NTSB CAROL · Event
Event WPR15LA190
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot's delayed decision to go around after realizing that the airplane’s airspeed and altitude were too high, which resulted in an inadequate flare and bounced landing and a subsequent go-around in high-density altitude conditions.
Factual narrative
HISTORY OF FLIGHT
On June 18, 2015, about 1220 mountain daylight time, a Piper PA-20 airplane, N6939K, sustained substantial damage when it impacted a tree and the ground during an aborted landing at the Johnson Creek Airport (3U2), Yellow Pine, Idaho. The private pilot and pilot-rated passenger were seriously injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight and a flight plan was not filed. The cross-country flight originated from the Joseph State Airport (JSY), Joseph, Oregon, at an undetermined time. A witness reported to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector that the airplane touched down just before mid-field and bounced twice before the pilot added power for a go-around. During the go-around, the nose of the airplane pitched up to a high angle while it was airborne and traveling down the runway. The left wing dipped shortly before colliding with a large tree about 30 feet above the ground near the southeast corner of the departure end of the runway. Subsequently, the airplane impacted a parked vehicle at the base of the tree. The pilot reported to an FAA inspector that as he turned onto final approach for runway 17, he realized he was too high in altitude, and initiated a slip to lose altitude. The pilot stated that there were three airplanes ahead of him on final, and two following him in the airport traffic pattern. The three airplanes ahead of him were clear of the runway and in the process of parking when he had crossed over the runway approach end of runway 17. He stated his forward speed and descent rate were too fast which resulted in a hard landing and subsequent bounces. The pilot said that he added full power to attempt a go-around. Despite his efforts, the airplane was not producing a positive rate of climb. As the airplane was approaching the departure end of the runway, the pilot turned the airplane to the left towards a small opening in the trees. During the turn, the left wing began to drop and the pilot corrected by leveling the wings. Subsequently, the airplane collided with a tree near the departure end of the runway. Postaccident examination of the airplane was conducted on site by the FAA inspector. The left wing separated and the fuselage and right wing were substantially damaged. The examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION
The four-seat, high-wing, fixed-gear airplane, serial number (S/N) 20-43, was powered by a Lycoming O-290 engine, rated at 135 horse power. Using the pilot and passenger's reported weights, fuel onboard, weights of recovered luggage, and an estimated empty weight of the airplane, it was determined that the airplane would have been about 46 pounds under the published maximum gross weight of 1,800 pounds at the time of the accident.
METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION
A review of recorded data from the McCall Municipal Airport automated weather observation station, located 26 miles west of the accident site, revealed at 1151, conditions were wind variable at 3 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, clear skies, temperature 23 degrees Celsius, dew point 7 degrees Celsius, and an altimeter setting of 30.05 inches of mercury. Using the reported weather conditions and airport elevation, the calculated density altitude was about 6,998 feet mean sea level (msl), with a pressure altitude of about 4,839 feet msl. According to the FAA inspector, temperature at U42 at the time of the accident was about 29 degrees Celsius, calculates the density altitude to about 7,697 feet msl.
AIRPORT INFORMATION
The Johnson Creek Airport (U42) is a non-towered airport with a reported field elevation of 4,960 feet msl. The airport is equipped with one turf runway, runway 17 and 35, which is 3,400 feet in length and 150 feet wide. The airport is located in the bottom of a canyon surrounded by heavily wooded mountainous terrain. Numerous large trees border the sides and ends of the runway.
TEST AND RESEARCH
The manufacturer's supplied Airplane Flight Manual performance charts, revealed that the weather conditions present at the time of the accident, maximum gross weight of the airplane, and at the chart's maximum altitude value of 7,000 feet msl, the airplane would have a normal rate of climb of 360 feet per minute. The pilot reported that, while the airplane was on final approach to the airport, he realized that it was too high, so he performed a slip to lose altitude; however, due to the excessive speed and descent rate, the airplane subsequently landed hard just before midfield and bounced twice. The pilot then added full power to initiate a go-around. However, the airplane would not climb at a sufficient rate to clear the trees at the end of the runway. The airplane collided with a tree and subsequently impacted the ground adjacent to the departure end of the runway. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The calculated density altitude was 7,697 ft mean sea level and the airplane was about 46 lbs under its maximum gross weight at the time of the accident. It is possible that these issues adversely affected the airplane's climb rate during the go-around. 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).
- C Personnel issues-Action/decision-Info processing/decision-Decision making/judgment-Pilot - C
- 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
- F Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Climb rate-Not attained/maintained - F
- — Environmental issues-Conditions/weather/phenomena-Temp/humidity/pressure-High density altitude-Effect on equipment
- — Environmental issues-Physical environment-Object/animal/substance-Tree(s)-Contributed to outcome
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2015_WPR15LA190.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 ↗