North American SNJ-4 accident near Suffolk, Virginia, June 17, 2010
On June 17, 2010 at about 5:15 pm local time, a North American SNJ-4, registered N43NA, was substantially damaged in an accident during landing (landing roll) near Suffolk, Virginia (Suffolk Executive 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's failure to maintain directional control during the landing.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- June 17, 2010 · about 5:15 pm local time
- Place
- Suffolk, Virginia · Suffolk Executive Airport · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- North American SNJ-4 · all SNJ-4s on the register
- Registration
- N43NA · registry record · serial 8811798
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
According to statements from the certificated flight instructor (CFI) and the certificated airline transport pilot (ATP), the ATP was seated in the front seat receiving dual instruction to "re-qualify" in the tailwheel-equipped airplane. Previously that day, the front-seat pilot had performed two uneventful takeoffs and landings. The accident flight departed runway 25, with winds estimated to be from 270 degrees to 290 degrees at 5 to 8 mph, and remained in the traffic pattern. While on the downwind leg abeam the runway, the landing gear were extended and the flaps were extended to 20 degrees. The front-seat pilot turned the airplane from base leg to final, and with full flaps extended after crossing the threshold, reduced power and attained a three-point landing attitude. The landing was "smooth and on-centerline," but at 50 knots, the front seat pilot felt a "bump and shimmy," while the CFI felt a "slight bump, much like a skip, followed immediately by the 'feeling' of a very slight yaw of the tail to the left." The CFI took control of the airplane and applied full left rudder and brake, but the airplane did not respond. The airplane departed the right side of the runway and the left wing contacted the ground, resulting in substantial damage to it. Postaccident inspection and operational testing of the tailwheel lock and unlock assembly revealed no mechanical anomalies. No elongation of the hole for the locking or unlocking was noted, and visual inspection of the pin revealed no deformation. The cable and pulley system for the lock and unlock was found to operate normally. Additional inspection of the airplane, its brake system, and tailwheel assembly by a mechanic with a reported 30 years' experience with the airplane also revealed no preexisting mechanical issues.
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
- Loss of control on ground during landing (landing roll) defining event
- Runway excursion during landing (landing roll)
- Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during landing (landing roll)
The NTSB's findings
- cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Pilot
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Directional control › Not attained/maintained
Flight instructor
- Certificate: airline transport pilot, flight instructor, commercial pilot, flight engineer
- Ratings: multi-engine land; multi-engine sea; single-engine land; single-engine sea; instructor: airplane multi-engine; instructor: airplane single-engine; instructor: glider; instructor: instrument airplane; instrument: airplane; rotorcraft: glider
- Flight time: 25,100 hours in all; 325 in this make and model; 105 in the last 90 days; 55 in the last 30 days; 9,200 as pilot in command; 750 on instruments
- Last flight review: January 24, 2010
- Medical certificate: Class 1 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: rear
- Injury: no injuries
Dual student
- Certificate: airline transport pilot, commercial pilot
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 18,300 hours in all; 100 in this make and model
- Last flight review: March 15, 1999
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: frt
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 6,525 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, May 5, 2010
- Maximum gross weight: 5,300 lb
- Seats: 2
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine: P&W R1340 SERIES (piston); 0 hours total
- Operator: Training Services INC DBA
The flight
- Departed from: SFQ Suffolk VA at 5:10 pm
- Destination: SFQ Suffolk VA
- Flight plan: none
- Runway 25, 4,700 ft by 100 ft
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 290° at 6 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: scat at 5,500 ft
- Temperature: 90°F (32°C), dew point 70°F (21°C)
- Altimeter: 29.95 inHg
- Observation at 5:20 pm from SFQ
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.
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.