ERA17FA167

The pilot's unstablilized approach and improper landing flare, which resulted in a bounced landing, and his subsequent failure to maintain control during a go-around. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's lack of experience in the accident airplane make and model.

The accident flight was the private pilot's first flight without a flight instructor in his recently purchased, high-performance airplane. The passenger reported that, following an uneventful local flight, he and the pilot returned to the airport for a full-stop landing. Witnesses reported that the airplane was high and fast during the landing approach, touched down about halfway down the 3,100-ft-long runway, and bounced about three times before conducting a go-around. The second landing approach appeared to be slower but was still high. The airplane flared about 10 ft above the runway then abruptly descended, again touching down about halfway down the runway. The passenger reported that the airplane bounced "a couple of times" and that the bounces were "pretty high." A witness stated that, after bouncing, the airplane's engine rpm increased and the airplane became airborne, pitching to an approximate 40° nose-up attitude. About 75 ft above the ground, the airplane entered a steep, left-turning descent that continued to ground contact; the airplane came to rest next to a road just outside airport property and was consumed by a postcrash fire. The witness accounts of the airplane approaching the runway fast and high and its touchdown point are consistent with the pilot's failure to fly a stabilized landing approach. This likely contributed to the airplane touching down on the nose landing gear first, as evidenced by the black tire marks in an S-shaped (sinusoidal) pattern co-located with white paint transfer marks on the surface of the runway, which are consistent with a nosewheel shimmy and nosewheel pant contact. After bouncing during the second landing, the pilot added engine power to conduct a go-around, allowed the airplane's pitch to rapidly increase, and entered a steep left turn before attaining a proper climb speed, which resulted in a loss of control during the attempted go-around. Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of any preimpact failures or malfunctions of the airplane or engine that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot had about 1,200 total hours of flight experience and had received about 10.5 hours of transition training in the accident airplane make and model from a local flight instructor. During that time, the pilot performed 12 landings and received an endorsement for operating high-performance airplanes such as the accident airplane. Before purchasing the accident airplane, the pilot owned another airplane that was not classified as high-performance. Despite receiving transition training, it is likely that the pilot's lack of experience with his new airplane and its flight characteristics, and particularly operation of the airplane in abnormal/emergency situations, contributed to his loss of control.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT On April 24, 2017, about 1825 eastern daylight time, a Cirrus Design Corporation SR22, N94LP, impacted terrain in Wallingford, Connecticut, following a loss of control during an aborted landing at Meriden Markham Municipal Airport (MMK), Meriden, Connecticut. The private pilot was fatally injured and the passenger was seriously injured. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. The airplane was privately owned and was being operated by the pilot as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the local flight. According to witness statements and security camera video, about 1740, the airplane departed the airport to the east and returned to the airport around 1817. Witnesses described that the airplane was "fast and high" as it approached runway 18. The airplane then flared about 10 ft above the runway before it abruptly descended and touched down about halfway down the runway. The airplane bounced two or three times and became airborne again, then banked about 30° to the left and climbed to airport traffic pattern altitude. The pilot's second landing approach appeared to be slower, but the airplane was again high. The airplane flared about 10 ft above the runway, abruptly descended, and touched down about halfway down the runway. It bounced two or three times; the pilot then initiated a go-around. One witness described that, during the subsequent climb, the airplane entered a 40° nose-up attitude and it sounded as if the airplane was "hanging on its prop." About 75 ft above the ground, the airplane rolled into a steep left descending turn. It then impacted the ground, cartwheeled, impacted the airport perimeter (security) fence, slid across the ground while continuing to turn to the left, came to rest, and caught fire. According to the passenger, who was the pilot's son, the accident flight was his father's first flight in the airplane without an instructor and was a proficiency flight in preparation for an upcoming trip to North Carolina. The passenger stated that he did not handle the flight controls during the accident flight and that there were no unusual noises or issues with the airplane. During the pilot's first landing attempt, which was supposed to have been a full-stop landing, the pilot said "oops," commenced a go-around, then said, "let's try it again." During the second landing attempt, the