NTSB CAROL · Event
Event ERA16LA181
Registry · N367FS
FAA Aircraft Registry record.
Make / Model
MAULE M-7-235B
Seats / Engines
4 seats · 1 engine
ADS-B equipped
Yes — Mode-S A426DB
Registrant of record
SPARKS BRIAN E
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot's improper landing flare, which resulted in a hard landing and subsequent damage to the left float.
Factual narrative
On April 24, 2016, about 1500 eastern daylight time, an amphibious Maule M7 235-B, N367FS, was substantially damaged while attempting to land on a lake near Littleton, North Carolina. The private pilot and two passengers were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight, which departed the lake around 1445. The airplane was owned and operated by the pilot/owner and the flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.According to the pilot, he owned the airplane for three weeks, and had performed about 30 water landings. He performed a preflight inspection, noted the tiedown ropes were tight, but did not find any other anomalies with the airplane. During the takeoff, the pilot noticed that the airplane was veering "severely" to the left; however, he continued the takeoff. The flight was unremarkable, and the pilot returned to the lake to land the airplane. The pilot performed a "normal" landing; however, when the airplane touched down, it veered to the left, nosed over, and came to rest in the water. The pilot and passengers egressed without incident. According to a passenger, the airplane departed the lake and it was a "smooth" flight. When they returned to the lake to land, the "rear of the floats touched [the water] followed by a small hop." According to a witness who was on the lake at the time of the accident, the airplane approached the lake "hot" and "hit the water hard." He watched the airplane bounce about 10 feet into the air and then impact the water again. Then, the wing tip struck the water and the airplane nosed over. According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records, the airplane was manufactured in 2005, was registered to the pilot in April 2016. It was equipped with a Lycoming O-540 series engine. According to airplane maintenance logbooks, the most recent annual inspection was completed on March 2, 2016, and at that time, the airplane had accumulated 1,090.8 hours of total time. According to the pilot, he held a private pilot certificate for airplane single-engine land and single-engine sea. His most recent third-class medical certificate was issued on April 20, 2016. He reported 1,900 hours of flight experience, of which, 25 hours were in the same make and model as the accident airplane. A postaccident examination of the airframe, by an FAA inspector, revealed that the bottom of the left float skin was partially separated along a rivet line. In addition, the left float was bent in a positive direction, about 20 degrees. The wings, rudder, and fuselage were substantially damaged in the accident sequence. Flight control continuity was confirmed from the cockpit to all control surfaces and the four landing gear tires were in the retracted position. Sections of the left float skin were sent to the NTSB Materials Laboratory for further examination. The fracture surfaces were examined visually and exhibited a rough texture with a dull luster. No evidence was noted of corrosion on the fracture surfaces. Overall, the fracture surfaces were consistent with failure from overstress on a thin-walled structure. The private pilot had owned the amphibious airplane for 3 weeks, and had performed about 30 water landings in the airplane. The pilot stated that, during takeoff on the accident flight, the airplane was veering "severely" to the left; however, he continued the takeoff. The flight was unremarkable, and the pilot returned to the lake to land the airplane. Upon touchdown, the airplane veered to the left, nosed over, and came to rest inverted. The passenger stated that the airplane bounced during the landing, and a witness stated that the airplane landed "hard" on the water, bounced about 10 ft into the air, then impacted the water again. Examination of the left float skin revealed signatures consistent with overstress failure. It is likely that the pilot's hard, bounced landing resulted in the failure of the left float skin. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
Hierarchical cause / factor breakdown from the FAA bulk avdata database. Each finding tagged C (Cause) or F (Factor).
- C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Landing flare-Not attained/maintained - C
- C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2016_ERA16LA181.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Beyond the agency record
Search this event elsewhere.
Pre-filled searches into the sources where news + community discussion of aviation events lives. External sources are reported, not agency. Treat them as signal that something happened, not as fact about what happened.
Entity-clustered aviation events in the press — last 24 hr + 30-day archive.
Official agency record + docket.
Investigative docket: factual reports, photos, transcripts.
Long-running aviation incident database (Flight Safety Foundation).
Community NTSB synthesis blog — often has photos and witness reports.
Gold-standard aviation incident blog.
Aviation industry news search.
GA pilot forum — informed but rumor-prone.
GA pilot subreddit search.
Tail-number page — flight history (free tier limited).
AOPA Air Safety Institute search.
Mainstream press coverage. Recent events only.
Privacy-preserving news search.
External links open in a new tab. We don't ingest their content; we deep-link search queries.
Related research
What the literature says.
Academic papers and agency reports matching this event's aircraft type or causal vocabulary (maintenance). Sourced from NASA NTRS, NTSB Safety Studies, FAA CAMI, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons, arXiv, and the Semantic Scholar academic graph.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2026 · Journal article (IJAAA)
From Reactive to Predictive: A hybrid Trust-Mediated Adoption Framework for Data-Driven Maintenance in Distributed-Authority Aviation Environments
Modern aviation maintenance operates within increasingly data-intensive technological environments, yet the operational integration of predictive maintenance into routine decision-making remains incon…
- Semantic Scholar 2025 · Article (Applied Sciences)
Decision-Making Framework for Aviation Safety in Predictive Maintenance Strategies
The implementation of predictive maintenance (PM) in aviation presents unique challenges due to strict safety requirements, complex operational environments, and regulatory constraints.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (JAAER)
Low-Resource Automatic Speech Recognition Domain Adaptation – A Case-Study in Aviation Maintenance
With timeliness and efficiency being critical in the aviation maintenance industry, the need has been growing for smart technological solutions that optimize and streamline the different underlying ta…
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (JAAER)
A New Trajectory in UAV Safety: Leveraging Reinforcement Learning for Distance Maintenance Under Wind Variations
In the field of aviation, safety is a critical cornerstone, and the operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems is deeply connected with this principle.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (IJAAA)
Just Culture in Aviation: A Metaphorical Study on Aircraft Maintenance Students
Just Culture, a sub-dimension of safety culture, has been a prominent and debated topic in aviation safety in recent years.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (IJAAA)
Performance PRISM: A Comprehensive Framework For Performance Measurement In Aircraft Maintenance
Aircraft maintenance is governed by rigorous safety requirements and high operational complexity, demanding robust performance measurement frameworks to ensure optimal maintenance practices.
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