Accident
On July 2, 2000, at approximately 13:25 local time, a Cessna 172P (manufacturer Cessna, model 172P) crashed during a go-around attempt at the Karlshöfen special aerodrome. The aircraft had departed at 12:32 for a private sightseeing flight with the pilot and three passengers on board. The first landing approach failed, and the pilot initiated a go-around. A second approach also did not result in a landing; during the subsequent go-around, the aircraft stalled from a height of 12–15 meters, rolling left and impacting the ground 213 meters past the runway threshold, 31 meters left of the runway centerline. The impact occurred at a steep angle with the longitudinal axis nearly opposite the landing direction. The aircraft was destroyed. One passenger succumbed to injuries eight days after the accident; the pilot and two other passengers sustained serious injuries.
Emergency services, alerted by the flight director, arrived approximately 15 minutes after the crash. The four seriously injured occupants were extricated from the wreckage and taken to hospitals.
Investigation
The investigation was conducted by a BFU representative with police assistance. It was hampered by the severe destruction of the aircraft and necessary changes during rescue. The reconstruction relied on witness statements, the pilot’s partially incomplete recollection due to memory limitations, on-site findings, and further examinations.
The pilot, aged 44, held a private pilot license since 24 September 1996, with a medical restriction to wear corrective lenses. His total flight time on powered aircraft was 131 hours 19 minutes with 353 landings, mostly on Cessna 152 and 172 types. In the 90 days before the accident, he had flown 7 flights totaling 12 hours 17 minutes on three Cessna 172 aircraft.
The aircraft was properly registered and maintained. No pre‑impact technical defects were found. The takeoff mass was estimated to be about 20 kg above the limit at departure, but within limits at the time of the accident. The center of gravity was within limits, though toward the rear. Flight control positions after the crash: flaps fully extended (30°), elevator trim in the tail‑heavy position (trim tab approximately 30 mm up), throttle full forward, mixture full rich, carburetor heat cold.
Weather at the time: wind 080° at 2 knots, clouds 3/8 at 2500 feet, visibility over 10 km, temperature 23°C.
Pilot Actions and Witness Statements
During the first approach, the pilot reported performing a go‑around after a hard landing. A passenger stated that a warning tone (interpreted as the stall warning) sounded, prompting the go‑around. The second approach was conducted with the same configuration (full flaps). The pilot again initiated a go‑around, believing he would not make the landing. Witnesses observed a relatively steep climb over the threshold, followed by a stall. The pilot initially attributed the abrupt roll to a terrain‑induced gust under the right wing.
The pilot stated that the go‑around was not due to other traffic or runway obstruction. He denied any interference from the front‑right passenger (who held no pilot license) and reported no personal health impairment at the time of the flight. He wore tinted glasses. He had trimmed the aircraft tail‑heavy for landing, as per his training.
Findings and Conclusion
The investigation determined that the steep climb over the threshold resulted from improper control inputs during the go‑around. The pilot did not adequately counteract the aircraft’s natural tendency to pitch up and lose airspeed when applying power, exacerbated by the aft center of gravity. The stall warning likely activated due to insufficient airspeed during the go‑around.
The probable cause is that the pilot failed to maintain stall speed during the go‑around.