airplane bounced "a couple of times" and the bounces were "pretty high." PERSONNEL INFORMATION According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and pilot records, the pilot held a private pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land and instrument airplane. His most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued on February 1, 2017. On that date, he reported about 1,200 total hours of flight experience. The pilot had flown out of MMK for several years. He previously owned a Piper PA-28-180, which he recently sold, and had purchased the accident airplane about 3 weeks before the accident. After the purchase of the airplane, he had taken transition training from a local flight instructor who also owned an SR22. The pilot received ground instruction from the flight instructor as well as 2 hours of dual instruction in the flight instructor's SR22, and 8.5 hours of dual instruction in the accident airplane. During that time, the pilot performed 12 landings. The flight instructor stated that he used the Cirrus Transition Training Manual as a guide for the accident pilot's training, instructed him in the use of the airplane's avionics, and had taught him to use more right rudder input during climb. He endorsed the pilot for operation of high-performance airplanes (airplanes equipped with engines producing 200 horsepower or greater) on April 23, 2017, the day before the accident. Review of pilot records revealed that the pilot's most recent flight review occurred on October 30, 2014. AIRCRAFT INFORMATION The accident airplane was a low-wing, fully cantilevered, single-engine monoplane of composite construction. It was equipped with fixed tricycle configuration landing gear, with a castering nose wheel, and steering was accomplished via differential braking on the main wheels. It was also equipped with a ballistic recovery system known as the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS), which could, under certain conditions, lower the entire airplane to the ground in an emergency. It was powered by a fuel-injected, horizontally opposed, air-cooled, 310-horsepower, Continental IO-550-N27B engine, driving a constant-speed, variable pitch Hartzell three-bladed propeller. According to FAA and airplane maintenance records, the airplane was manufactured in 2005. The airplane's most recent annual inspection was completed on March 13, 2017. At the time of the inspection, the airplane had accrued about 1,229 total hours of operation. The four-seat cabin included a composite roll cage within the fuselage structure to provide roll protection for the cabin occupants and was accessed through doors on either side of the fuselage. The seats were equipped with 4-point, integrated seat belt and shoulder harness assemblies with inertia reels, and seat bottoms with an integral aluminum honeycomb core designed to crush under impact to absorb downward loads. The Avidyne Entegra integrated aircraft instrumentation system comprised a primary flight display (PFD) and multi-function display (MFD). The flight controls for ailerons, elevator, and rudder were conventional in design. The control surfaces were pilot-controlled through either of two single-handed side-control yokes mounted beneath the instrument panel. Roll and pitch trim were available through an electric button on the top of each side-control yoke. The yaw trim system employed a ground-adjustable trim tab. Neutral rudder position was held by a ground-adjustable spring cartridge that was bolted to the left rudder pedal torque tube and center console assembly, which provided a centering force regardless of the direction of control surface deflection. METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION The recorded weather conditions at MMK at 1833 included wind from 180° at 5 knots, 10 statute miles visibility, few clouds at 300 ft, an overcast ceiling at 12,000 ft, temperature 16°C, dew point 2°C, and an altimeter setting of 30.15 inches of mercury. AIRPORT INFORMATION According to FAA Chart Supplements, MMK was owned by the City of Meriden, Connecticut, and was classified by the FAA as a non-towered, public use airport. The airport elevation was 103 ft mean sea level and there was one runway oriented in a 18/36 configuration. Runway 18 was asphalt and was in good condition; it measured 3,100 ft long by 75 ft wide. WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION Runway Examination Examination of runway 18 revealed black tire marks in an S-shaped (sinusoidal) pattern co-located with white paint transfer marks on the surface of the runway pavement. The tire marks and paint transfer marks were discovered in two locations about 1,350 ft from the beginning of runway 18. Both the tire marks and paint transfer marks were consistent with nose wheel shimmy and nose wheel pant contact. Accident Site Examination Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane first made ground contact with the left wingtip. After cartwheeling and subsequently impacting and breaching a 30-ft section of the 8-ft-tall airport security fence, the airplane slid along a public roadway on an approximate 078° magnetic heading. About 115 ft from the initial impact point, the airplane came to rest in the northbound travel lane against an earthen berm. Most of the airplane was then consumed by a postcrash fire. A 115-ft-long and 62-ft-wide debris path extended from the initial impact point to the main wreckage. It contained the propeller, which was found