NTSB CAROL · Event
Event NYC06LA090
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control during a single-engine go-around. A factor was the partial loss of engine power.
Factual narrative
On April 7, 2006, at 1930 eastern daylight time, a Piper PA-30, N7812Y, was substantially damaged when it impacted trees and terrain following an attempted go-around in Norfolk, Virginia. The certificated airline transport pilot was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the flight, which originated at 1910, at the Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport (PHF), Newport News, Virginia. The personal flight was conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91, and destined for the Hampton Roads Executive Airport (PVG), Norfolk, Virginia. According to the pilot, he planned a local "shakeout" flight from PHF, since the airplane had not flown for several months. The pilot performed a pre-flight inspection and observed that the fuel was "almost full" in the main tanks, and "almost halfway full" in the auxiliary tanks. The pilot "sumped" the fuel tanks, and observed no water in the fuel. The pilot was unable to start the engines as the battery was "too low," so he charged the battery for several hours and then started the left engine successfully, and started the right engine after several tries. The pilot continued the preflight inspection and noticed no anomalies, other than a 300 rpm drop on the right engine, when he checked the magnetos. He leaned the mixture, ran up the engine and checked the magnetos again, resulting in a 75 rpm drop. The pilot departed runway 20 and continued southbound as he assessed the single-engine characteristics of the airplane. He reported that the airplane seemed to be operating "normally," but at a slower indicated airspeed than normal for the power setting. The pilot then headed toward the nearest airport, PVG, and entered the traffic pattern for runway 20. As the pilot lowered the landing gear on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, he did not observe the "gear down" lights illuminate in the cockpit. Shortly after, the pilot noticed that the left engine rpm and manifold pressure were "up" but the engine "wasn't producing much thrust." The pilot cycled the landing gear and continued troubleshooting the left engine by checking the fuel pumps and switching fuel tanks. As the airplane turned onto the base leg, the pilot again cycled the landing gear, but it did not extend, so he decided to perform a single-engine go-around. The pilot transitioned to a "slow climb" and during the go-around the airplane rolled to the left when the airspeed decreased to "near Vmc." As the airplane rolled to the left, it impacted trees and came to rest inverted in a swamp, about 1 mile from PVG. The pilot reported to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector that the aircraft had been tied down on the ramp at PHF, for about 8 or 9 months, with out being operated during that time. The pilot stated that the purpose for the accident flight was to purchase fuel at PVG. The pilot did not request any fuel prior to departure from PHF, and he stated to the inspector that during his preflight inspection, he "sumped" the fuel tanks and collected some water before getting clean samples. Examination of the airplane by the FAA inspector revealed substantial damage to both wings, and the empennage section of the airplane. The inboard fuel tank cap was not completely sealed to the wing; however, examination of the entire fuel system revealed no water in the system. The engine crankshaft was rotated, at the propeller, and valvetrain continuity and compression were confirmed to all cylinders. The magnetos were tested on and off the engine, and did not produce spark. The magnetos were sent to their manufacturer and examined under the supervision of a National Transportation Safety Board investigator. The examination revealed neither magneto produced spark when functionally tested on a test bench. The magnetos were further disassembled, and corrosion and rust was noted on the inside of both magnetos. Additionally, the points on both magnetos were insulated. The contacts were moved on one magneto, and a second functional test resulted in the magneto functioning. The other magneto would not fire with additional testing. Evidence of heat distress was noted on this magneto. Examination of the engine logbooks revealed the last 100-hour inspection was performed on July 8, 2005, with no anomalies noted. The inspection entry was the last entry in the logbook. The most recent annual inspection was performed on December 15, 2001. The pilot was conducting a local "shakeout" flight, as the airplane had not flown since its last inspection 9 months prior. The pilot performed a preflight inspection and observed that the fuel was "almost full" in the main tanks and "almost halfway full" in the auxiliary tanks. The pilot "sumped" the fuel tanks, and observed some water in the fuel. After departure, the airplane seemed to be operating "normally," but at a slower indicated airspeed than normal for the power setting. The pilot flew toward the nearest airport, where he also intended to purchase fuel. As the pilot lowered the landing gear on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, he did not observe the "gear down" lights illuminate in the cockpit. Shortly after, the pilot noticed that the left engine rpm and manifold pressure were "up" but the engine "wasn't producing much thrust." The pilot cycled the landing gear and continued troubleshooting the left engine; however, the gear did not extend, and he decided to perform a single-engine go-around. During the go-around the airplane rolled to the left "near Vmc," impacted trees, and came to rest inverted in a swamp. Examination of the magnetos revealed they would not produce spark when functionally tested on a test bench. Disassembly of the magnetos revealed rust and corrosion, and that the points were insulated. It could not be deduced whether these conditions were present at the time of the accident. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2006_NYC06LA090.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Beyond the agency record
Search this event elsewhere.
Pre-filled searches into the sources where news + community discussion of aviation events lives. External sources are reported, not agency. Treat them as signal that something happened, not as fact about what happened.
Entity-clustered aviation events in the press — last 24 hr + 30-day archive.
Official agency record + docket.
Investigative docket: factual reports, photos, transcripts.
Long-running aviation incident database (Flight Safety Foundation).
Community NTSB synthesis blog — often has photos and witness reports.
Gold-standard aviation incident blog.
Aviation industry news search.
GA pilot forum — informed but rumor-prone.
GA pilot subreddit search.
Tail-number page — flight history (free tier limited).
AOPA Air Safety Institute search.
Mainstream press coverage. Recent events only.
Privacy-preserving news search.
External links open in a new tab. We don't ingest their content; we deep-link search queries.
Related research
What the literature says.
Academic papers and agency reports matching this event's aircraft type or causal vocabulary (go-around). Sourced from NASA NTRS, NTSB Safety Studies, FAA CAMI, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons, arXiv, and the Semantic Scholar academic graph.
- 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…
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