CHI06CA054

Factual narrative

On December 8, 2005, about 1200 central standard time, a Piper PA-44-180 Seminole, N2196B, piloted by a flight instructor and commercial pilot, was substantially damaged during a hard landing on runway 1 (8,199 feet by 150 feet, asphalt) at Greater Rockford Airport (RFD), Rockford, Illinois. The instructional flight was operating under 14 CFR Part 91 without a flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time. The two pilots reported no injuries. The local flight departed Palwaukee Municipal Airport (PWK), Wheeling, Illinois, about 1050 cst. The flight instructor held a multi-engine airplane instructor rating and was providing training to the other pilot at the time of the accident. The commercial pilot (dual student) held a commercial pilot certificate with single and multi-engine airplane ratings and a flight instructor certificate with a single-engine airplane rating. He was obtaining training in preparation for the multi-engine flight instructor rating at the time of the accident. The pilots reported that after departing PWK, they conducted airwork for approximately 45 minutes, and then decided to proceed to RFD for pattern work prior to returning to PWK. The flight instructor stated that he intended for the dual student to execute a simulated forced landing on the remaining runway immediately after liftoff. He reported that he instructed the dual student to back taxi the full length of the runway. The tower subsequently cleared the flight for takeoff followed by an immediate landing. He noted that the dual student held the brakes and applied full engine power. Upon reaching full power, the student released the brakes and began the takeoff roll. After liftoff the student established the airplane in a climb at 88 [knots]. The instructor stated that upon reaching an altitude of 200 feet above ground level (agl), he instructed the student to "simultaneously reduce both throttles to idle while pitching for a landing attitude that maintain[ed] 88 [knots]." He reported that the resulting descent rate "did not appear favorable" so about 100 feet agl he "commanded" the dual student to initiate a go-around. He noted that full engine power was applied, however, the descent continued until the airplane contacted the runway in a "flat attitude." It subsequently bounced back into the air. He recalled that the stall warning horn sounded shortly before runway contact. The flight instructor stated that he assumed control of the airplane at this point and decided to continue the go-around since the engines seemed to be producing full power. He noted that during the flight around the traffic pattern, the rudder and stabilator were "less responsive than usual." He subsequently executed a no-flap landing on the departure runway. A post accident inspection revealed that the fuselage skin on the left and right sides, forward of the windshield was buckled. The left main landing gear strut was bent aft approximately 90 degrees. The tips of the propeller blades were curled and twisted consistent with runway contact. The airplane sustained substantial damage during a hard landing. The flight instructor and dual student were engaged in an instructional flight at the time of the accident. The flight instructor held a multi-engine airplane instructor rating and was providing training to the other pilot at the time of the accident. The dual student held a commercial pilot certificate with single and multi-engine airplane ratings, and a flight instructor certificate with a single-engine airplane rating. He was obtaining training in preparation for the multi-engine flight instructor rating at the time of the accident. The flight instructor stated that he intended for the student to execute a simulated forced landing on the remaining runway immediately after liftoff. He reported that he instructed the dual student to back taxi the full length of the runway. The tower subsequently cleared the flight for takeoff followed by an immediate landing. He noted that the dual student held the brakes and applied full engine power. Upon reaching full power, the student released the brakes and began the takeoff roll. After liftoff the student established the airplane in a climb at 88 [knots]. The instructor stated that upon reaching an altitude of 200 feet above ground level (agl), he instructed the student to "simultaneously reduce both throttles to idle while pitching for a landing attitude that maintain[ed] 88 [knots]. He reported that the resulting descent rate "did not appear favorable" so about 100 feet agl he "commanded" the dual student to execute a go-around. He noted that full engine power was applied, however, the descent continued until the airplane contacted the runway in a "flat attitude." It subsequently bounced back into the air. He recalled that the stall warning horn sounded shortly before runway contact. The flight instructor stated that he assumed control of the airplane at this point and decided to continue the go-around since the engines seemed to be producing full power. He noted that during the flight around the traffic pattern, the rudder and stabilator were "less responsive than usual." He subsequently executed a no-flap landing on the departure runway. A post accident inspection revealed that the fuselage skin on the left and right sides, forward of the windshield was buckled. The left main landing gear strut was bent aft approximately 90 degrees. Both engine propellers were in the feathered position. The blade tips were curled and twisted consistent with runway contact. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12