CHI04CA113
2004-05-01 · Harrisonville, Missouri, United States · Minor · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport LRY
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The dual student's failure to maintain directional control of the aircraft during the landing flare. Contributing factors were the dual student's failure to relinquish the controls to the flight instructor, the resulting inability of the flight instructor to implement any remedial action, and the ditch.
Factual narrative
On May 1, 2004, about 0945 central daylight time, a Cessna 172K, N7448G, piloted by a flight instructor and a dual student, was substantially damaged when it departed runway 35 (4,000 feet by 75 feet, asphalt) during landing at the Lawrence Smith Memorial Airport (LRY), Harrisonville, Missouri. The aircraft subsequently encountered a ditch and nosed over. The instructional flight was operating under 14 CFR Part 91 without a flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The flight instructor reported minor injuries and the dual student reported no injuries. The local flight departed LRY approximately 0900. In his written statement, the flight instructor reported that the dual student had completed three landings with his assistance and that he had made one landing as a demonstration. The CFI stated that on the next approach he requested that the student hold the aircraft in the landing flare "longer so that he could get a proper feel and visual picture." The CFI noted that during the flare the aircraft began to drift to the right. He requested that the student correct back toward the centerline, at which point the student banked to the left and applied left rudder. The CFI stated "My flight controls" to the student and applied right rudder. However, the dual student apparently did not hear him because the student maintained left rudder input, overpowering the CFI. The CFI recalled that the aircraft contacted the runway with the left main wheel and "veered" to the left. The aircraft subsequently departed the runway pavement, struck a ditch adjacent to the runway and nosed over. The dual student reported that during the landing flare, the aircraft drifted to the right. He reportedly applied left rudder and the aircraft corrected. He stated that as the aircraft approached the runway centerline, he applied right rudder. However, the aircraft did not respond but continued toward the left side of the runway. He recalled that he applied right brake in an attempt to remain on the runway. The student stated that these efforts were not successful and the aircraft departed the left side of the runway and nosed over after encountering the ditch adjacent to the runway. The student stated that the CFI was "always good about saying 'My flight controls' and likely stated this. However, I believe I . . . did not relinquish [the] controls to [the] instructor." He recalled: "I applied rudder(s), I applied brake and I recall my hand(s) on [the] yoke towards impact point." He commented that he was "much bigger" than the CFI. The CFI reported that there were no failures or malfunctions associated with the aircraft prior to the accident. The LRY Automated Weather Observing System recorded the following wind conditions: At 0755, winds from 350 degrees at 9 knots; At 0855, winds from 030 degrees at 7 knots; At 0955, winds from 350 degrees at 6 knots; At 1055, winds from 010 degrees at 9 knots; At 1155, winds from 020 degrees at 7 knots. The airplane was substantially damaged when it departed runway 35 during landing, encountered a ditch adjacent to the runway and nosed over. The certified flight instructor (CFI) and dual student were practicing takeoffs and landings during the local instructional flight. The CFI stated that he requested the student to hold the aircraft in the landing flare "longer so that he could get a proper feel and visual picture." During the flare the aircraft began to drift to the right. He requested that the student correct back toward the centerline, at which point the student banked to the left and applied left rudder. The CFI stated "My flight controls" to the student and applied right rudder. However, the student apparently did not hear him because the student maintained left rudder input, overpowering the CFI. The CFI recalled that the aircraft contacted the runway with the left main wheel and "veered" to the left. The aircraft departed the runway pavement, struck a ditch adjacent to the runway and nosed over. The student stated that the CFI was "always good about saying 'My flight controls' and likely stated this. However, I believe I . . . did not relinquish [the] controls to [the] instructor." He recalled: "I applied rudder(s), I applied brake and I recall my hand(s) on [the] yoke towards impact point." He commented that he was "much bigger" than the CFI. The CFI reported that there were no failures or malfunctions associated with the aircraft prior to the accident. Wind conditions recorded at the airport about ten minutes prior to the accident were from 350 degrees at 6 knots. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2004_CHI04CA113.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Search this event elsewhere
External sources are reported, not agency: signal that something happened, not fact about what happened.
- TallyAero Live Wire Aviation press
- NTSB CAROL Agency ↗
- NTSB Docket Agency ↗
- Aviation Safety Network Aviation press ↗
- Kathryn's Report Aviation press ↗
- Aviation Herald Aviation press ↗
- AVweb Aviation press ↗
- Pilots of America Community ↗
- Reddit /r/flying Community ↗
- FlightAware Aviation press ↗
- AOPA accident database Aviation press ↗
- Google News News ↗
- DuckDuckGo News ↗
Related research
Matched on aircraft type or causal vocabulary (icing). All research papers
- arXiv 2026 · arXiv preprint Enabling Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight Drones Operation over Open RAN 5G Networks with Slicing
Among the foretold claims of the transition from 5G to 6G, Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight (BVLoS) drone operation has emerged as a prominent Internet-of-Robots enabler.
- NASA NTRS 2026 · Contractor Report (CR) Icing Physics Studies Using the 3D SIDRM Test Article: 2023 Icing Tests Analysis
In-flight icing is an important safety issue and is a factor that affects aircraft design and performance. Newer regulations are driving a need for improvements in airframe and engine icing simulation…
- arXiv 2025 · arXiv preprint Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning for UAV-Assisted 5G Network Slicing: A Comparative Study of MAPPO, MADDPG, and MADQN
The growing demand for robust, scalable wireless networks in the 5G-and-beyond era has led to the deployment of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) as mobile base stations to enhance coverage in dense urb…
- NASA NTRS 2025 · Presentation NASA Icing Update – March 2025
This NASA Icing Update was prepared for presentation to the SAE International AC-9C Inflight Icing Technology Committee. This update includes the following topics: planned Rotational Icing Scaling tes…
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2025 · Journal article (JAAER) A Mathematical Model on the Temporal Dynamics of Aviation Competitive Pricing
This study investigates the competitive dynamics of airport pricing using U.S. airport data to validate the findings. It employs linear and nonlinear ordinary differential equation models to analyze t…
- arXiv 2024 · arXiv preprint An energy-stable phase-field model for droplet icing simulations
A phase-field model for three-phase flows is established by combining the Navier-Stokes (NS) and the energy equations, with the Allen-Cahn (AC) and Cahn-Hilliard (CH) equations and is demonstrated ana…