CEN19FA195 · Rans S12

The student sport pilot was conducting a local solo flight near his private airstrip in calm wind conditions, and had performed two or three landings before the accident flight. A camera located near the airstrip captured a segment of the accident flight, during which the airplane could be seen spiraling downward and impacting the runway, followed by a postimpact fire. A witness reported that he heard the accident airplane fly over on the night of the accident. He heard the engine "die," but stated that it subsequently restarted, and the airplane proceeded directly toward the runway. The witness subsequently heard the sound of the impact and saw the fire.

The airplane impacted terrain in a nose-down attitude. No preimpact structural or flight control continuity were detected during a postaccident examination. Thermal damage precluded a thorough examination of the propeller and engine. A Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular (AC 90-109A) classified the airplane as a low-inertia, high-drag airplane. These airplanes are particularly susceptible to unintentional aerodynamic stalls due to their low cruise speed to stall speed margin and their tendency to experience significant airspeed decay with increased load factor (such as during a turn). Based on the available information, it is likely that while maneuvering toward the runway following the loss of and restoration of engine power, the pilot exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack, which resulted in an inadvertent aerodynamic stall and loss of control.

Although medical records indicated that the pilot had been treated for an unspecified anxiety disorder for many years, whether effects from the disorder or its treatment contributed to the accident could not be determined given the available evidence.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset