Primary finding
Probable cause
The pilot’s delayed decision to abort the landing. Contributing was his decision to land downwind.
Investigator assessment
Analysis narrative
The pilot stated that the tailwind for the selected turf runway was “5 to 10 [knots] with some gusting.” He said the winds “did not seem unruly…” so he continued the approach and once he was close to the ground the winds were “very flukey.” He said with full reduction of throttle, 30° of flaps, and speed slowed to “landing” the airplane would not “settle down.” At touchdown, the pilot said he was “too long.” He then increased throttle, and “released the flaps and carb heat to go around.” The pilot said that there were no mechanical deficiencies with the airplane preventing normal operation, it simply did not have the performance capability to outclimb the trees. The pilot said the airplane’s left wing brushed a tree reducing its airspeed, and the stall warning sounded intermittently before the airplane “careened” into treetops before it settled nose down onto the ground. During the accident sequence, the airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and empennage. When asked how the accident could have been prevented, the pilot said a go-around performed “sooner” than the touch-and-go landing.