Is an accident career ending?

M

Mike4Foxtrot

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
9
Display Name
Display name:
Mike4Foxtrot
I was recently involved in a substantial accident, with no injuries. I'm a CFI and essentially what happened is that my student had a bad flare which resulted in a hard landing. I took controls to do an immediate go around from the bounce. I did what I perceived to be the standard procedures (full power/nose forward with rudder coordination, then clean up) but I wasn't able to generate any lift and the aircraft slipped out of control and flipped over. This occurred in a C150. I already can identify multiple things I could have done that would prevented this.

Any input is much appreciated. My flight school and the FAA has been really supportive and reassuring. I wasn't grounded or anything and they both said I did the right thing after the bounce and the plane had as much power as possible based on what happened with the prop. Again, I can identify a couple things we should have done differently prior to the approach and I will use this experience to become a much better, detail oriented instructor. The student has solo'd before and wants to keep training.

Thanks again for any thoughts.
 
One of my flight instructors had asked his commercial student to do a soft field landing (or something similar) just to mix things up a bit. They guy froze on the controls and they ended up landing in the trees on one side of the runway.

Didn't end his career (the instructor - dunno about the student).
 
Career ender? No.

Something I’d post under the “guest” login anonymously on the appropriate forum? Absolutely.
 
Seriously doubt it. First question I was asked in my interview “any accidents?” Mine was military and wouldn’t show in a PRIA check but I claimed it anyway. She wasn’t concerned in the least and marked “no.”

Unless the market gets super competitive in the next decade, I’d say you’re good.
 
Last edited:
No. If it was, there'd be almost no one flying in Alaska. I don't mean to minimize the importance of trying to avoid accidents, but it happens sometimes, especially when instructing. The only way your career ends are medical reasons or Martha Lunken scenarios where the Feds pull your certificates because they think you violated regs intentionally and egregiously (then lied about it), and prevent you from reapplying for those certificates.
 
So, as I read it -

Would they reject a candidate in what is pretty much the tightest job market in decades because he couldn't save an abnormal flight condition caused by a primary student? I don't work in the field, but I'm going to go with no.

What did you learn from it such that you became a better pilot? If asked to explain, you should be prepared with 1 sentence explaining how you got into the situation, then 1 sentence about what was done wrong and 2-3 sentences about what you learned. You can't change the past, but you can show that you won't do it again (the same way).
 
One of my CFIs crashed a mile short of the runway from fuel exhaustion, at night, with his two kids in the plane. He tried to land in a field but hit a power line which flipped the plane, a C172. He said he flew it inverted into the crash until it stopped upside down. Miraculously the only injury was the kid in the back seat got a broken leg. He’s now an ATP and as far as I know still flying with an airline.
 
I hired a guy who had an IIMC CFIT accident. The accident occurred 9 years prior to him making application with my company. Amazingly he and his crew survived but the aircraft (BK117) was destroyed. I wanted to know what he had done since the accident to prevent it from happening again and what he had learned from it.

He's been working for me for 8 years and has been an outstanding pilot
 
Mike4Foxtrot said:
I was recently involved in a substantial accident, with no injuries. I'm a CFI and essentially what happened is that my student had a bad flare which resulted in a hard landing. I took controls to do an immediate go around from the bounce. I did what I perceived to be the standard procedures (full power/nose forward with rudder coordination, then clean up) but I wasn't able to generate any lift and the aircraft slipped out of control and flipped over. This occurred in a C150. I already can identify multiple things I could have done that would prevented this.

Any input is much appreciated. My flight school and the FAA has been really supportive and reassuring. I wasn't grounded or anything and they both said I did the right thing after the bounce and the plane had as much power as possible based on what happened with the prop. Again, I can identify a couple things we should have done differently prior to the approach and I will use this experience to become a much better, detail oriented instructor. The student has solo'd before and wants to keep training.

Thanks again for any thoughts.
Click to expand...

So I just interviewed some pilots for a job with near equal qualifications except one has had a training accident. I inquired what happened and based on the pilot’s account I suspect the cause of the accident was negligence. He stated his safety record since is without incident. Which one do you believe I should eliminate from consideration first?

Your career is not ruined, but you are going to get some rejection letters that you otherwise would not have received and the speed of your progression will be slowed unless you take action now.

Your only exit from this situation in a competitive market is not to be similar. You have to be the obvious best candidate with far more to offer than the rest so I can over look that accident.

Start the learning process to excel now. The times we are in where everyone with the hours gets hired will not last.
 
Last edited:
So...you're going with the guys that haven't learned the hard lessons?

