not respond." The airplane subsequently ran off the left side of the runway, impacted a sign, and came to rest upright about 250 ft past the runway edge. The left main landing gear collapsed, and the firewall sustained substantial damage. Postaccident examination of the landing gear, wheels, brakes, rudder controls, and nosewheel steering revealed no anomalies.
On September 19, 2014, about 1100 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 172M, N13394, was substantially damaged during a runway excursion while landing at Leesburg International Airport (LEE), Leesburg, Florida. The flight instructor (CFI) and student pilot were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the local instructional flight, which was operated under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The CFI and student were conducting touch-and-go landings in the airport traffic pattern. During the fifth landing of the day, the student pilot landed right of the runway centerline. The CFI described the landing as "soft" and stated that the airplane's speed at touchdown was "slow." The student applied left rudder to steer the airplane back to the runway centerline; however, it continued to drift left. The CFI assumed control of the airplane and applied right rudder, which he said "had no effect," then applied right brake. He stated that the airplane "did not respond," and continued off the left side of the runway, where it impacted a sign and eventually came to rest upright in the grass. The CFI stated that it had rained earlier in the day, and the runway was wet at the time of the accident. The airplane was examined after the accident by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector. According to the inspector, the left main landing gear had collapsed aft, and the left portion of the horizontal stabilizer and elevator were substantially damaged. There were no tire skid marks observed on the runway; however, tire tracks were evident in the grass leading from the runway to where the airplane came to rest, for a distance of about 250 feet. Examination of the landing gear revealed that all three tires were inflated properly, and turned freely when rotated. Rudder control system continuity was established from the cockpit to the rudder, with no anomalies noted. Examination of the nose landing gear revealed that both steering rods remained attached to the nose wheel yoke. Examination of the brakes revealed no anomalies. The CFI held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single- and multi-engine land, rotorcraft-helicopter, and instrument airplane and helicopter; and a flight instructor certificate with a rating for airplane single-engine. His most recent FAA first class medical certificate was issued in May, 2011. He reported 413 total hours of flight experience, of which 120 hours were in the accident airplane make and model. The airplane was manufactured in 1973, and had accumulated 5,848.2 total hours at the time of its most recent 100-hour inspection on July 23, 2014. The 1053 weather observation at LEE included wind from 60 degrees at 5 knots, an overcast cloud layer at 11,000 feet, temperature 27 degrees C, dew point 23 degrees C, and an altimeter setting of 30.01 inches of mercury.
The flight instructor’s delayed remedial action and his subsequent loss of directional control during landing on a wet runway for reasons that could not be determined because postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no anomalies.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
