Mooney M20L accident near Scottsdale, Arizona, July 9, 2012
On July 9, 2012 at about 4:37 pm local time, a Mooney M20L, registered N137MP, was substantially damaged in an accident during landing (flare/touchdown) near Scottsdale, Arizona (Scottsdale Airport). It was an instructional flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 1 person was seriously injured and 1 person had minor injuries. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The pilot's failure to maintain airplane control during an aborted landing, and the flight instructor’s delayed remedial action. Contributing to the accident were the pilot’s improper landing flare, which resulted in a bounced landing, and his premature flap retraction while performing a go-around maneuver.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- July 9, 2012 · about 4:37 pm local time
- Place
- Scottsdale, Arizona · Scottsdale Airport · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- 1 person was seriously injured and 1 person had minor injuries.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Mooney M20L · all M20Ls on the register
- Registration
- N137MP · no longer on the register · serial 26-0017
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The flight instructor stated that the pilot receiving instruction was practicing touch-and-go landings. On the fifth landing, the pilot flared too high, and the airplane dropped to the runway, landed hard, and bounced into the air. The flight instructor directed the pilot to “go around,” and the pilot applied power and fully retracted the flaps, which is contrary to the procedure in the pilot’s operating handbook to retract the flaps only to the 10-degree position. Both pilots stated that the engine did not respond. A video recording showed that the airplane’s altitude was about 30 feet above the ground when it rolled left to a bank angle of about 90 degrees. The left wing tip impacted the runway, and the airplane cartwheeled and came to rest upright about 200 feet left of the runway centerline. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that two O-ring seals were installed on each of the engine’s six fuel injector nozzles, whereas the engine’s maintenance manual called for the installation of only one O-ring seal on each nozzle. However, flow testing showed that placing two O-rings on the nozzles had no effect on the operation of the fuel system. No other anomalies were found, and the examination and testing indicated that the engine was capable of operating normally and producing its rated horsepower. Further, the damage to the propeller blades was consistent with the engine operating at a mid-range to high power setting at impact. The airplane’s left roll to a steep bank angle is consistent with the engine developing power as the airplane enters an aerodynamic stall, which resulted in a torque roll to the left.
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
- Hard landing during landing (flare/touchdown)
- Loss of control in flight during landing (flare/touchdown) defining event
- Runway excursion during landing (flare/touchdown)
The NTSB's findings
- cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Delayed action › Instructor/check pilot
- cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Pilot
- factor Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Landing flare › Not attained/maintained
- factor Aircraft › Aircraft structures › Wing structure › Trailing edge flaps › Incorrect use/operation
- factor Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Incorrect action performance › Pilot
Flight instructor
- Certificate: flight instructor, commercial pilot
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instructor: airplane multi-engine; instructor: airplane single-engine; instructor: instrument airplane; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 6,397 hours in all; 187 in this make and model; 47 in the last 90 days; 5,066 on instruments
- Last flight review: November 4, 2011
- Medical certificate: Class 2 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: rgt
- Injury: serious injuries
Dual student
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 1,400 hours in all; 400 in this make and model; 25 in the last 30 days
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: minor injuries
The aircraft
- Seats: 4
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Continental IO-550 (piston); 0 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: SDL Scottsdale AZ at 4:00 pm
- Destination: SDL Scottsdale AZ
- Flight plan: not recorded
- Runway 21, 8,249 ft by 100 ft
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 160° at 4 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: clear
- Temperature: 100°F (38°C), dew point 54°F (12°C)
- Altimeter: 29.92 inHg
- Observation at 4:35 pm from SDL
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 | 1 |
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.