The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB WPR11LA169 · Final report

Cirrus SR22 accident near Mesa, Arizona, March 19, 2011

On March 19, 2011 at about 6:58 pm local time, a Cirrus SR22, registered N329SM, was substantially damaged in an accident during approach (VFR go-around) near Mesa, Arizona (Falcon Field). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 3 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The pilot's attempt to correct a landing float by adding power, followed by his premature attempt to climb the airplane out of ground effect during a balked landing, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's failure to properly configure the flaps for the balked landing attempt.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
March 19, 2011 · about 6:58 pm local time
Place
Mesa, Arizona · Falcon Field · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 3 people were on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Cirrus SR22 · all SR22s on the register
Registration
N329SM · no longer on the register · serial 2052
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

The pilot reported that during the landing flare on the 5,100-foot-long runway, he encountered an "unusual amount" of ground effect, which resulted in prolonged floating of the airplane. He stated that he then added power to "overcome the ground effect" and land the airplane. The pilot's addition of power would have prolonged, not reduced, the float. The pilot then decided to abort the landing; he applied full power and retracted the flaps. An air traffic controller reported that during the attempted balked landing, the airplane reached an estimated altitude of 50 to 75 feet above ground level before it sank to and impacted the runway. In contrast, the pilot reported that he was 5 to 6 feet above the runway when the airplane sank. The airplane impacted the runway about midfield in a relatively level attitude, veered left, and struck a parked airplane. Ground scars and airplane damage indicated that the engine was developing power at ground impact. No pre-existing mechanical deficiencies or failures that would have precluded normal operation were observed. Performance data in the pilot’s operating handbook indicated that for the ambient conditions the airplane should have been able to climb away with either full- or half-flaps, which is the specified balked landing flap setting. However, the flaps were found in the fully retracted position. Ground scars and airplane damage were consistent with a partial or full stall just above the runway, at an altitude likely higher than the pilot's estimate but lower than the altitude estimated by the controller. It is likely that the stall resulted from the pilot's premature retraction of the flaps at too low an airspeed, and his attempt to climb the airplane out of ground effect, as evidenced by the midfield initial impact location. The airplane's ability to climb out of ground effect was hampered by the improper flap setting.

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

  1. Loss of control in flight during approach (VFR go-around) defining event
  2. Abnormal runway contact during approach (VFR go-around)
  3. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during landing (landing roll)

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Incorrect action selection › Pilot
  • factor Aircraft › Aircraft structures › Wing structure › Trailing edge flaps › Incorrect use/operation
  • factor Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Use of equip/system › Pilot
  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Airspeed › Not attained/maintained
  • cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Pilot

Pilot

  • Certificate: private
  • Ratings: single-engine land
  • Flight time: 509 hours in all; 208 in this make and model; 14 in the last 90 days; 9 in the last 30 days; 381 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: December 9, 2010
  • Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 331 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, December 7, 2010; 11 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 3,400 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Continental Motors IO-550 (piston); 0 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: SBS Steamboat Sprin CO at 3:15 pm
  • Destination: FFZ Mesa AZ
  • Flight plan: VFR
  • Runway 22L, 5,101 ft by 100 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 260° at 4 knots
  • Visibility: 20 statute miles
  • Sky: scat at 25,000 ft
  • Temperature: 73°F (23°C), dew point 9°F (-13°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.00 inHg
  • Observation at 7:10 pm from FFZ

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1
Passengers2

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.