WPR15LA226

Factual narrative

On August 1, 2015, about 1030 Pacific daylight time, a Taylorcraft 12-m, N49153, experienced a runway excursion at the Selma Airport, Selma, California. The pilot was operating the airplane under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91. The private pilot under instruction (PUI) and the certified flight instructor (CFI) both received minor injuries. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and the engine mount. The local instructional flight departed about 0900. Visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed.The pilot flew south of the airport after departure to practice basic maneuvers, and then returned to the airport to practice takeoffs and landings. Seven to eight landings to a full stop were successfully completed. On the last takeoff, the airplane lifted off, but would not climb above 5 feet. It settled back to the ground about 3/4 down the runway, lifted off again to a few feet, and then touched down again before hitting an embankment. The airplane bounced over a canal, and crashed into a vineyard about 45 feet from the runway. The pilot reported that it was hot and humid, the wind conditions were variable, and the airplane was close to maximum gross weight. He stated that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failure with the airplane. The flight instructor stated that the last takeoff (6th) initially seemed like the previous ones. Power addition was the same; the tail came up a bit slower, but not at an abnormal rate. At liftoff, the pitch attitude was a bit higher than the previous takeoffs. The airplane did not seem to be climbing, so he adjusted his position to see out the front windscreen. As he did this, the airplane bounced. As the airplane went airborne again, he felt that it was not producing sufficient lift to fly. He determined that there was insufficient runway to set the airplane down and stop before going into a deep drainage ditch that was perpendicular to the end of the runway. He held the throttle in the full power position to insure that the PUI didn't try to abort the takeoff, maintained wings level, and lowered the nose as much as possible. He maintained that attitude until the airplane cleared the ditch, and touched down in the vineyard. It contacted the ground in a level attitude, turned sharply 90 degrees, and stopped in about 30 feet. The pilot receiving instruction and flight instructor departed the airport area, practiced basic maneuvers, and then returned to the airport to practice takeoffs and landings. The pilot receiving instruction successfully completed five full-stop landings. The flight instructor reported that, during the sixth takeoff, the tail came up a bit slower but not at an abnormal rate. He added that, at liftoff, the airplane's pitch attitude was a bit higher than during the previous liftoffs and that the airplane was not climbing. As the flight instructor adjusted his position to see out the front windscreen, the airplane contacted the runway and then bounced. He determined that there was insufficient runway to land and stop the airplane, so he held the throttle in the full-power position to ensure that the pilot receiving instruction did not try to abort the takeoff. He maintained wings level and lowered the nose as much as possible until the airplane cleared a ditch and then touched down in a vineyard. The airplane contacted the ground in a level attitude, turned sharply 90 degrees, and then travelled about 30 ft before stopping. The pilot receiving instruction reported that it was hot and humid, that the wind conditions were variable, and that the airplane was near its maximum gross weight. He added that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the combined effects of the pilot's use of an increased pitch attitude, the airplane's near maximum gross weight, and the environmental conditions degraded the airplane's climb performance. 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-Pitch control-Incorrect use/operation - C
• C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Aircraft capability-Climb capability-Capability exceeded - C
• C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Aircraft capability-Maximum weight-Not specified - C
• C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
• C Personnel issues-Psychological-Attention/monitoring-Monitoring other person-Instructor/check pilot - C
• C Environmental issues-Conditions/weather/phenomena-Temp/humidity/pressure-High temperature-Effect on equipment - C
• F Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Delayed action-Instructor/check pilot - F
• — Environmental issues-Physical environment-Terrain-(general)-Contributed to outcome