FLIGHT FINDINGSAVIATION OCCURRENCE MAP
Back to map

GAA17CA337 · Cessna 172 S

11 Jun 2017 · Ravenna, OH, United States

Cessna 172 S · Accident: loss of control in flight on approach

From Portage County Regional Airport (POV) to Portage County Regional Airport (POV)

Report a problem

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.