Event ERA17LA095

Factual narrative

On January 26, 2017, about 1230 eastern standard time, a Cessna 172R, N2382R, registered to Clearwater Helicopters, Inc., dba Tampa Bay Aviation, was substantially damaged during a hard landing at the Clearwater Air Park (CLW), Clearwater, Florida. The private pilot and one passenger were not injured. The airplane was operated under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a local, personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and no flight plan was filed for the flight that originated about 30 minutes earlier from CLW.The pilot stated that he performed a preflight inspection of the rental airplane but elected to have it fueled because of the on-board fuel load. He finished his preflight inspection after fueling, which included an inspection of the undamaged propeller, but did note the passenger door was difficult to close, and he had an issue with his lap belt, but was able to secure it. After engine start, he taxied to runway 16, where he performed an engine run-up with no discrepancies noted. After takeoff, he flew west towards the beach but elected to return after seeing adverse weather nearby. He entered the traffic pattern at CLW for runway 16, which was equipped with a visual approach slope indicator, but he did not turn it on. He turned the airplane onto the base leg of the traffic pattern and then onto final approach leg of the traffic pattern, where he maintained 65 mph with the flaps extended 30 degrees, and reported descending at the standard rate with no airspeed fluctuations. On his first landing attempt about at touchdown, the airplane encountered a strong wind gust which caused the airplane to climb "a little bit", or about 10 feet. He performed a go-around, and re-entered the traffic pattern for runway 16. The pilot conducted the second landing attempt with 10 degrees of flaps extended, maintaining 65 mph while on the final approach leg of the traffic pattern, and reported the, "touchdown was perfect soft" on the numbers. He did not experience a propeller strike on landing, and then taxied to the tie-down area where he secured the airplane. He then went inside the fixed-base operator and wrote up the discrepancies related to the lap belt, and for a fuel gauge which indicated 5 gallons after fueling. According to the operator, their review of airport surveillance video revealed that later that same day, maintenance personnel of the operator went to the airplane, which had not been moved or damaged, and observed damage to the propeller. Additionally, review of aircraft operational records and the airplane's hour meter revealed that the airplane had not been operated since it was returned. During hand rotation of the propeller, maintenance personnel heard internal engine damage, and subsequently noted damage to the firewall. The oil pressure-activated hour meter reading when the mechanics inspected the airplane was the same as when the pilot returned the airplane. Subsequent testing of the hour meter with FAA oversight revealed it operated satisfactory with no discrepancies. The operator reported that the airplane was flown the evening before on a training flight with a student and instructor, and at the conclusion of their uneventful flight, the airplane was secured. They also indicated that airport surveillance video depicted the accident pilot inspecting the propeller after securing the airplane at the conclusion of the flight. After a preflight inspection revealed no anomalies, the private pilot departed on a local flight. Shortly after takeoff, he elected to return to the departure airport due to adverse weather nearby. He entered the airport traffic pattern and while on final approach with the flaps extended 30°, the airplane encountered a wind gust, which caused the airplane to balloon. The pilot executed a go-around and entered the traffic pattern for the same runway, but he only extended the flaps to 10°. He reported that the touchdown was soft and on the runway numbers. He then taxied to parking and secured the airplane. Surveillance video footage showed the pilot inspecting the propeller after disembarking. Postaccident examination of the airplane, which had not moved or been operated since being returned by the pilot, revealed damage to the propeller and firewall; therefore, it is likely that the damage was sustained during the pilot's landing due to an improper landing flare.   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 Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
• C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Landing flare-Not attained/maintained - C