The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily · Carbon Free Flight by 2050
Accidents · NTSB WPR22FA338 · Final report

Czech Sport Aircraft Piper Sport accident near Santa Monica, California, September 8, 2022

On September 8, 2022 at about 11:26 pm local time, a 2011 Czech Sport Aircraft Piper Sport, registered N126WK, was destroyed in an accident during landing (flare/touchdown) near Santa Monica, California (Santa Monica Muni airport). It was an instructional flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 2 people were killed. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

Preview. This page is not yet listed for search engines.

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The pilot’s inability to maintain control of the airplane during the landing flare due to the passenger’s excessive control inputs, which resulted in the airplane exceeding its critical angle of attack and entering an aerodynamic stall.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 4, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
September 8, 2022 · about 11:26 pm local time
Place
Santa Monica, California · Santa Monica Muni · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
2 people were killed.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Czech Sport Aircraft Piper Sport, built 2011
Registration
N126WK · registry record · serial P1001093
Damage
Destroyed
Flight
Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

The flight was an introductory flight lesson for the passenger in the light-sport airplane. The route was along the Southern California Coast and the flight lasted about 35 minutes. The landing approach was uneventful, with the flight instructor providing clear indications of the airplane’s position as they flew in the traffic pattern, and declaring his intention that this would be a full-stop landing. Multiple witnesses observed the airplane land on runway 21, with one describing the landing as “hard.” About the time of landing, a transmission over the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF), captured a low pitch grunting sound followed by the instructor screaming, “let go, let go……. let go, let go, let go.” The grunting sound continued, and the airplane pitched aggressively nose-up and began to climb almost vertically with the engine at a high power level, before leveling off about 100-200 ft above ground level (agl), then spinning to the left, descending, and colliding with the ground. Most of the airframe was consumed by fire; however, the postaccident examination did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunction or failure of the flight control system. Damage to the propeller blades indicated that the engine was producing power at impact, and the flaps were in a configuration appropriate for landing. The airplane was equipped dual control sticks, both of which were fitted with push-to-talk (PTT) microphone switches. The instructor’s “let go” commands were transmitted over the CTAF and appeared to be coming from the background over the student’s microphone; therefore it is likely that the student pilot was holding his stick firmly, and inadvertently pressing the switch. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations do not explicitly prohibit students, or in this case a passenger, from manipulating the flight controls during any phase of flight training; however, guidance does warn that students can be anxious learners and can be incredibly strong and often exhibit reactions that are inappropriate to the situation. The flight track indicated that along with routine flight maneuvers, the airplane did perform a series of high-bank-angle turns that would have resulted in high G-forces to the occupants. It is possible that the instructor had established a comfort level with the student after performing those maneuvers that resulted in him gaining a level of trust with the passenger’s ability. It is common for the landing phase to be stressful for a new student, especially as the runway approaches. This stress would be further exacerbated during a hard landing, as was described by a witness. The passenger likely applied excessive aft elevator control, possibly in response to the flight instructor’s input, or as a reaction following a hard landing as described by witnesses. Given the responsive flight characteristics of the airplane, this would have resulted in the pitch up motion that exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack and resulted in an aerodynamic stall as observed by witnesses. Additionally, because the passenger was pressing the PTT switch, the instructor’s microphone was blocked and the passenger may not have been able to understand what the instructor was saying.

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. Abrupt maneuver during landing (flare/touchdown) defining event
  2. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during uncontrolled descent
  3. Loss of control on ground during landing (flare/touchdown)
  4. Loss of control in flight during initial climb

The NTSB's findings

  • Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Pitch control › Incorrect use/operation
  • Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Expectation/assumption › Instructor/check pilot
  • Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Angle of attack › Capability exceeded
  • Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Airspeed › Not attained/maintained
  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Passenger
  • Personnel issues › Psychological › Mental/emotional state › Anxiety/panic › Passenger

Flight instructor

  • Certificate: flight instructor, commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instructor: airplane multi-engine; instructor: airplane single-engine; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 1,500 hours in all; 1,500 in this make and model; 1,100 on instruments
  • Last flight review: July 26, 2022
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: fatal

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 5,300.7 hours
  • Last inspection: 100-hour inspection, August 11, 2022; 77.7 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 1,320 lb
  • Seats: 2
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Rotax 912ULS SERIES (piston); 379 hours total
  • Fire on the ground

The flight

  • Departed from: SMO Santa Monica CA at 10:51 pm
  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway 21, 3,500 ft by 150 ft
  • A second pilot was aboard

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 250° at 7 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 90°F (32°C), dew point 63°F (17°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.64 inHg
  • Observation at 4:37 pm from KSMO

Weather report (METAR): KSMO 082337Z 25007KT 10SM CLR 32/17 A2964 RMK AO2 T03170172

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
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.

About this page

Everything above comes from the NTSB's public accident database: the narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words, and the coded tables behind its report (pilot, aircraft, flight, weather, injuries, sequence of events) are written out in plain English. Pilots' ages, home towns and medical details are left out on purpose. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, the folder of records gathered during the investigation, shown as the NTSB released them (the NTSB redacts some personal details first) and listed under the NTSB's own titles. This site's own text never names pilots, passengers or anyone else involved. A preliminary report describes what is known soon after the event and can change; the final report, with the probable cause, usually follows one to two years later and this page is refreshed when it does. Case number WPR22FA338.