On a clear October evening, a routine training flight out of Portland-Hillsboro Airport (HIO) ended in tragedy. A Piper PA-44-180 Seminole, operating under Part 91 instructional rules, spiraled out of control and crashed into a residential home near Newberg, Oregon. The crash claimed the lives of both the flight instructor and the student pilot receiving training, while a pilot-rated passenger, observing from the back seat, survived with serious injuries. This is the story of what happened, and the lessons we can all take away.
A Typical Training Flight with a Deadly Turn
The flight was meant to be a first flight in a multi-engine training program for a 20-year-old private pilot, newly minted with his commercial single-engine land certificate. His instructor, a 22-year-old commercial pilot and certified flight instructor (CFI), was seated in the right seat. In the back sat a 20-year-old private pilot who had just completed ground school for her own multi-engine rating. She had been invited along to observe.
The flight itself was supposed to cover the basics: slow flight, stalls, steep turns, and Vmc demonstrations. If you’ve ever trained for a multi-engine rating, you know these drills are standard fare—but they also come with serious risks if mishandled.
What is a Vmc Demo, and Why It Matters
For those unfamiliar, Vmc is the minimum controllable airspeed with one engine out. During a Vmc demo, the instructor simulates a critical engine failure—usually the left engine—and the student practices maintaining directional control and recovering before the airplane becomes uncontrollable or stalls.
This maneuver teaches critical decision-making, aircraft handling, and the very real dangers of asymmetric thrust in a twin. But it’s also one of the most dangerous maneuvers if mishandled, particularly at low airspeeds and high angles of attack.
The Moment Everything Went Wrong
According to the pilot-rated passenger, the student pilot was at the controls performing the Vmc maneuver. The left engine was throttled back to idle, simulating a failure. Just seconds into the exercise, the stall warning horn sounded.
Before anyone could recover, the airplane suddenly rolled inverted to the left and entered a spin. The student pilot called out recovery steps, but realizing he was losing control, handed the controls to the instructor. They were still spinning.
From her seat, the passenger heard the student pilot ask if he should run a checklist—perhaps desperately trying to follow the safety script they had learned. The instructor replied “yes.” But it was too late. The spin continued, and the aircraft plunged toward the ground.
A House in the Flight Path
Witnesses on the ground watched helplessly as the Seminole spiraled toward the earth, eventually crashing into a single-story house. Miraculously, no one on the ground was hurt. But inside the crumpled fuselage, the flight instructor and student pilot had been killed on impact. The rear-seat passenger, though seriously injured, survived.
The Investigation: No Mechanical Issues Found
After combing through the wreckage, NTSB investigators found no evidence of mechanical failure that could explain the loss of control. Flight control continuity was confirmed, though some components separated due to impact forces. The engines themselves were functioning normally prior to the crash.
The Pilots Involved
Let’s look at the flight crew’s backgrounds:
- Instructor Pilot (CFI):
- Age: 22
- Certificates: Commercial, Flight Instructor (CFI)
- Ratings: Single-engine land and sea, instrument airplane
- Total Flight Time: 198 hours
- Student Pilot (Pilot Receiving Instruction):
- Age: 20
- Certificates: Private Pilot, Instrument Airplane
- Total Flight Time: 197 hours, including 12 hours in the PA-44
- Pilot in Command Time: 133 hours
- Passenger (Pilot-Rated Observer):
- Age: 20
- Certificates: Private Pilot
- Total Flight Time: Unreported in the document
NOTE – This is what was reported by the NTSB. The CFI needed to have a multi-engine rating to instruct as a CFI on a multi-engine aircraft and the total flight time of 198 hours was estimated. Most likely the NTSB made an error in their report and the CFI had more hours and a multi-engine rating.
Probable Cause: Loss of Control and Inadequate Supervision
The NTSB’s probable cause:
- The student’s failure to maintain control during the Vmc demonstration.
- The instructor’s inadequate supervision, which led to a stall and spin from which they could not recover.
Lessons for Every Pilot
This accident offers sobering lessons for flight instructors, students, and even experienced pilots:
- Vmc demos are dangerous—treat them with respect. If your student is struggling, take over immediately.
- Every second counts in a spin entry. There’s no room for “talking through the checklist” once the plane is spiraling.
- Experience matters. Both the instructor and student had fewer than 200 hours total time, and neither had much multi-engine experience.
