Event ERA25LA115

Factual narrative

On February 11, 2025, about 1010 eastern standard time, a Luscombe 8A, N77989, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident at Hampton Airfield (7B3), Hampton, New Hampshire. The private pilot was not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The pilot had planned a brief local flight, and despite noting a slight tailwind was prevailing for runway 2 at 7B3, elected to depart on that runway as other traffic at the airport was already utilizing it. After performing some maneuvers, he returned to the departure airport with the carburetor heat activated and approached runway 2 for landing. During the landing approach, the pilot felt as though the airplane’s “…sink rate was high and felt like I possibly had a downwind condition or carburetor icing condition.” He aborted the landing attempt, and with the carburetor heat still engaged, the pilot described that the airplane’s climb rate was poor (200 fpm vs. its usual 1,100 fpm). The pilot then proceeded around the airport traffic pattern for a “short approach” to runway 2. While on short final approach to land, the airplane’s left wing dropped and it felt to the pilot as if the ailerons were not responding. The pilot attempted to regain control of the airplane but it subsequently impacted a tree. An airport surveillance video depicted the pilot’s initial low approach to runway 02, after which it exited from the camera’s view behind a row of hangars. When the airplane came back into view, the airplane was just above the runway, in a steep right bank, nose up attitude, with the right wingtip near the runway and the left main landing gear and left wing in the air. The airplane then began to climb at a relatively low speed and relatively high pitch angle. When the airplane came back into the frame, it was on a low-altitude downwind leg with the windsock showing a right quartering headwind (or a right quartering tailwind relative to runway 02). The airplane then began a continuous descending left turnback toward the runway before descending below a tree line and out of the camera’s view. A second video from a residential security camera located about 575 ft from the approach end of runway 2 showed the airplane immediately before it impacted the ground. The airplane was in a steep left wing and nose down attitude, and was in a steep angle of descent. The airplane subsequently impacted a stand of trees and the ground. During the video, the engine could be heard running at a constant rate with no appreciable change in sound until it impacted the trees. The airplane’s fuselage, wings, and tail were substantially damaged during the accident. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector examined the airplane at the accident site and confirmed continuity of the flight controls. The inspector observed little movement of the left aileron as it was obstructed by tree branches. Further examination of the wreckage after it had been recovered from the accident site revealed a mixture of automotive fuel and 100 LL aviation fuel in the fuel system. The mixture showed no evidence of water or debris. All the engine’s cylinders had compression when tested with a compression test gauge. Spark was observed on the top spark plugs by rotating the engine’s crankshaft through the firing order. The right magneto was removed, and the impulse coupling was manually rotated, which produced spark to the remaining four spark plugs. The spark plugs exhibited normal wear with no evidence of fouling when compared to the Champion Aviation Check-A-Plug chart. No evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures were found that would have precluded normal engine operation. Examination of the airframe found that the right wingtip had sustained flattening impact damage at the outboard rear corner. The left wing had leading edge damage consistent with impact. The left lower aileron control cable bracket was found to be fractured into two pieces. Examination of the aileron control cable attach bracket found evidence of fracture consistent with ductile overstress. The bracket was bent adjacent to the fracture consistent with out-of-plane bending loads. The empennage sustained impact damage from the stabilizers forward. No evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures were found with the airframe that would have precluded normal operation. At 1055, the weather reported at 7B3, about 3 miles east of the accident site, included a temperature of -3°C and a dew point -12°C. The calculated relative humidity at this temperature and dewpoint was 50 percent. Review of the icing probability chart contained within Federal Aviation Administration Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin CE-09-35 revealed the atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident were not conducive to carburetor icing. After departing and completing maneuvers in the local area, the pilot was returning to the departure airport to land. According to the pilot and surveillance video of the accident flight, after the pilot aborted his initial landing attempt the airplane climbed at a low speed and high angle of attack before rejoining the traffic pattern at a low altitude. The pilot described that the airplane was climbing at a lower rate than he had expected, and when the airplane turned from the downwind leg toward final approach, it turned and descended continuously into a prevailing right quartering tailwind. The pilot stated that, as the airplane neared the final approach to the runway, the left wing dropped and it felt like the ailerons were not responding. The airplane then descended in a steep left wing and nose low attitude until it impacted the ground short of the runway. Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. Audio recorded during the airplane’s final descent just before impact indicated that the engine was running at a constant rate with no appreciable change in sound. Additionally, a fractured aileron control cable attach bracket displayed evidence of ductile overstress separation, most likely as a result of the airplane’s impact with trees and terrain. While the pilot described that the airplane did not climb as he had expected during the go-around attempt, the lack of any mechanical anomalies found during the postaccident examination of the engine, the audio depicting the engine running continuously just before impact, and the lack of weather conditions conducive to the formation of carburetor icing, all implied no reason for the engine to operate with any degraded capability. However, the transition from the pilot’s initial tailwind landing attempt to a go-around as depicted by the surveillance video showed the airplane in relatively extreme bank and pitch attitudes that suggested the airplane was being operated at a low airspeed and close to an aerodynamic stall. Further, the airplane’s loss of altitude as it turned on the final leg of the approach to the runway, the subsequent drop of the left wing described by the pilot, and the pilot’s sensation that the ailerons were not responding were all consistent with a loss of airspeed and subsequent aerodynamic stall. 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).

• — Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot
• — Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Angle of attack-Not attained/maintained