FLIGHT FINDINGSAVIATION OCCURRENCE MAP
Back to map

WPR22FA033 · Zenith STOL CH701

12 Nov 2021 · Randsburg, CA, United States

Zenith STOL CH701 · Accident: aerodynamic stall/spin on approach

From Inyokern Airport (IYK) to an unrecorded destination

Report a problem

Event

NTSB case
WPR22FA033
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
2 · 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

Zenith STOL CH701

Aircraft type
Zenith STOL CH701
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
N984LD
Operator
Unknown
Onboard fatalities
Unknown
Route
From Inyokern Airport (IYK), Inyokern, CATo not recorded
Aircraft age
About 6 years (built 2015)
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 base
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
Aerodynamic stall/spin
DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
Destroyed

Cause areas

  • Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability
  • Personnel issues › Experience/knowledge
  • 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 pilot and pilot-rated passenger planned to fly the experimental, amateur-built short take-off and landing (STOL) airplane to a series of desert airports and backcountry airstrips. The accident airstrip was the first stop on their itinerary. They had flown together at least once before in the accident airplane, but this was the first time the pilot, who was the owner of the airplane, had landed at a remote, backcountry airstrip.

The accident airstrip was located within a bowl-like feature in the foothills of a mountain range. Published information about the airstrip recommended a traffic pattern altitude of about 825 ft above ground level (agl); however, flight track data indicated that the airplane’s altitude on the downwind leg was about 50 ft above the ridge that ran roughly parallel to the airstrip, and about 125 ft above the runway surface, with very little lateral separation from the runway. Witnesses observed the airplane fly low over the ridgeline while on the downwind leg, during which it appeared to encounter turbulence. The airplane then began a left turn onto the base leg of the traffic pattern and overshot the runway centerline toward rising terrain as it continued in a left turn onto final approach.

The airplane’s bank angle increased to between 60° and 90° as it turned from base to final, and the airplane then rapidly descended, consistent with an aerodynamic stall. The airplane impacted the ground about 700 ft short of the runway threshold and about 300 ft right of the runway centerline.

Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation, and damage to the propeller blades indicated that the engine was producing power at impact.

Witness accounts regarding the direction and velocity of the wind at the time of the accident varied; however, information from a GPS unit onboard the airplane recorded an increased groundspeed on the base leg of the traffic pattern, suggesting crosswind conditions that would have resulted in a tailwind while on the base leg. This likely contributed to the pilot overshooting the runway extended centerline, which placed the airplane closer to rising terrain on the other side of the runway. The runway overshoot, combined with the proximity to rising terrain, likely resulted in the pilot’s steep turn in the direction of the runway as reported by witnesses before the airplane’s descent into terrain. It is likely that, during that turn, the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack, resulting in an accelerated aerodynamic stall.

Although the airport windsock was inoperative at the time of the accident, there were flags present at a campsite within the airport valley that would have indicated the direction of the wind. Additionally, the pilot was likely aware of the wind during the downwind leg because the airplane maintained a relatively straight track, which would have required control inputs to compensate for the crosswind conditions. Even without the crosswind, the airplane’s reduced lateral separation from the runway during the downwind leg would have required an aggressive turn onto final to avoid overshooting the runway.

The investigation could not rule out the possibility that the pilot-rated passenger was flying the airplane at the time of the accident; however, the airplane’s owner was seated in the left seat, which was the only seat equipped with wheel brake controls. Given that the accident occurred during the approach to land, it is likely the owner was flying the airplane. The terrain surrounding the accident airstrip would have provided an unusual sight picture during the landing approach, likely compounded by the pilot’s decision to fly the traffic pattern at a very low altitude. It is likely that the pilot’s limited experience flying into remote, backcountry airstrips such as the accident airstrip contributed to his failure to establish a stabilized approach to the runway in the presence of unfamiliar topography.

The airplane was originally equipped with leading edge slats to enhance short field takeoff and landing performance, but they had been removed. The airplane could be flown without them, and a safe landing at this airstrip could still have been accomplished if a stabilized approach was performed.

Although autopsy of the pilot revealed cardiovascular disease, operational evidence indicates that it is unlikely that he experienced a sudden medical event.

Probable cause

The pilot’s improper landing approach, which failed to account for wind conditions, and his exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack following an overshoot of the runway extended centerline, resulting in an accelerated aerodynamic stall. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s lack of experience flying into challenging backcountry airstrips.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset

Sources

NTSB record WPR22FA033
Event ID
20211112104238
Case number
WPR22FA033
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, cause areas. 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: 349ddf183d78ac5f5cf62cceb16efc10b2d65df5c535f71841ac636db419696a; retrieved 2026-09-15T07:37:18.518Z.