- Communicate clearly and decisively. A confused handoff in the cockpit can cost precious time when recovering from an upset.
- Survivability matters. Training flights often occur at low altitudes. Build in altitude safety margins for error during complex maneuvers.
Final Thoughts
As heartbreaking as this crash is, it’s also a reminder that aviation training can be unforgiving—especially in multi-engine aircraft where asymmetric thrust and low-speed handling become life-or-death skills. Whether you’re a student, instructor, or experienced pilot, every flight is a chance to reinforce safety habits that could save your life.
10 Comments
My husband and I piloted single engine planes starting in the early 70’s. In 1995 he wanted to transition to a twin engine. Wisely, before purchasing a twin, he flew to Dallas and took twin engine training. He came home convinced that staying with our Beech33 bonanza was the best decision. We had 45 great years of IFR and VFR flying across the US and Bahamas.
Vmc is no joke. The student pilot and CFI had the same flight hours and almost same age How can that be ? Normally instructors have to be more experienced right ?
Besides, at that age how can you be “mature” enough to handle sketchy situations ?
Luckily the backseat pax made it. I wonder I f she still flies as of today…
I have been a licensed pilot for 52 years. In about 6500 flying hours, I have over 1000 in Barons, mostly a 58P, about 1000 ion turboprops including Cheyenne II and Cheyenne 400, and currently over 2,000 hours in a Citation CJ2. In simulator training in the jet, we never do a Vmc demonstration, and I don’t remember ever doing it in a turboprop. In the Baron, the POH suggests “”accelerate to and maintain take-off speed.” but doesn’t list a take-off speed. It also doesn’t list a stall speed. It does list Vmca of 81 knots, and Vxse single engine best rate of climb at 115 knots (blue line). Other sources list stall speed at 79 knots. If memory serves, you had better get the nose wheel off the ground around 80 knots or risk wheelbarrowing. Thus, a pilot normally operates around Vmc. The POH recommends for engine failure in flight: “If airspeed is below 81 knots, reduce power on the operative engine as required to maintain control.” The guidance should be for the pilot to immediately cut all power at engine failure on take-off until the gear is up and airspeed reaches blue line. In the CJ2, stall speed is around 81 knots and Vmca 81 knots at take-off configuration. Rotation speed is about 106 knots, well above Vmc, so practicing Vmc in the jet makes no sense. It also makes no sense in a piston twin. It should not be a required maneuver.
CFI with only 198 hours. Seems a bit low. I had 800 and never felt I qualified as an instructor. I don’t believe I would have confirm this cfi
I continue to be amazed when I read your reviews at the number of accidents that are attributed to “inexperience” on the part of the pilot or the flight instructor. Have we made the requirements to loose? This type of accident where the fact there was a good engine available, and not used, has been around a long time. (Delta DC-8 in ATL practicing engine out landings in 1960 and landed short with an engine at idle) Don’t know how you solve the problem except preach aviate, aviate, aviate.
I may be sounding a bit dim here, but what is vmc and why is it so dangerous?
VMC, or Minimum Control Speed, refers to the minimum airspeed at which the aircraft can maintain directional control after the critical engine (the engine that most adversely affects control when it fails) has failed, while the remaining engine is at full power.
Below this speed, the aircraft may become uncontrollable, resulting in a VMC roll or spin. If a pilot allows airspeed to drop below VMC after an engine failure, they may not be able to counteract the yaw and roll forces, leading to an uncontrollable departure from controlled flight (often into a VMC roll and subsequent crash).
Very unwise. Looks like they were several thousand feet too low at the start. If they had been at six thousand feet, might there have been enough time?
Multi engine instruction is base on a conventional twin with counter rotating props. Was the left engine in a simulated feather condition? Was proper power applied to right engine? Applying full power on right most likely increase airflow over top of wing creating a turning moment to the left plus drag from left engine and an untimely manner for recovery may end up ina spin.
200 hours? Really? That is nothing. CFI? What does that mean? These are kids with no experience doing things that can kill them. Clearly a lack of understanding and appreciation for these facts prevailed on that day. Before I got my part 135 letter to fly cargo and pax in the C310& 402 I had to demonstrate mastery of the aircraft and sound judgement. Hours meant nothing; practically speaking that does not matter today either. What good does 200 or 20,000 hours in a logbook mean if you do not have good judgement or an understanding of the risks involved? These machines can snuff your life out in a second.