RYAN NAVION — Westhampton Beach, NY

What happened

The commercial pilot, who was the owner of the airplane, was receiving a flight review from an instructor who was not familiar with the airplane make and model. The pilot stated that they did not discuss the potential differences between the accident airplane and the airplanes the instructor typically flew before the flight. After departing, they flew to a nearby airport to perform touch-and-go landings. The pilot was performing the first approach for landing in gusty wind conditions. About 100 ft above the runway, the flight instructor took control of the airplane. The airplane landed hard and bounced back into the air. The pilot applied full engine power in an attempt to avoid a stall when the flight instructor yelled, "hands off the yoke." The airplane subsequently experienced an aerodynamic stall/spin and impacted terrain. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.

The pilot stated that the design of the accident airplane resulted in a "sight picture" during the landing approach that appeared "very steep." He also stated that, although slipping with the wing flaps fully extended is prohibited in many airplanes, such a maneuver is not prohibited in the accident airplane. The pilot opined that the abnormal sight picture observed during the landing approach and his slipping of the airplane with the flaps extended may have caused the instructor to "[feel] the need to take control of the aircraft at such a critical point in flight."

Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular (AC) 61-98D provides information for pilots and flight instructors to use when complying with the requirements of the flight review. The AC states that, before giving a flight review in an unfamiliar aircraft, an instructor should obtain recent flight experience in that aircraft or sufficient knowledge of its limitations, characteristics, and performance.

Although the reason that the instructor took control of the airplane could not be determined, it is likely that he felt the pilot was performing an unsafe maneuver that required intervention; however, it is possible that he interpreted the pilot's actions as unsafe due to his lack of familiarity with the airplane and its operating characteristics. During the subsequent go-around following the bounced landing, the instructor exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and spin.

An editorial "what led to it / how to avoid it" analysis for this accident is generated separately and will appear here.