I do IT system implementations. They're incredibly varied and incredibly complex because of variability. Same industry, but everyone wants something different. In my field, if I run across someone who denies having at least one bad implementation, they're either lying or inexperienced. What I want to know is that they've learned the lessons of how to make sure it doesn't happen again.
 
bflynn said:
So...you're going with the guys that haven't learned the hard lessons?

I do IT system implementations. They're incredibly varied and incredibly complex because of variability. Same industry, but everyone wants something different. In my field, if I run across someone who denies having at least one bad implementation, they're either lying or inexperienced. What I want to know is that they've learned the lessons of how to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Click to expand...

So you believe crashing a plane and crashing a program is equivalent? How many program crashes result in physical injury and fatalities? Paid out many wrongful death claims? Do your insurance premiums increase much with a program crash?

Safety is kind of job 1 for a CFI. If crashes are acceptable, the students can teach themselves like many IT guys.
 
Clip4 said:
So you believe crashing a plane and crashing a program is equivalent? How many program crashes result in physical injury and fatalities? Paid out many wrongful death claims? Do your insurance premiums increase much with a program crash?

Safety is kind of job 1 for a CFI. If crashes are acceptable, the students can teach themselves like many IT guys.
Click to expand...

:) There are a lot of pilots and a lot of IT people who think they're perfect. That's part of the problem with both groups, and a few others. It's not a coincidence that the largest aircraft accident in history, 583 lives lost, was caused by arrogance.

There's also a difference between being in an accident, and being at fault. Much of what a CFI does is keep the student from killing both people, while letting the student experience mistakes. It's a fine line, and a dangerous occupation. I'd fly with the OP in a heartbeat, just based on the information in the first post. I can't say that about most pilots I've never met.

Finally, in the last 20 years, a lot more software errors have killed people in the US than part 121 pilots. Wrongful death claims haven't caught up to that yet, but they will eventually, and then maybe it'll fix the industry a bit.
 
bflynn said:
So...you're going with the guys that haven't learned the hard lessons?
Click to expand...

It's a thinly veiled "there are those that have and those that will" argument. Yawn.

bflynn said:
I do IT system implementations. They're incredibly varied and incredibly complex because of variability. Same industry, but everyone wants something different. In my field, if I run across someone who denies having at least one bad implementation, they're either lying or inexperienced. What I want to know is that they've learned the lessons of how to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Click to expand...

lol
 
Mike4Foxtrot said:
I was recently involved in a substantial accident, with no injuries. I'm a CFI and essentially what happened is that my student had a bad flare which resulted in a hard landing. I took controls to do an immediate go around from the bounce. I did what I perceived to be the standard procedures (full power/nose forward with rudder coordination, then clean up) but I wasn't able to generate any lift and the aircraft slipped out of control and flipped over. This occurred in a C150. I already can identify multiple things I could have done that would prevented this.
Click to expand...

What went wrong? I am interested to learn how a hard landing led to the aircraft flipping over.
 
Clip4 said:
So you believe crashing a plane and crashing a program is equivalent? How many program crashes result in physical injury and fatalities? Paid out many wrongful death claims? Do your insurance premiums increase much with a program crash?

Safety is kind of job 1 for a CFI. If crashes are acceptable, the students can teach themselves like many IT guys.
Click to expand...

Crashing acceptable? Not in any circumstance. That’s why you want people who are dedicated to preventing it.
 
A change in behavior as the result of an experience is the definition of learning. When I do instruction, it's normally not the basic flight around the pattern and the training that I conduct is to prepare the (already rated) student to operate the aircraft at the edge of it's limits in order to develop the confidence for that student to know and (if need be) operate near the edge of their limits.

A friend of mine was a 19 year old Cobra pilot in Vietnam. He once told me he did a lot of stupid things that could have gotten him killed be cause he didn't know any better. He said that it helped him learn his and the aircraft's limitations, which ultimately kept him alive in combat.

I'm not saying training should be that dynamic but you should not be penalized when an event gets out of hand while applying the correct procedure. Even Maverick learned this.

hqdefault.jpg
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
What went wrong? I am interested to learn how a hard landing led to the aircraft flipping over.
Click to expand...

Right before what I anticipated to be a nose gear touch down, I abruptly added back pressure which caused a high bounce from the touchdown. I made the immediate decision to execute a go-around. On the attempted go-around, full power was added and I dropped the nose to just above the horizon line to gain speed. I also retracted the flaps as I could. I didn't intend to go full flaps up but on this particular aircraft, you had to manually keep pressure on the lever in order for the flaps to change at all, which made the retraction transition a little slower. We also landed behind a leer jet. I thought there was adequate timing in between our landings but perhaps it played a factor. Ultimately, I shouldn't have allowed the student to flare on his own when his landings prior to that point generally needed my assistance.

