GAA17CA337 · Cessna 172 S
Cessna 172 S · Accident: loss of control in flight on approach
From Portage County Regional Airport (POV) to Portage County Regional Airport (POV)
Event
- NTSB case
- GAA17CA337
- Event typeAccident: someone killed or seriously injured, or the aircraft substantially damaged (NTSB definition). Incident: an occurrence that affected or could have affected safety, short of that. Glossary
- Accident
- InvestigationHow far the investigation had got when the record was published: preliminary, ongoing, final or completed. Unknown where the source does not say. Glossary
- Completed
- API-reported fatalities
- 0 · all aircraft and ground
- Ground fatalities
- Unknown
- OperationWhat kind of flying it was, grouped by the rules it flew under: airline (US Part 121), air taxi and commuter (Part 135), general aviation (Part 91 and similar), military or government. Glossary
- General aviation
- WeatherVisual meteorological conditions (VMC): good enough to fly by looking outside. Instrument conditions (IMC): cloud or low visibility, flying by instruments. Glossary
- Visual Meteorological Cond
Cessna 172 S
- Aircraft type
- Cessna 172
- Category
- Airplane
- RegistrationThe aircraft's tail number, such as N12345 or G-ABCD. Registrations are reissued, so the same one years apart can be a different aircraft. Glossary
- N33FM
- Operator
- Unknown
- Onboard fatalities
- Unknown
- Route
- From Portage County Regional Airport (POV), Ravenna, OHTo Portage County Regional Airport (POV), Ravenna, OH
- Aircraft age
- About 5 years (built 2012)
- Flight rulesThe regulations the flight operated under: in the US, Part 91 (general aviation), Part 121 (airlines), Part 135 (air taxi and commuter) and others; for flights abroad, the NTSB's coarser commercial or non-commercial code. Glossary
- Part 91: General Aviation
- Phase of flightThe stage of the flight when things started to go wrong: standing, taxi, takeoff, initial climb, en route, maneuvering, approach or landing. Glossary
- Approach · VFR pattern final
- Defining eventThe single coded event the NTSB judges best describes what happened (records from 2008 on). Older records name the first occurrence in the sequence instead. Glossary
- Loss of control in flight
- DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
- Substantial
Cause areas
- Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability
- Personnel issues › Action/decision
- Personnel issues › Task performance
Approximate · Coordinates from the NTSB case API, which marks them as estimated or does not say; no uncertainty radius is established.
NTSB narrative
The flight instructor reported that, during an instructional flight, while on short final, he told the student pilot to "pitch down" to maintain airspeed. He added that the student did not respond and that he again instructed the student to "pitch down now" while simultaneously pressing forward on the yoke. He further added that, as he pushed forward on the yoke, the student "pulled [back] with equal force on the yoke." Subsequently, the flight instructor pushed forward on the yoke "with greater force" than the previous attempt and stated, "my plane," to the student, but "continued to wrestle the controls with the student" as the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall. The airplane then impacted the runway threshold hard, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the airplane veered off the runway to the right.
The student pilot reported that this was his first flight with this flight instructor but that he had accumulated about 82 hours of dual instruction previously. He added that, during the second landing of the day, while on final approach, "the instructor had me pull the power and told me nose down." He further added that he "felt we were getting low and I told the instructor I wanted to increase power but the instructor told me to 'nose down.'" The student pilot reported that the instructor again stated multiple times to "nose down," but he "did not believe there was enough room to continue nose down." The student pilot reported that the flight instructor subsequently took the flight controls and nosed the airplane down and that the airplane impacted the runway threshold hard and veered off the runway.
The fuselage and firewall sustained substantial damage.
The flight instructor and student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During postaccident correspondence with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge, the flight instructor reported that he could not recall if, during preflight, he and the student pilot discussed the positive transfer of the flight controls.
Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 61-115, "Positive Exchange of Flight Controls Program," dated March 10, 1995, stated, in part:
During flight training, there must always be a clear understanding between students and flight instructors of who has control of the aircraft. Prior to flight, a briefing should be conducted that includes the procedure for the exchange of flight controls. A positive three-step process in the exchange of flight controls between pilots is a proven procedure and one that is strongly recommended.
When an instructor is teaching a maneuver to a student, the instructor will normally demonstrate the maneuver first, then have the student follow along on the controls during a demonstration and, finally, the student will perform the maneuver with the instructor following along on the controls. When the flight instructor wishes the student to take control of the aircraft, he/she says to the student, "You have the flight controls." The student acknowledges immediately by saying, "I have the flight controls." The flight instructor again says, "You have the flight controls." During this procedure, a visual check is recommended to see that the other person actually has the flight controls. When returning the controls to the instructor, the student should follow the same procedure the instructor used when giving control to the student. The student should stay on the controls and keep flying the aircraft until the instructor says, "I have the flight controls." There should never be any doubt as to who is flying the aircraft.
Probable cause
The flight instructor's failure to perform a go-around during final approach, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and a hard landing. Contributing to the accident was the flight instructor's failure to brief the student pilot on the positive transfer of aircraft control during preflight.
Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset
Sources
NTSB record GAA17CA337
- Event ID
- 20170613X51406
- Case number
- GAA17CA337
- Dataset
- full-current
- Source SHA-256
- 5cf380f0061817c0331a6b2d8cc7e0ee3a79bea469a1001dc5c10e56f35f5ab3
Source notes (4)
- Unreviewed is an editorial label, not an investigation status. API-sourced is not report-checked or human-reviewed. Explicit event totals are used without summing aircraft injury tables; onboard allocation is withheld. Unknown values remain unknown. The operation category is mapped from the NTSB-reported FAR part and has not been reviewed.
- Filled from the NTSB case API where the bulk record had no value: investigation status, coordinates. Values present in the bulk record are kept.
- The date is the local date, which is the same as the UTC date the NTSB stores.
- API snapshot SHA-256: 509962cb63e22bce58b2de61891b985655d1a1b39688e0c7638fb9b6af5aa96c; retrieved 2026-09-16T05:24:26.250Z.