GAA17CA337
2017-06-11 · Ravenna, Ohio, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport POV
Current FAA registration · N33FM
- Make / Model
- CESSNA 172S
- Year of manufacture
- 2012 · 5 years old at event
- Engine
- LYCOMING IO-360-L2A (180 hp)
- Seats / Engines
- 4 seats · 1 engine
- Last airworthiness date
- 20120807
- ADS-B equipped
- Yes — Mode-S A393FF
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The flight instructor's failure to perform a go-around during final approach, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and a hard landing. Contributing to the accident was the flight instructor's failure to brief the student pilot on the positive transfer of aircraft control during preflight.
Factual narrative
The flight instructor reported that, during an instructional flight, while on short final, he told the student pilot to "pitch down" to maintain airspeed. He added that the student did not respond and he again instructed the student to "pitch down now" while simultaneously pressing forward on the yoke. He further added that as he pushed forward on the yoke, the student "pulled [back] with equal force on the yoke." Subsequently, the flight instructor pushed forward on the yoke "with greater force" than the previous attempt and stated, "my plane" to the student, but "continued to wrestle the controls with the student" as the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall and impacted the runway threshold hard. After the airplane impacted the runway threshold, the nose gear collapsed and the airplane veered off the runway to the right. The student pilot reported that this was his first flight ever with this flight instructor, but he had accumulated about 82 hours of dual instruction previously. He added that, during the second landing of the day, while on final approach "the instructor had me pull the power and told me nose down." He further added that he "felt we were getting low and I told the instructor I wanted to increase power but the instructor told me to "nose down." The student pilot reported that the instructor again stated multiple times to "nose down," but he "did not believe there was enough room to continue nose down." Subsequently, the student pilot reported that the flight instructor took the flight controls and nosed the airplane down, but the airplane impacted the runway threshold hard and veered off the runway. The fuselage and firewall sustained substantial damage. The flight instructor and student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. During postaccident correspondence with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge, the flight instructor reported that he could not recall during preflight that he and the student pilot discussed the positive transfer of the flight controls. The Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 61-115, Positive Exchange of Flight Controls Program, dated March 10th, 1995, stated in part: During flight training, there must always be a clear understanding between students and flight instructors of who has control of the aircraft. Prior to flight, a briefing should be conducted that includes the procedure for the exchange of flight controls. A positive three-step process in the exchange of flight controls between pilots is a proven procedure and one that is strongly recommended. When an instructor is teaching a maneuver to a student, the instructor will normally demonstrate the maneuver first, then have the student follow along on the controls during a demonstration and, finally, the student will perform the maneuver with the instructor following along on the controls. When the flight instructor wishes the student to take control of the aircraft, he/she says to the student, "You have the flight controls." The student acknowledges immediately by saying, "I have the flight controls." The flight instructor again says, "You have the flight controls." During this procedure, a visual check is recommended to see that the other person actually has the flight controls. When returning the controls to the instructor, the student should follow the same procedure the instructor used when giving control to the student. The student should stay on the controls and keep flying the aircraft until the instructor says, "I have the flight controls." There should never be any doubt as to who is flying the aircraft. The flight instructor reported that, during an instructional flight, while on short final, he told the student pilot to "pitch down" to maintain airspeed. He added that the student did not respond and that he again instructed the student to "pitch down now" while simultaneously pressing forward on the yoke. He further added that, as he pushed forward on the yoke, the student "pulled [back] with equal force on the yoke." Subsequently, the flight instructor pushed forward on the yoke "with greater force" than the previous attempt and stated, "my plane," to the student, but "continued to wrestle the controls with the student" as the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall. The airplane then impacted the runway threshold hard, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the airplane veered off the runway to the right. The student pilot reported that this was his first flight with this flight instructor but that he had accumulated about 