Thank you for all the responses, everyone. I'm not sure what's going to happen next as I did lose my instructor job (understandably). Everyone has been saying I'll be alright and I can still fly at the regionals but I can't help but think there's no getting past this.
 
It all depends. Similar to @Clip4, I interviewed two candidates to nanny my kids. Both equally qualified, equally liked by my kids. I did background checks, one came back clean, and the other had a speeding ticket. The clean one drove a mom-mobile (minivan back then) and the speeding ticket one drove a small red sports car. Guess which one I hired?

I’ve gotten speeding tickets myself, does that make me a hypocrite? Nope. It means one applicant had a mark in their history the other didn’t. Their choice of vehicle didn’t help.

On the other hand, I agree about learning from mistakes. Suppose Dale Snodgrass messed up and didn’t remove a gust lock? Would I go fly with him (if he were still here?) In a heartbeat! You have to look at the totality of a person.

In the case of my CFI, he had terrible judgment (failed to refuel before the return flight) but excellent stick and rudder skills which saved his bacon. He now flies commercial, does that concern me? Yes and no. He was young then, and might have learned his lesson, but in a crash where his judgement wasn’t the cause, I’d want him on the controls. But between him and an equally qualified candidate without that crash history? I’d have to take the other.

The OP’s case is different. @Albany Tom said it best: “Much of what a CFI does is keep the student from killing both people, while letting the student experience mistakes. It's a fine line,..”

To my mind, that’s nothing like what my CFI did and probably would carry very little weight with me. I actually call that a good landing (no injuries). I’m surprised that sort of thing doesn’t happen more often.
 
Mike4Foxtrot said:
Right before what I anticipated to be a nose gear touch down, I abruptly added back pressure which caused a high bounce from the touchdown. I made the immediate decision to execute a go-around. On the attempted go-around, full power was added and I dropped the nose to just above the horizon line to gain speed. I also retracted the flaps as I could. I didn't intend to go full flaps up but on this particular aircraft, you had to manually keep pressure on the lever in order for the flaps to change at all, which made the retraction transition a little slower. We also landed behind a leer jet. I thought there was adequate timing in between our landings but perhaps it played a factor. Ultimately, I shouldn't have allowed the student to flare on his own when his landings prior to that point generally needed my assistance.

Thank you for all the responses, everyone. I'm not sure what's going to happen next as I did lose my instructor job (understandably). Everyone has been saying I'll be alright and I can still fly at the regionals but I can't help but think there's no getting past this.
Click to expand...

Like others have said, learning is defined by a change in behavior as the result of an experience. No one is perfect. I've had my share of mistakes, but luckily no bad outcomes. Every time I had a close encounter, I spent a great deal of time analyzing and going over what happend and how I can be better next time, even though I've had no ambition of making a career out of this.

Have you examined what happened? Your description seems a bit vague. A slow flap retraction should not cause an airplane to flip over, unless you stalled. Was it wake turbulence from the Lear jet (not leer jet)? Where did the accident chain begin? You seem to be more focused on whether this incident will affect your career more than learning from it. Whether you will be alright or not is going to be up to you.
 
Mike4Foxtrot said:
Thanks again for any thoughts.
Click to expand...

You as the CFI / PIC will be re-examined under 49 USC 44709. You'll be getting a return receipt letter from the FAA. Be expecting it. Get with a CFI that knows the process and do some ground and flight training. As soon as you get the letter, schedule and pass the re-examination and that will be the end of it. You'll have a good talking point during interviews.

FWIW, the FAA can not "ground" you on the spot. There is a process to be followed. If you want support during the process, msg me. You need to clean up some of that explaining in #20.
 
Last edited:
sarangan said:
Like others have said, learning is defined by a change in behavior as the result of an experience. No one is perfect. I've had my share of mistakes, but luckily no bad outcomes. Every time I had a close encounter, I spent a great deal of time analyzing and going over what happend and how I can be better next time, even though I've had no ambition of making a career out of this.

