J&J Ultralights SEA WING N7711Z

Summary

On 13 March 2008 at about 13:00 local time, a J&J Ultralights SEA WING registered N7711Z was involved in an accident near Live Oak, Florida, United States. One person was on board and one was seriously injured. The aircraft was substantially damaged. The NTSB has published a probable cause for this accident; it is quoted in full below.

Date

13 March 2008 at 13:00

Classification

Accident

Location

Live Oak, Florida, United States

Nearest airport

None (NONE)

Coordinates

30.2522, -82.9242

Aircraft

J&J Ultralights SEA WING

Registration

N7711Z

Category

Airplane

Engines

1

Operator

Not recorded

Operating rule

Part 91: General Aviation

Purpose of flight

Personal

Phase of flight

Not recorded

Route

Live Oak → Live Oak

Aircraft damage

Substantial

Weather

VMC

Light

Day

NTSB number

NYC08CA136

1 person was seriously injured.

The student pilot's failure to maintain directional control during a go-around. Contributing to the accident was his habit interference from previously flying conventional airplanes.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record. This site does not paraphrase or interpret it.

Read the full NTSB narrative

The student pilot of the amateur built SeaWing weight-shift control aircraft was in his first day of solo flight training. He successfully completed "a few" solo takeoffs and landings when the winds increased, which prompted him to switch to a field adjacent to the one he was using. On short final, the aircraft drifted towards trees to the right of the nominal approach path. The pilot initiated a go-around, and applied control inputs that were intended to correct the flight path to the left. The pilot's control inputs caused the aircraft to turn right, and it collided with the trees. The impact resulted in substantial damage to the aircraft, and serious injuries to the pilot. The pilot had approximately 700 hours in airplanes, and was learning to fly the accident aircraft. The pitch and directional control inputs for a weight-shift aircraft were opposite those required for an airplane. The flight instructor and student were cognizant of the potential for problems caused by the difference in required control inputs, but neither observed any tendency of the student to make incorrect inputs on any previous flights. The pilot stated that on the accident approach, he reverted to his original training, which was correct for a conventional airplane, but incorrect for the accident aircraft.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record.