Greeley, CO, USA
N20JA
Cessna 172
The pilot and a safety pilot were practicing instrument maneuvers, approaches, and landings at different airports during the flight. The airplane entered the traffic pattern for a practice landing at an airport. According to the safety pilot, the airplane was high and slow during the final approach. About 10 ft above ground level, the airplane "floated a little longer," and the pilot initiated a go-around by applying full throttle. During the attempted go-around, both occupants applied conflicting "correction" inputs to the control yokes; the pilot applied back pressure, and the safety pilot applied forward pressure. The airplane stalled, the left wing impacted terrain, and the airplane came to rest upright adjacent to the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward fuselage and both wings. Both pilots reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot statements were conflicting regarding the accident details and sequence of events. Based on the statements and airplane damage, it is likely that the conflicting control inputs resulted in the pilots' failure to maintain a proper airspeed and that the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall during the attempted go-around. Neither pilot reported that verbal communication was established during the landing sequence.
The pilot and a safety pilot were practicing instrument maneuvers, approaches, and landings at different airports during the flight. The airplane entered the traffic pattern for a practice landing at an airport. According to the safety pilot, the airplane was high and slow during the final approach. About 10 ft above ground level, the airplane "floated a little longer", and the pilot initiated a go-around by applying full throttle. During the attempted go-around, both occupants applied conflicting "correction" inputs to the control yokes; the pilot applied back pressure, and the safety pilot applied forward pressure. The airplane stalled, the left wing contacted the terrain, and the airplane came to rest upright adjacent to the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward fuselage and both wings. Both pilots reported there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot statements were conflicting regarding the accident details and sequence of events. Based on the statements and airplane damage, it is likely that proper airspeed was not maintained, and the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall during the attempted go-around. Neither pilot reported that verbal communication was established during the landing sequence.
The pilot’s and safety pilot's conflicting control inputs during landing, which resulted in their failure to maintain a proper airspeed and resulted in an aerodynamic stall. Contributing to the accident was the lack of communication between the pilot and safety pilot during the landing and go-around.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
