CEN23LA082

The student pilot’s loss of control during approach for landing and the flight instructor’s inadequate supervision of the approach and delay in ensuring a go-around was performed at the onset of a stall warning.

The airplane was on a visual approach for landing during an instructional flight when the stall warning sounded as it approached the runway threshold. The flight instructor told the student pilot to add engine power to avoid a hard landing. She added engine power, the airplane veered left, and then bounced on the runway while the stall warning continued to sound. The flight instructor then told her to add full engine power. She added full engine power and the airplane continued to veer left and did not climb. The airplane settled into a field adjacent to the runway and sustained substantial damage to the left horizontal stabilizer. The application of engine power at a low airspeed would have necessitated greater control input to counter torque effects from the added power. The stall warning annunciation during the approach to landing was consistent with an unstabilized approach, during which an immediate go-around should have been instructed to the student pilot or performed by the flight instructor. The flight instructor stated that the airplane should have attained a climb rate and attributed the lack of climb rate to an engine problem. The student pilot, however, attributed the lack of airplane climb rate to its low airspeed and high angle of attack during the go-around. A postaccident engine examination and engine run revealed no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the engine that would have precluded normal operation.

On January 14, 2023, at 1115 mountain standard time, a Cessna 182R, N9393H, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Las Animas, Colorado. The flight instructor, student pilot, and a passenger were uninjured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight. The airplane was on a turn to the final approach leg for a visual approach and landing at the destination airport, when the flight instructor told the student pilot to watch out for several powerlines left of the airplane. He thought that it startled the student pilot because she began to increase airplane pitch. He then told her that she pitched up too high and to reduce pitch and add some engine power. As the airplane approached the runway threshold, the stall warning horn began to sound and, as the airplane crossed over the runway numbers, he told her to add more engine power to avoid a hard landing. She added engine power, the airplane veered left, and then bounced on the runway while the stall warning continued to sound. He then told her to add full engine power. She added full engine power and the airplane continued to veer left and did not climb. The airplane was airborne when it hit a 4-foot-high fence and then settled into a field adjacent to the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage that included damage to the left horizontal stabilizer. The flight instructor stated that the airplane should have attained a climb rate and attributed the lack of climb rate to an engine problem. The student pilot, however, attributed the lack of airplane climb rate to its low airspeed and high angle of attack during the go-around. A postaccident engine examination and engine run revealed no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the engine that would have precluded normal operation.