82 hours of dual instruction previously. He added that, during the second landing of the day, while on final approach, "the instructor had me pull the power and told me nose down." He further added that he "felt we were getting low and I told the instructor I wanted to increase power but the instructor told me to 'nose down.'" The student pilot reported that the instructor again stated multiple times to "nose down," but he "did not believe there was enough room to continue nose down." The student pilot reported that the flight instructor subsequently took the flight controls and nosed the airplane down and that the airplane impacted the runway threshold hard and veered off the runway. The fuselage and firewall sustained substantial damage. The flight instructor and student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. During postaccident correspondence with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge, the flight instructor reported that he could not recall if, during preflight, he and the student pilot discussed the positive transfer of the flight controls. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 61-115, "Positive Exchange of Flight Controls Program," dated March 10, 1995, stated, in part: During flight training, there must always be a clear understanding between students and flight instructors of who has control of the aircraft. Prior to flight, a briefing should be conducted that includes the procedure for the exchange of flight controls. A positive three-step process in the exchange of flight controls between pilots is a proven procedure and one that is strongly recommended. When an instructor is teaching a maneuver to a student, the instructor will normally demonstrate the maneuver first, then have the student follow along on the controls during a demonstration and, finally, the student will perform the maneuver with the instructor following along on the controls. When the flight instructor wishes the student to take control of the aircraft, he/she says to the student, "You have the flight controls." The student acknowledges immediately by saying, "I have the flight controls." The flight instructor again says, "You have the flight controls." During this procedure, a visual check is recommended to see that the other person actually has the flight controls. When returning the controls to the instructor, the student should follow the same procedure the instructor used when giving control to the student. The student should stay on the controls and keep flying the aircraft until the instructor says, "I have the flight controls." There should never be any doubt as to who is flying the aircraft. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.
- C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Instructor/check pilot - C
- C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Angle of attack-Capability exceeded - C
- C Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Lack of action-Instructor/check pilot - C
- C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Airspeed-Not attained/maintained - C
- F Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Forgotten action/omission-Instructor/check pilot - F
- F Personnel issues-Task performance-Communication (personnel)-Lack of communication-Instructor/check pilot - F
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2017_GAA17CA337.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 (stall, go-around). All research papers
- NASA NTRS 2023 · Reprint (Version printed in journal) Finite Element Simulation of Three Full-Scale Crash Tests for Cessna 172 Aircraft
The NASA Emergency Locator Transmitter Survivability and Reliability project was initiated in 2013 to assess the crash performance standards for the next generation of emergency locator transmitter (E…
- NASA NTRS 2019 · Conference Paper Crash Testing and Simulation of a Cessna 172 Aircraft: Pitch Down Impact Onto Soft Soil
During the summer of 2015, NASA Langley Research Center conducted three full-scale crash tests of Cessna 172 (C-172) aircraft at the NASA Langley Landing and Impact Research (LandIR) Facility.
- NASA NTRS 2019 · Technical Memorandum (TM) Simulating the Impact Response of Three Full-Scale Crash Tests of Cessna 172 Aircraft
During the summer of 2015, a series of three full-scale crash tests were performed at the Landing and Impact Research Facility located at NASA Langley Research Center of Cessna 172 aircraft.
- NASA NTRS 2026 · Conference Paper Computational Analysis of Steady State Aerodynamics of Transonic Truss-Braced Wing Configuration in Deep Stall
This study presents a computational investigation of steady state aerodynamics of the Subsonic Ultra-Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW) configuration over a wide range …
- NASA NTRS 2025 · Conference Paper A Training Study to Improve Monitoring During A Go-Around
As part of an FAA program to improve go-around (GA) safety, we were asked to determine if we could improve the performance of the Pilot Monitoring (PM) during a GA maneuver.
- Flight Safety Foundation 2024 · FSF / AeroSafety World Go-Around Safety Forum Findings
Foundation Go-Around Safety Forum technical findings — examines why pilots fail to execute go-arounds when criteria are met (stabilized approach gate not met, energy state out of envelope, traffic con…