Pitch and yaw consistent with sudden application of power...looks like a badly handled go around leading to loss of control. Poor guy.
It is rare that ab-initio students are taught go arounds close to or at the flare. Most go arounds are from 200 feet. A very low altitude low energy go around at low airspeed (inadvertent low airspeed or otherwise), can be significantly different in terms of rudder use to prevent yaw as power is increased, to the same event at 200 feet at airspeeds well in excess of Vref.
In most light aircraft (C152 for example), unless the pilot applies immediate sufficient rudder to stop the yaw as the nose is raised into the initial full flap climbing attitude, there is danger of loss of directional control and entry into an incipient spin. This can be critical if initial flap retraction is delayed or different to the manufacturer’s recommended procedure. For sometimes wrongly perceived safety reasons, it is common that a company go-around SOP is often taught at training schools in preference to the manufacturer’s POH advice.
. The go around from the flare is a critical test of flying skill because of the high drag, low airspeed and yawing situation. Students who have had insufficient practice at this manoeuvre before first solo are ill-equipped to be aware of its dangers. Often they are taught a generic go around procedure rather than the procedure recommended in the manufacturer's POH. The procedure should initially be taught at a safe altitude until proficient; rather than thrown in for good measure (if at all) at the flare and at speeds below Vref for the aircraft type.
Newly graduated instructors are often inexperienced in total flying hours and real world flying experience. Some may be apprehensive of very low altitude full flap low energy go-arounds simply because they were not taught properly in their own ab initio days - nor on instructor course. In turn, they may not be sufficiently competent to demonstrate this manoeuvre to their student. Often, instructors are reluctant to demonstrate a manoeuvre because they feel guilty about taking up the students hands-on flying time. Talking someone through a manoeuvre is no substitute for a well flown demonstration. A picture is worth a thousand words.
At a safe altitude and before first solo, students should be taught a go-around under the hood. This prepares the student for an event where it may be raining and forward vision is momentarily lost during the flare. In addition, students should be taught how to safely recover to land off a bounced landing by applying sufficient power to cushion the bounce. Certainly this is important before first solo where bounced landings are not uncommon.
It is generally safer and requires less skill, for a student to recover from a bounced landing and land ahead (all things being equal with regards to remaining length of landing area) rather than risk a low energy low speed go around with full flap where strong yaw on application of full power has the potential to lead to loss of directional control. New instructors need to be certified competent in the teaching of these manoeuvres before being let loose on ab initio student pilots. At present, it is a case of the blind teaching the blind.
Assuming a contributory cause of this accident is found to include improper go-around procedures, then it may have been prevented if the student had been taught the correct method of going around at low altitude in the first place. That said, being taught correctly doesn't always guarantee a student will follow that teaching in the heat of the moment.
Lack of standardisation can be a problem at flying schools that employ many instructors. Lack of supervision of new instructors is often the case. Experienced (Grade One) instructors tend to concentrate on CPL or IFR training rather than regularly fly with ab-initio students. This can lead to missed opportunities for quality assurance checks on new instructors.
________________________________