NTSB Factual Report

On May 24, 2001, at 1616 mountain standard time, a Cessna 172S, N506ER, collided with terrain during an attempted rejected landing following a loss of aircraft control during the landing roll at the Cottonwood, Arizona, airport. The airplane was substantially damaged and the certificated flight instructor sustained minor injuries, while the certificated private student received serious injuries. The airplane was operated as an instructional flight by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU), of Prescott, Arizona, under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The flight had originated from Ernest A. Love Field, Prescott, at 1530. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident, and a company flight plan had been filed.

According to a written statement provided by the flight instructor, the flight was to be a review for a prepatory commercial pilot course phase check. The student was to demonstrate a shoft-field takeoff from Prescott, fly to Cottonwood, where he was to demonstrate a short-field takeoff after conducting a simulated loss of engine power landing. The student called the UNICOM/CTAF frequency to announce their intentions. The student then overflew the segmented circle in an attempt to determine the wind conditions, which runway to use, and the traffic pattern direction. Both the student and flight instructor determined that they would use runway 14, and would have a "light right quartering head wind."

The instructor had the student maneuver the airplane for traffic pattern entry. When the airplane was approximately 1/2 mile from the runway centerline, the flight instructor simulated a loss of engine power by bringing the throttle to idle. According to the flight instructor, the student performed the appropriate checklists and setup for landing on runway 14. The student made an "uneventful landing with proper control inputs [and] had placed the aircraft within 3 feet (approximately) of centerline." The flight instructor added the airplane touched down well within the first 1/3 of the runway.

As the airplane's nose wheel settled on the runway, the right wing "suddenly lifted, the aircraft rotated to the left, and [the airplane was] airborne." The flight instructor took control of the aircraft and applied full power and attempted to regain control of the airplane. The flight instructor lowered the nose in an attempt to regain airspeed, but it was to no avail. The instructor maneuvered the aircraft to the left toward a clearing away from a building. He pulled the mixture to idle cutoff, turned the master switch off, and opened his door. The instructor attempted to flare; however, the airplane pitched "forward," impacting the ground with the left wing first, followed by the nose. The pilot unbuckled himself and the student, who was knocked unconscious during the impact sequence, and exited the airplane, dragging his student out of the aircraft behind him.

An interview with the student, conducted by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspectors, revealed that the student had placed the flaps to 30 degrees (fully extended) prior to landing. His statement mirrored that of his instructor. He added that the flaps had not been retracted during the entire event.

One of the witnesses, who was affiliated with a Cottonwood parachute jumping company, indicated the parachute jump flights were cancelled due to the winds. He added that it was windy with crosswinds. The witness observed the airplane land, rollout, then "popped into the air." The airplane drifted to the left and descended "straight down."

The aircraft came to rest inverted with it's tail separated and folded over the top and to the right of the fuselage. The left wing was separated from the fuselage with the exception of one bolt, and the outboard section of the left aileron was separated from the wing. The right wing tip was bent up and aft, and the firewall, fuselage, and empennage were buckled. The airplane wreckage was examined by the FAA, Cessna, and ERAU representatives. Examination of the flight controls revealed that they were all attached with the exception of the left aileron cable, which displayed a "broom strawing" fracture of its cable strands. The flap actuator was found in the 30-degree flap extended position.

The propeller was replaced and the engine was run on a test stand. No preimpact anomalies were noted with the airframe or engine.

The closest weather observation facility was located at the Ernest A. Love Field, Prescott, which is approximately 20 miles west-southwest of the Cottonwood Airport. At 1553, the observation facility reported the wind from 230 degrees (variable between 200 and 260 degrees) at 10 knots gusting to 20 knots.

The ERAU Airplane Maneuvers Guide, under a section titled "Normal and Crosswind Approach and Landing," contains a note indicating, "CROSSWIND CONDITIONS MAY REQUIRE A REDUCED FLAP SETTING FOR APPROACH AND LANDING. CARE MUST BE EXCERCISED TO ENSURE ADEQUATE RUNWAY LENGTH." The section also indicates, "Gusty wind conditions may require a touchdown at a slightly higher speed than normal (5-10 KIAS above power-off stall speed) and a slightly lower than normal pitch attitude. A reduced flap setting may also be necessary."

The Cessna 172S Pilot Information Manual (section 5, page 5-13) indicates that the maximum demonstrated crosswind component was 15 knots. Cessna indicated that this is not a limitation, but rather the maximum conditions encountered during flight test.

The flight instructor reported having accumulated a total of 773.6 hours of flight time, of which 574.8 hours were in the same make and model as the accident airplane. The student accumulated a total of 125.4 hours of flight time, of which 64.1 hours were flown in the same make and model as the accident airplane.

Review of the student's flight records revealed on April 26, 2001, he received an unsatisfactory rating during a stage check flight. One of the reasons listed for the unsatisfactory rating was "improper x-wind (crosswind) correction during taxi."

NTSB Probable Cause

the student's inadequate compensation for the gusty crosswind conditions and the subsequent loss of aircraft control during landing roll. The flight instructor’s inadequate supervision and his inadequate remedial action is also causal. Contributing factors were the gusty and crosswind weather conditions.