Have you examined what happened? Your description seems a bit vague. A slow flap retraction should not cause an airplane to flip over, unless you stalled. Was it wake turbulence from the Lear jet (not leer jet)? Where did the accident chain begin? You seem to be more focused on whether this incident will affect your career more than learning from it. Whether you will be alright or not is going to be up to you.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. I have spoken to two different commercial pilots about the situation to get their take on it, as well as the FAA inspector and my chief pilot. I should ask for input on here as well about thoughts on the recovery. The biggest feed back I got was from one of the commercial pilots saying that flaps should be retracted but you still want to keep in some amount of flaps to sustain the lift. Wake turbulence from the Lear jet could have been a factor but we were still on about a 2.5 mile final when the Lear jet touched down in a 150, so I didn't think this would play a factor. I don't believe we experienced the sort of drastic change in attitude that wake turbulence may cause. You are right that this is vague, as I'm still trying to understand what happened myself. I believe I performed the proper procedure and while perhaps attempting the save the landing would have been the better decision now, I have always been trained that a big bounce should always proceed into a go-around. The stall warning came on during the bounce and we definitely exceeded the critical angle of attack. Again, I believe I did the proper procedure to recovery from the stall, but I was never able to generate lift from the recovery, despite the full power and lowered nose. The FAA examiner confirmed based on the prop damage and the position of the throttle, we had as much power as was possible in that moment.
 
Mike4Foxtrot said:
I also retracted the flaps as I could. I didn't intend to go full flaps up but on this particular aircraft, you had to manually keep pressure on the lever in order for the flaps to change at all, which made the retraction transition a little slower. We also landed behind a leer jet.
Click to expand...

You left out the aircraft flipping over part. So was it actually wake turbulence?

Mike4Foxtrot said:
Everyone has been saying I'll be alright and I can still fly at the regionals but I can't help but think there's no getting past this.
Click to expand...

Regional hiring decisions are usually made by HR people who don't know much about airplanes. If you don't have other blemishes on your record I bet a regional will still hire you. The real "interview" is the training process.
 
Bob Hoover, Chuck Yeager, Dale Snodgrass, etc. All have accidents. Pretty much every military pilot autobiography I’ve read, have had accidents that were their fault. No one is immune. If you think you are, you’re either naive, haven’t flown much or you fly very benign modes of flight.

Having said that, the above pilots really didn’t have to worry about applying for a job where their previous accident mattered. For the OP it’s all about the market. If 5 pilots with equal quals are competing for one spot, the one with the accident ain’t gonna get it. Forget about future liability. That accident pilot increases the company’s insurance premium. You can bet they’re all about saving money. Now, if there are 5 openings with only 3 applicants and no relief in sight (today’s market), you’ll get the job.
 
dmspilot said:
You left out the aircraft flipping over part. So was it actually wake turbulence?



Regional hiring decisions are usually made by HR people who don't know much about airplanes. If you don't have other blemishes on your record I bet a regional will still hire you. The real "interview" is the training process.
Click to expand...
I don't think it was wake turbulence. It all happened very fast, especially once control was lost and I realized I wasn't generating lift, but what I believe happened and what the FAA inspector hypothesized from the scene is that we hit the wing on the RW marker (which was damaged), crashed nose first into the ground causing an immediate prop strike, and then the aircraft flipped. I can't say 100% that the wing is the first thing that hit, but I know we hit nose first into the ground, and flipped from there.


...
Regarding the other blemishes, I have a clean record, a degree and no checkrides busts.
 
Mike4Foxtrot said:
Thanks for the feedback. I have spoken to two different commercial pilots about the situation to get their take on it, as well as the FAA inspector and my chief pilot. I should ask for input on here as well about thoughts on the recovery. The biggest feed back I got was from one of the commercial pilots saying that flaps should be retracted but you still want to keep in some amount of flaps to sustain the lift. Wake turbulence from the Lear jet could have been a factor but we were still on about a 2.5 mile final when the Lear jet touched down in a 150, so I didn't think this would play a factor. I don't believe we experienced the sort of drastic change in attitude that wake turbulence may cause. You are right that this is vague, as I'm still trying to understand what happened myself. I believe I performed the proper procedure and while perhaps attempting the save the landing would have been the better decision now, I have always been trained that a big bounce should always proceed into a go-around. The stall warning came on during the bounce and we definitely exceeded the critical angle of attack. Again, I believe I did the proper procedure to recovery from the stall, but I was never able to generate lift from the recovery, despite the full power and lowered nose. The FAA examiner confirmed based on the prop damage and the position of the throttle, we had as much power as was possible in that moment.
Click to expand...

How long have you been a CFI? Number of hours of dual given? Number of students soloed? You sound inexperienced.
 
