LAX03CA208

Factual narrative

On June 22, 2003, about 1200 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 172K, N7342G, impacted terrain during an attempted go-around near Overton, Nevada. Silver Wing Aviation was operating the airplane under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The certified flight instructor (CFI) pilot, the student pilot, and one passenger were not injured; the airplane sustained substantial damage. The instructional cross-country flight departed North Las Vegas Airport (VGT), Las Vegas, Nevada, at 1015, en route to Perkins Field Airport (U08), Overton. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a flight plan had not been filed. The primary wreckage was at 36 degrees 46 minutes north latitude and 114 degrees 22 minutes west longitude. According to a written statement submitted by the CFI, the throttle was reduced to idle at 5,000 feet mean sea level (msl) to simulate an engine power loss. The student set up an approach to a dirt road for his simulated emergency landing. Power was advanced several times during the descent to ensure that the engine would respond when the recovery was initiated. Because they were in an undeveloped, unpopulated area, the CFI allowed the student to continue his approach to an estimated altitude of 200 feet above ground level (agl). Airspeed was about 70 miles per hour (mph) and flaps were in the full down position. At that point, the CFI advised the student to do a go-around. The student added power while the CFI retracted the first 10 degrees of flaps. The student pitched the nose up but there was insufficient airspeed to establish a climb. An excessive sink rate began and the flaps were inadvertently retracted completely. The airplane continued to sink further and impacted terrain about 100 feet southeast of the intended landing road. It came to rest inverted about 75 feet after the point of initial ground contact. In a subsequent interview, the CFI stated that he began "assisting the student" immediately after it was determined that the sink rate was excessive for the low altitude, but insists they were both responsible for controlling the airplane. He had retracted the first 10 degrees of flaps, and the student retracted the remainder. The Safety Board investigator-in-charge (IIC) interviewed the student. He believed the CFI began controlling the airplane, but was unsure of when the switchover occurred. The student could not recall who had retracted the flaps. According to both the student and the CFI, the CFI never communicated that he was going to take the controls. The engine had been operating properly and responded normally after full power was added during the go-around. During the flight, no problems with the flight controls were noted. Both pilots attribute the accident to letting the airplane get too low and too slow. During an attempted go-around from a simulated emergency landing, the airplane failed to achieve a positive climb rate and descended to ground impact. After full power was added in order to abort the simulated emergency landing at 200 feet agl, the student pitched the nose up and the airspeed began to decay as the airplane began sinking towards the terrain. The flaps, which had been in the full down position, were inadvertently retracted all at once, and a positive climb rate could not be established. The CFI attributed the accident to allowing the airplane to get too low and too slow. In their statements, both pilots agree that the engine responded normally and was generating full power, and that all flight controls functioned properly. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12