Event WPR17LA015

Factual narrative

On October 21, 2016, about 1730 mountain standard time, an experimental light sport Ryan W. Gross Arion Lightning airplane, N235SC, impacted the ground following a loss of engine during the initial climb shortly after takeoff from Falcon Field (FFZ), Mesa, Arizona. The student pilot was not injured. The airplane was substantially damaged. The pilot recently purchased the airplane and was operating it under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The flight was originating at the time of the accident, with a proposed destination of Henderson Executive Airport (HND), Henderson, Nevada. In a report submitted to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge (IIC), the pilot reported that after applying full power for takeoff on Runway 04R at FFZ, the airplane lifted off to about 5 ft when the engine surged, which was followed by the left wing dropping and impacting terrain. The airframe and powerplant mechanic of the maintenance facility who had completed the aircraft condition inspection less than three hours prior to the accident, and who would later consummate the sale of the airplane to the accident pilot, reported that their test pilot had discussed the flight characteristics of the airplane with the new owner, and had offered to provide him with a demo flight and/or flight training; the pilot declined both the demo flight and the flight training. The mechanic stated that about 1730, after the sale had been finalized, the pilot elected to obtain fuel and to prepare to fly home to HND. The mechanic stated that after startup and having trouble taxiing the airplane, the pilot shut down the engine, approached the mechanic, and commented that the nose wheel steering wasn't working. The mechanic replied that the airplane was steered with differential steering, to which the pilot responded, "Oh. How do I use that…?" The mechanic opined that he explained the system to the pilot, after which he suggested that he remain overnight and take a demo flight to get familiar with the airplane. The pilot stated that he did not have time, and that everything would be fine. The mechanic mentioned that as the pilot re-started the engine and taxied to runway 4R, he was nervous about his lack of knowledge of the airplane, and proceeded to the runway to observe the takeoff. On takeoff the engine sounded "strong and even," and that the airplane popped up off the ground in a relatively flat attitude. This was followed by the mechanic stating that he heard a reduction in power and observed a slight sink, followed by an increase in power with a slight left roll and [ascent], then a decrease in power with a sink/right roll/left yaw, then an increase in power with hard left roll/left yaw. The airplane continued to sink until the left wing impacted the ground off the left side of runway 4R. The mechanic reported that about 10 minutes later the pilot called to inform him that he had crashed, which the mechanic told him he had witnessed. Additionally, the mechanic stated that the pilot commented to him that there was a problem with the flight controls, to which the mechanic stated that he told the pilot that he did not believe that to be the case, that he observed the aircraft react in all directions, and that it appeared that the pilot had simply over corrected and bled airspeed off, which resulted in the airplane stalling. The mechanic stated that the pilot's response was "Oh, really? Wow!" The mechanic stated that later that evening he confirmed flight control continuity to be functional in all travel using the control stick and [rudder] pedals. He subsequently received a telephone call from the pilot that night, during which he mentioned that he should have taken the training prior to departing; the pilot agreed. The pilot also mentioned to the mechanic that he had experienced a similar situation in the past. The mechanic reiterated that the pilot was offered a demonstration flight and flight training in the newly purchased airplane multiple times prior to the accident, however, the pilot said that his schedule would not allow it. The mechanic concluded that he subsequently discussed the event with a company that builds this type of airplane and provides training, Lightning West, who stated that this scenario was very common with low time, uninstructed pilots in this model airplane. On October 24, 2016, a Federal Aviation Administration aviation safety inspector performed an onsite examination of the airplane's wreckage. The inspector reported that the airplane had impacted terrain in a steep left-wing-down orientation, that both wings had sustained substantial damage, and that flight control continuity was confirmed. All components necessary for flight were accounted for at the accident site. No anomalies with the airframe were reported that would have precluded normal operation. On January 11, 2017, under the supervision of the NTSB IIC, an examination of the engine was performed at the facilities of Sport Aircraft Services, LLC, Shelbyville, Tennessee. In summary, an external examination of the engine revealed minor damage, which resulted in it being determined that the engine was in runnable condition. After starting, with no interruptions, the engine was then test run through myriad power ranges from idle to full power, with no anomalies noted that would have precluded normal operation. (Refer to the Engine Inspection and Evaluation report, which is appended to the docket for the report.) The 280-hour student pilot had just purchased the experimental, light sport airplane in which he had no experience or training. The pilot declined a suggestion from a mechanic who assisted with the sale to perform a familiarization flight with another pilot who had operational experience with the airplane. The mechanic stated that the pilot started the engine to depart on the flight home; however, he experienced problems taxiing, shut down the engine, and stated that the nosewheel steering was not working. The mechanic explained that the airplane was steered by differential braking and again suggested that the pilot conduct a familiarization flight. The pilot again declined, restarted the engine, and taxied the airplane to the runway for takeoff. The pilot stated that, just after rotation, the engine surged and the left wing subsequently dropped and impacted terrain. The mechanic watched the airplane take off and stated that the engine sounded "strong and even" and that the airplane became airborne in a relatively flat attitude. He heard several reductions and increases in engine power as the airplane sank, climbed, rolled, and yawed until the left wing impacted the ground off the left side of runway. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical anomalies with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the pilot failed to maintain airplane control during the takeoff and initial climb and that his lack of experience in the accident airplane and his refusal to obtain familiarization training before attempting to fly it directly resulted in his failure to maintain control. 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-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
• C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-(general)-Not attained/maintained - C
• C Personnel issues-Action/decision-Info processing/decision-Decision making/judgment-Pilot - C
• C Personnel issues-Experience/knowledge-Experience/qualifications-Total experience w/ equipment-Pilot - C