Piper PA 28-181 accident near Lee'S Summit, Missouri, March 1, 2015
On March 1, 2015 at about 9:30 pm local time, a 1979 Piper PA 28-181, registered N3575X, was substantially damaged in an accident during takeoff near Lee'S Summit, Missouri (Lee'S Summit Municipal Airport). It was an instructional flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The pilot-receiving-instruction's excessive pitch control during takeoff, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall shortly after liftoff and the subsequent loss of control. Contributing to the accident was the flight crew's decision to have the flight instructor separately control the throttle while the pilot-receiving-instruction manipulated the flight controls, which resulted in inadequate coordination between the flight crew during the attempted stall recovery.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- March 1, 2015 · about 9:30 pm local time
- Place
- Lee'S Summit, Missouri · Lee'S Summit Municipal Airport · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Piper PA 28-181, built 1979 · all PA 28-181s on the register
- Registration
- N3575X · registry record · serial 28-8090199
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The pilot-receiving-instruction reported that the purpose of the flight was to receive a checkout in the flying club airplane. After completing three uneventful takeoffs and landings, the flight instructor asked the pilot-receiving-instruction to perform a simulated soft-field takeoff from a high-altitude airport. The pilot-receiving-instruction had not performed the requested maneuver previously, which was described as a soft-field takeoff at 50-percent engine power to simulate the atmospheric conditions of a high-altitude airport. Before attempting the takeoff, both pilots agreed that the pilot-receiving-instruction would manipulate the flight controls and that the throttle would be separately controlled by the flight instructor. The pilot-receiving-instruction reported that during the takeoff, shortly after becoming airborne, while still in ground-effect, the airplane encountered an aerodynamic stall. The pilot-receiving-instruction briefly reduced airplane pitch to recover from the aerodynamic stall, but as the airplane drifted toward the right side of the runway he subsequently increased yoke backpressure to keep the airplane airborne. The pilot-receiving-instruction reported that the airplane encountered a second aerodynamic stall after he increased airplane pitch. The airplane subsequently drifted left, crossing back over the runway, before the airplane landed along the left side of the runway. The flight was terminated and the aircraft inspected for damage. The airplane exhibited damage to the tail skid, tail tie-down ring, left wingtip, the nose and left main landing gear, and the propeller. An additional examination established that the aft fuselage bulkhead had sustained substantial damage when the tail struck the runway. The pilot-receiving-instruction reported there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. The flight instructor reported that the engine power had been set at 2,100 rpm to simulate the available engine power while operating at a high-altitude airport. He reported that the pilot-receiving-instruction had used excessive pitch control inputs during the initial takeoff roll to keep the nose wheel off the runway, the airplane veered to the right before coming airborne, and that the airplane encountered an aerodynamic stall upon liftoff. The flight instructor reported that the airplane subsequently bounced, drifted to the left, and eventually landed along the left side of the runway. The flight crew's decision to have the flight instructor separately control the throttle during the accident takeoff likely prevented the pilot-receiving-instruction from adequately recovering from the initial aerodynamic stall. Additionally, following the initial aerodynamic stall, there was likely inadequate coordination between the flight crew to reestablish control of the airplane before it impacted the ground.
The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.
The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
What happened, in order
- Aerodynamic stall/spin during takeoff defining event
- Loss of control in flight during takeoff
- Abnormal runway contact during takeoff
The NTSB's findings
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Pitch control › Incorrect use/operation
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Angle of attack › Not attained/maintained
- cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Student/instructed pilot
- factor Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Flight crew
- factor Personnel issues › Task performance › Communication (personnel) › Lack of communication › Pilot
- factor Personnel issues › Task performance › Communication (personnel) › Lack of communication › Student/instructed pilot
Pilot
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 112 hours in all; 6 in this make and model; 34 in the last 90 days; 17 in the last 30 days; 79 as pilot in command; 0 on instruments
- Last flight review: February 16, 2015
- Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
Flight instructor
- Certificate: airline transport pilot, flight instructor, flight engineer
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instructor: airplane single-engine; instructor: instrument airplane; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 24,945 hours in all; 34 in the last 90 days; 23 in the last 30 days; 14,438 as pilot in command; 6,803 on instruments
- Last flight review: April 13, 2013
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: rgt
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 8,605 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, January 1, 2015
- Maximum gross weight: 2,550 lb
- Seats: 4
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Lycoming O-360-A4M (piston); 1,401 hours total
- Operator: Wing Flying Club, Inc.
The flight
- Departed from: LXT Lee'S Summit MO at 9:00 pm
- Destination: LXT Lee'S Summit MO
- Flight plan: none
- Runway 36, 4,016 ft by 75 ft
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 310° at 6 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: overcast at 3,000 ft
- Temperature: 32°F (0°C), dew point 19°F (-7°C)
- Altimeter: 30.37 inHg
- Observation at 9:15 pm from LXT
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 2 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.
Other NTSB records under N3575X the same tail number, which may have belonged to a different aircraft at the time
Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.
