A designated pilot examiner reported that a private pilot applicant in a simulated engine failure in...

Narrative:

I was serving as a designated pilot examiner for a private pilot asel applicant. Near the end of the checkride; the applicant had just departed runway 17. In the climb I asked the traffic in the pattern in front of us if they would extend their downwind leg to permit us to do a simulated power loss and simulated emergency approach and landing. They agreed. About midfield downwind to Runway17; and at pattern altitude; I retarded the throttle and announced 'simulated power loss'. The applicant started going through his 'engine failure in flight' checklist; but continued flying downwind. As there was no attempt to turn toward the runway; I was beginning to think perhaps he was planning to put it into a nearby field. He eventually turned base; maintaining best glide speed and no flaps. He flew very nearly a square base; and I was again wondering if he planned to land off runway. He then turned final to runway 17. He was low; but the da-40 glides well; and I felt he had a reasonable chance at making it to the pavement. He entered ground effect over the last of the approach lights; and I felt he probably would have landed about 100 feet into the pavement. However I was concerned he may drag the tail thru the threshold lights; so I urged 'go around! Go around!' he froze for a moment; and my hands went for the controls and throttles. He beat me to the throttle and jammed it forward; and simultaneously pulled back on his stick. The resulting pitch up and over-rotation caused a tail strike; and the start of a point of impact. I was on the controls by now and took over; recovered from the porpoising; and landed the aircraft. Knowing we had hit the tail; I instructed him to taxi to the school's maintenance facility to have the aircraft inspected. Initial inspection shows scraped paint and fiberglass on the removable tail skid/faring; no cracked fiberglass in the faring; and no apparent damage (at this point) to any structure above the skid.the applicant was notified of an unsuccessful test result because of poor judgement in the simulated emergency approach regarding flight path and energy management; as well as improper timing and procedure for the go-around.I have discussed the event with the recommending CFI; and will also discuss it with the school's chief instructor. I am proposing several changes to both training and testing to prevent a re-occurrence. I suggest that the school train students to mentally aim for the middle of a landable area in an emergency situation. I feel the students are unconsciously programmed to always land in the first 1;000 feet of a runway; even when there is 9;000 feet of pavement available. In future pre-flight test briefs; I will specify that the 'usable runway' for a simulated power off landing begins and ends at the 1;000 feet fixed distance markers on either end of the runway. This should allow adequate space to prevent actual low and short landings; yet allow fair testing all the way to the surface. Lastly; I have urged the school to train students regarding aircraft energy management such that simulated power off landings will be done in the middle 1/3 of the runway.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Designated Pilot Examiner reported that a private pilot applicant in a simulated engine failure in the landing pattern nearly landed short. The examiner commanded a go-around at a very low altitude; which resulted in an aircraft tail strike.

Narrative: I was serving as a Designated Pilot Examiner for a Private Pilot ASEL applicant. Near the end of the checkride; the applicant had just departed Runway 17. In the climb I asked the traffic in the pattern in front of us if they would extend their downwind leg to permit us to do a simulated power loss and simulated emergency approach and landing. They agreed. About midfield downwind to Runway17; and at pattern altitude; I retarded the throttle and announced 'simulated power loss'. The applicant started going through his 'engine failure in flight' checklist; but continued flying downwind. As there was no attempt to turn toward the runway; I was beginning to think perhaps he was planning to put it into a nearby field. He eventually turned base; maintaining best glide speed and no flaps. He flew very nearly a square base; and I was again wondering if he planned to land off runway. He then turned final to Runway 17. He was low; but the DA-40 glides well; and I felt he had a reasonable chance at making it to the pavement. He entered ground effect over the last of the approach lights; and I felt he probably would have landed about 100 feet into the pavement. However I was concerned he may drag the tail thru the threshold lights; so I urged 'Go Around! Go Around!' He froze for a moment; and my hands went for the controls and throttles. He beat me to the throttle and jammed it forward; and simultaneously pulled back on his stick. The resulting pitch up and over-rotation caused a tail strike; and the start of a point of impact. I was on the controls by now and took over; recovered from the porpoising; and landed the aircraft. Knowing we had hit the tail; I instructed him to taxi to the school's maintenance facility to have the aircraft inspected. Initial inspection shows scraped paint and fiberglass on the removable tail skid/faring; no cracked fiberglass in the faring; and no apparent damage (at this point) to any structure above the skid.The applicant was notified of an unsuccessful test result because of poor judgement in the simulated emergency approach regarding flight path and energy management; as well as improper timing and procedure for the go-around.I have discussed the event with the recommending CFI; and will also discuss it with the school's Chief Instructor. I am proposing several changes to both training and testing to prevent a re-occurrence. I suggest that the school train students to mentally aim for the middle of a landable area in an emergency situation. I feel the students are unconsciously programmed to always land in the first 1;000 feet of a runway; even when there is 9;000 feet of pavement available. In future pre-flight test briefs; I will specify that the 'usable runway' for a simulated power off landing begins and ends at the 1;000 feet fixed distance markers on either end of the runway. This should allow adequate space to prevent actual low and short landings; yet allow fair testing all the way to the surface. Lastly; I have urged the school to train students regarding aircraft energy management such that simulated power off landings will be done in the middle 1/3 of the runway.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	1368299
Time
Date	201606
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.Airport
State Reference	US
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	DA40 Diamond Star
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Landing
Flight Plan	None
Component
Aircraft Component	Fuselage Tail Cone
Person 1
Function	Check Pilot
Qualification	Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 120 Flight Crew Total 9100 Flight Crew Type 100
Events
Anomaly	Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft

A designated pilot examiner reported that a private pilot applicant in a simulated engine failure in the landing pattern nearly landed short. The examiner commanded a go-around at a very low altitude; which resulted in an aircraft tail strike.