GAA17CA445
2017-07-27 · San Andreas, California, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport CPU
Current FAA registration · N5596C
- Make / Model
- CESSNA 170A
- Year of manufacture
- 1950 · 67 years old at event
- Engine
- CONT MOTOR C145 SERIES (145 hp)
- Seats / Engines
- 4 seats · 1 engine
- Last airworthiness date
- 19551007
- ADS-B equipped
- Yes — Mode-S A72407
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot’s improper landing flare during an aborted go-around in gusting wind conditions, which resulted in a hard landing.
Factual narrative
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, he landed on the main wheels, and while waiting for the tailwheel to drop, the "tailwheel jammed." He added, that when the tailwheel touched down, the airplane was difficult to control, and veered to the left. He corrected for the veer, but the airplane veered to the right. He then did a go-around, however, once airborne the airplane "did not appear to be producing proper power." He then aborted the go-around, and opted to land on the remaining runway. About 25 ft. above the runway, he set the airplane up for a wheel landing and descended. When the airplane was about 5-10 ft. above the runway, the airplane "abruptly" sank, landed hard and collapsed the main landing gear. Subsequently, the airplane came to rest nose down on the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. During a telephone interview, the pilot reported that he believed the tailwheel had jammed prior to touchdown, and that he had previously re-designed and altered the tailwheel. Further, the airplane produced insufficient power during the go-around. He reported that, the tailwheel was mechanically "okay" when inspected after the accident. Additionally, an airframe and powerplant mechanic reported that he inspected the tailwheel assembly after the accident, and found no defects and no binding. The pilot reported the weather at the accident airport, about the time of the accident to be, wind from 320° at 10 knots, gusting to 12 knots. The pilot landed on runway 31. Photographs taken at the accident site showed torsional twisting of the propeller, consistent with the engine producing power at the time of impact. The National Transportation Safety Board did not examine the engine. The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that he landed on the main wheels, and while waiting for the tailwheel to drop, the "tailwheel jammed." He added that, when the tailwheel touched down, the airplane was difficult to control and veered to the left. He corrected for the veer, but the airplane veered to the right. He then conducted a go-around; however, once airborne, the airplane "did not appear to be producing proper power." He then aborted the go-around and opted to land on the remaining runway. About 25 ft above the runway, he set the airplane up for a wheel landing and descended. When the airplane was about 5 to 10 ft above the runway, the airplane "abruptly" sank and landed hard, and the main landing gear collapsed. Subsequently, the airplane came to rest nose down on the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. During a telephone interview, the pilot reported that he believed the tailwheel had jammed before touchdown and that he had previously redesigned and altered the tailwheel. Further, the airplane produced insufficient power during the go-around. He reported that the tailwheel was mechanically "okay" when examined after the accident. Additionally, an airframe and powerplants mechanic reported that he examined the tailwheel assembly after the accident and found no defects and no binding. The pilot reported that the weather at the accident airport, about the time of the accident, was wind from 320° at 10 knots, gusting to 12 knots. The pilot landed on runway 31. Photographs taken at the accident site showed torsional twisting of the propeller, consistent with the engine producing power at the time of impact. The National Transportation Safety Board did not examine the engine. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, 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
- — Aircraft-Aircraft systems-Landing gear system-Nose/tail landing gear-Not specified
- — Environmental issues-Conditions/weather/phenomena-Wind-Gusts-Effect on operation
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2017_GAA17CA445.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 (go-around). All research papers
- 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…
- Semantic Scholar 2022 · Article (Journal of Safety Research) Go-around accidents and general aviation safety.
INTRODUCTION Changes in General Aviation (GA) accident rates, specifically in the go-around phase, are examined by comparing the number of accidents, the proportion of fatal accidents, and the proport…
- Semantic Scholar 2021 · Article (Aerospace) Classification and Analysis of Go-Arounds in Commercial Aviation Using ADS-B Data
Go-arounds are a necessary aspect of commercial aviation and are conducted after a landing attempt has been aborted. It is necessary to conduct go-arounds in the safest possible manner, as go-arounds …
- NASA NTRS 2021 · Accepted Manuscript (Version with final changes) Go-Around Criteria Refinement for Transport Category Aircraft
Presently, airline pilots are trained to go around if, when lower than 500 ft above the ground, they are outside of a handful of parameters such as airspeed, position, and rate of descent.
- NASA NTRS 2019 · Conference Paper Validation of Proposed Go-Around Criteria Under Various Environmental Conditions
This paper evaluates the effects of environmental conditions on touchdown performance under varying approach states and validates proposed go-around criteria developed using data from a previously con…