“There isn’t a man alive who hasn’t made a mistake. But I’m positive you’ll never make this mistake again. That’s why I want to make sure that you’re the only one to refuel my plane tomorrow. I won’t let anyone else on the field touch it.” - Bob Hoover, said to a lineman after he mistakenly fueled his Shrike Commander with Jet Fuel instead of AvGas, causing the plane to lose power at 300' before crashing in a Ravine.

Stuff happens. Learn from it the best you can and move forward.
 
dmspilot said:
How long have you been a CFI? Number of hours of dual given? Number of students soloed? You sound inexperienced.
Click to expand...
I am a new CFI, and still learning a lot. I was always trained to retract flaps incrementally -- from 30d to 20d, and once airspeed is built, and you establish a positive rate of climb, continue to retract from there.
 
Nathan Miller said:
Honestly, what difference does it make? Mistakes can happen to experienced and inexperienced alike.
Click to expand...

It's a discussion forum dude not a confessional. If he doesn't want to answer he doesn't have to. It's not the accident that prompted me to ask the question it's his inability to explain it.
 
dmspilot said:
It's a discussion forum dude not a confessional. If he doesn't want to answer he doesn't have to. It's not the accident that prompted me to ask the question it's his inability to explain it.
Click to expand...
I still don't see the relevance of his experience (or inexperience) dude
 
Nathan Miller said:
I still don't see the relevance of his experience (or inexperience) dude
Click to expand...

Guess it's pointless for the NTSB to examine the pilot's experience in every accident report.
 
Mike4Foxtrot said:
I am a new CFI, and still learning a lot. I was always trained to retract flaps incrementally -- from 30d to 20d, and once airspeed is built, and you establish a positive rate of climb, continue to retract from there.
Click to expand...

I think it's going to be more challenging for you to find another flying job in the near term for time building than it will be to be hired by a regional. You will know soon enough whether you are able to do so.
 
dmspilot said:
Guess it's pointless for the NTSB to examine the pilot's experience in every accident report.
Click to expand...
My apologies. I didn't realize you worked for the NTSB or were charged with investigating the accident. I just assumed it was to pass judgement on another pilot for the purposes of kicking him when he's down.
 
Nathan Miller said:
My apologies. I didn't realize you worked for the NTSB or were charged with investigating the accident. I just assumed it was to pass judgement on another pilot for the purposes of kicking him when he's down.
Click to expand...

Apology accepted. Your assumption is interesting. Is it easier to kick someone while they're down by knowing their experience level? Now I can see why you thought it was irrelevant.
 
dmspilot said:
Apology accepted. Your assumption is interesting. Is it easier to kick someone while they're down by knowing their experience level? Now I can see why you thought it was irrelevant.
Click to expand...
No no. You misread my post. Asking about his experience level is a way of kicking him when he's down, rather than finding out his experience level (which you've already surmised) and using THAT to kick him when he's down. Slight nuance, but I trust that you'll get it.
 
Mike4Foxtrot said:
Thanks for the feedback. I have spoken to two different commercial pilots about the situation to get their take on it, as well as the FAA inspector and my chief pilot. I should ask for input on here as well about thoughts on the recovery. The biggest feed back I got was from one of the commercial pilots saying that flaps should be retracted but you still want to keep in some amount of flaps to sustain the lift. Wake turbulence from the Lear jet could have been a factor but we were still on about a 2.5 mile final when the Lear jet touched down in a 150, so I didn't think this would play a factor. I don't believe we experienced the sort of drastic change in attitude that wake turbulence may cause. You are right that this is vague, as I'm still trying to understand what happened myself. I believe I performed the proper procedure and while perhaps attempting the save the landing would have been the better decision now, I have always been trained that a big bounce should always proceed into a go-around. The stall warning came on during the bounce and we definitely exceeded the critical angle of attack. Again, I believe I did the proper procedure to recovery from the stall, but I was never able to generate lift from the recovery, despite the full power and lowered nose. The FAA examiner confirmed based on the prop damage and the position of the throttle, we had as much power as was possible in that moment.
Click to expand...

The 150 with full flaps is extremely draggy. A full power stall with flaps can be ugly. Try this out at altitude. Perhaps this is what happened. I teach all landings at 20-deg flap for this reason, and keep the 40-deg as an option for when you need it, such as short/soft fields or emergency landings.

Another factor is, most flight schools seem to assign their newly minted CFIs to primary students, and more experienced CFIs to instrument and commercial students. In my opinion, this is backwards. Most of the accidents/fatalities I have seen around here have been with new students and new CFIs. Taking a student from first flight to first solo is a major undertaking that requires judgement and the confidence to say no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top