Fatal Cessna 152 Training Crash Near Valentia, Ontario

Accident Overview and Flight Details On a training flight, a Cessna 152 (serial number 15284378) departed Oshawa Airport, Ontario, at 12:07 EDT. The flight, intended to last one hour, was conducted by a certified instructor and a student pilot to practice climbing, descending, and turning exercises. As the flight neared its end, a witness observed the aircraft in a nose-down attitude, rotating twice to the right before it disappeared behind a tree line. The aircraft struck trees at high speed and crashed in a swamp southwest of Valentia. Both occupants sustained serious injuries and later died in separate hospitals. The witness estimated the aircraft was well below 2,000 feet above ground level when first observed. ## Weather and Maintenance Conditions Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the occurrence. The reported weather at 13:00 for Peterborough, Ontario, 19 nautical miles east of the crash site, included a wind of 120° true at nine knots, visibility of 15 statute miles, and a temperature of 11°C. A review of the company maintenance records indicated the aircraft was certified, equipped, and maintained in accordance with existing regulations. The most recent maintenance was a 50-hour inspection performed on 31 March 1999. The engine, an Avco Lycoming model O-235-L2C, had accumulated approximately 1,309 hours in service since its major overhaul. No discrepancies were noted that would have precluded normal engine operation prior to the accident. ## Wreckage and Engineering Examination The aircraft wreckage was examined at the crash site and later at a salvage facility. Multiple tree-impact imprints were found on the wings, wing lift struts, and horizontal stabilizer. The left wing had a 12- to 14-inch diameter impact that collapsed the wing two-thirds of the way to the rear spar, while the right wing was torn in half outboard of the flap. The tree impact angle revealed that the aircraft's rate of descent was shallow and that the wings were level at contact. The flaps were in the up position. There was no indication of pre-impact structural failure, and all aircraft parts were accounted for at the crash site. Due to the severe impact damage and fragmentation of the airframe, it could not be determined if a flight control malfunction had occurred. The airspeed indicator did not provide any information regarding the airspeed at the time of impact. There was no pre- or post-crash fire. ## Pilot Qualifications and Training The instructor pilot was certified and qualified in accordance with existing regulations to conduct the training flight. He had accumulated over 600 hours of logged flight time as of April 1999, of which approximately 400 hours were attributed to flight instruction. The student pilot had a familiarization flight in May 1998 and began her flight training in October 1998. The accident flight was her first flight in 1999. Her training record indicated that the last training exercise involved climbs, descents, and turns. As of the accident date, the student had not obtained a pilot medical. ## Regulatory Context and Investigation Findings The Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) define an aerobatic manoeuvre as one in which a change in the attitude of an aircraft results in a bank angle greater than 60°, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal acceleration not incidental to normal flying. A spiral is thus an aerobatic manoeuvre. CAR 602.27 states that no person shall conduct aerobatic manoeuvres below 2,000 feet above ground level without a special flight operations certificate. Radar data were retrieved from the Toronto Area Control Centre, but the aircraft's altitude at the time of the spiral manoeuvre was below radar coverage and was not indicated. The post-mortem medical examination did not identify any medical condition that could have resulted in in-flight incapacitation of either pilot. The weather conditions at the time of the occurrence were ideal for the flight training exercises and were not a factor in the accident. It could not be determined why a spiral was continued to an altitude from which a safe recovery could not be performed. The wing impact damage indicates that the aircraft was probably entering a recovery attitude prior to striking the trees. It was not determined whether the failure of the left seat back occurred in-flight or as a result of impact forces. Control of the aircraft would likely have been maintained by the instructor seated in the right seat had the left seat back failed in-flight. The sudden absence of engine noise that captured the witness's attention likely resulted from the pilot initiating the spiral recovery procedure. It was evident that the engine was capable of producing power at the time of the accident.