NTSB Factual Report

On September 18, 2006, at 1100 mountain standard time, a Beech A36 airplane, N9067E, veered from the runway during landing and impacted a parked, unoccupied airplane at the Chandler Municipal Airport (CHD), Chandler, Arizona. The airplane was substantially damaged and the certificated flight instructor and the private pilot under instruction were not injured. The airplane was operated by the Mesa Pilot Development, Inc., Mesa, Arizona, under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91 as an instructional flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a flight plan had not been filed for the local flight that originated from the Williams Gateway Airport (IWA) at 0930.

The student was an instrument rated private pilot who was finishing his commercial pilot training. According to the flight instructor's written statement, they were landing at CHD to refuel before returning to IWA. Air traffic control cleared the flight to land on runway 22R, and as the flight was on base leg, the instructor noted that they were 100 feet low and 10 knots fast. As the student (who was positioned in the right seat) flew the airplane from the base leg to final approach, the airplane overshot the runway to the right and remained low. The instructor had the student maneuver the airplane back to the left and level off so they could re-intercept the final approach centerline. The instructor noted the airplane was low and fast (airspeed indicated 80 knots on short final), and the student added "little-to-no flare" before landing. The airplane touched down and bounced before veering "sharply to the right."

The instructor indicated there was no "verbal communication" established for the exchange of flight control, and as a result, she believed they were both attempting to control the airplane. The student added power and the instructor yelled "No!" and placed the throttle to idle and attempted to establish directional control. The airplane then collided with a parked airplane on the ramp and came to rest.

The student's written statement was consistent with that of the instructor's.

The wind was reported as calm by the flight instructor and she reported no anomalies with the airplane. An examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administrator (FAA) inspector revealed no anomalies with the rudder or braking systems.

The FAA defines a stabilized approach as "maintaining a stable speed, descent rate, vertical flight path and configuration." The Flight Safety Foundation (FSF), in part, indicates that an approach is stabilized when all of the following criteria are met:

"1. The aircraft is on the correct flight path,

2. Only small changes in heading/pitch are required to maintain the correct flight path,

3. The aircraft is not more than 20 knots (indicated) greater than the reference landing speed and not less than that reference landing speed.

4. The aircraft is in the correct landing configuration..."

In addition, the FSF recommends that if an approach becomes unstabilized below 500 feet above the airplane elevation in visual conditions an immediate go-around should be conducted.

NTSB Probable Cause

the student's failure to establish a stabilized approach, which resulted in a bounced landing and a loss of directional control. Also causal was the flight instructor's inadequate supervision of the flight, delayed remedial action, and failure to verbally announce the exchange of airplane control during the attempted recovery.