NTSB Releases Final Report on March 2023 Maule Accident | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-04.22.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.16.24

Airborne-FlightTraining-04.17.24 Airborne-AffordableFlyers-04.18.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.19.24

Join Us At 0900ET, Friday, 4/10, for the LIVE Morning Brief.
Watch It LIVE at
www.airborne-live.net

Wed, Jun 28, 2023

NTSB Releases Final Report on March 2023 Maule Accident

He Said, He Said …

The NTSB has released its final report on a 20 March 2023 accident in which a Maule M-7-235C, registration N79VE, was substantially damaged and one of its two occupants seriously injured.

The Maule M-7-235C is a high-wing, strut-braced monoplane of conventional configuration designed and built by Moultrie, Georgia-based Maule Air. The aircraft is available in both conventional (tailwheel) and tricycle undercarriage iterations. The tailwheel-equipped accident aircraft was powered by a single, 235-horsepower, Lycoming O-540-B4B5, horizontally-opposed, four-stroke, six-cylinder aero-engine.

Seeking to better his tailwheel flying skills, the pilot/owner of the newly-acquired accident-aircraft retained the services of Certified Flight Instructor (CFI). Though appropriately rated and current in tailwheel airplanes, the pilot/owner conceded he lacked proficiency in the operation of such. In particular, the individual felt he required remedial training in landing tailwheel aircraft on short, narrow runways.

While receiving dual-instruction from the aforementioned CFI, the pilot/owner set up for landing on Runway 08 at South Carolina’s Abbeville Airport (SC81). A left (southerly) crosswind prevailed.

The pilot/owner stated he “arrived too high for the runway,” and reported the CFI subsequently took control of the aircraft for purpose of demonstrating a forward slip maneuver by which to lose altitude. The pilot/owner alleged the aircraft, under the CFI’s control, entered a left ground-loop after touchdown and sustained damage consistent therewith.

The flight instructor set forth a contrary account of the accident sequence, stating the pilot/owner was in the habit of flying with his feet high on the rudder pedals and—despite having been counseled to the contrary prior to the pair’s departure on the instructional flight—persisted in the practice.

After conducting air-work and undertaking takeoff and landing practice at an area airport, student and instructor returned to SC81. The CFI reported the pilot/owner—while attempting to land on SC81’s 2,250-foot-long, forty-foot-wide Runway 08—applied excessive left rudder approximately one-foot AGL. The CFI asserted the inappropriate application of rudder occurred so quickly he was unable to intervene before the Maule’s right wing contacted the runway surface, its right main landing gear separated from its fuselage, and the airplane skidded to a stop.

An engine shut-down and egress from the aircraft ensued.

The pilot/owner reported substantial damage to the Maule’s fuselage and both its wings. He reported, also, that the aircraft had been mechanically-sound prior to the accident-flight.

In his written statement, the flight instructor concurred, reporting no preflight mechanical anomalies with the accident-aircraft.

A Federal Aviation Administration inspector reported the flight instructor had no experience in the Maule M-7 prior to the accident-flight.

The National Transportation Safety Board determined the accident’s probable cause to be a loss of directional control during landing, which resulted in a ground loop and substantial damage to the airplane. The pilot flying could not be determined insomuch as both pilots claimed the other was at the controls during the accident-landing. The NTSB further determined the flight instructor, by accepting the training flight without prior experience in the aircraft make and model, had demonstrated poor aeronautical judgment.

Parties interested in learning more about the described event should reference NTSB Accident Number ERA23LA160.

FMI: www.ntsb.gov

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (04.26.24): DETRESFA (Distress Phrase)

DETRESFA (Distress Phrase) The code word used to designate an emergency phase wherein there is reasonable certainty that an aircraft and its occupants are threatened by grave and i>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (04.26.24)

Aero Linx: The International Association of Missionary Aviation (IAMA) The International Association of Missionary Aviation (IAMA) is comprised of Mission organizations, flight sch>[...]

Airborne 04.22.24: Rotor X Worsens, Airport Fees 4 FNB?, USMC Drone Pilot

Also: EP Systems' Battery, Boeing SAF, Repeat TBM 960 Order, Japan Coast Guard H225 Buy Despite nearly 100 complaints totaling millions of dollars of potential fraud, combined with>[...]

Airborne 04.24.24: INTEGRAL E, Elixir USA, M700 RVSM

Also: Viasat-uAvionix, UL94 Fuel Investigation, AF Materiel Command, NTSB Safety Alert Norges Luftsportforbund chose Aura Aero's little 2-seater in electric trim for their next gli>[...]

Airborne-NextGen 04.23.24: UAVOS UVH 170, magni650 Engine, World eVTOL Directory

Also: Moya Delivery Drone, USMC Drone Pilot, Inversion RAY Reentry Vehicle, RapidFlight UAVOS has recently achieved a significant milestone in public safety and emergency services >[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2024 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC