FlightFollowerPlane makes Crash Landing near Falcon Field Airport in Mesa
The Engine Quit Almost Immediately After Takeoff
Piper PA-24-250 N7833P had only just departed Falcon Field Airport in Mesa when the pilot reported a problem and asked to return. ATC audio captures the urgency increasing as the pilot first accepted a return to runway 22R and then requested runway 4L instead. The NTSB later confirmed that the aircraft had lost engine power shortly after departing runway 22L.
Accident Facts
- Accident
- WPR25LA065
- Date
- 19 December 2024
- Aircraft
- Piper PA-24-250 N7833P
- Location
- Mesa, Arizona
The airplane did not make it back to the runway. It landed short in an orange grove, and the aircraft came to rest near a residential area. Both occupants survived without injury. The engine separated from the airplane during the accident sequence and was found adjacent to the right door, forward of the right wing.
The Radio Traffic Shows the Shrinking Options
The ATC recording shows the pilot initially accepting the right-traffic return before changing to runway 4L. The controller also noticed that the landing gear appeared to be up and queried the pilot about it. The pilot responded that the gear was down, and the controller acknowledged that it looked good.
That exchange matters because it shows how many separate tasks were competing for attention during the final seconds: selecting a usable runway, configuring the airplane and managing the engine problem. The controller could provide runway options and observations, but the aircraft's altitude and remaining glide capability ultimately determined what was possible.
The NTSB's preliminary reconstruction is deliberately narrower. It establishes the engine-power loss, the 180-degree return toward runway 4L and the short landing, but it does not yet establish why the engine lost power. The separated engine is evidence for investigators, not by itself a final explanation.
What the Investigation Had Established
The NTSB reported that airport personnel heard the aircraft report lost engine power after departure. The airplane made a 180-degree turn toward runway 4L but landed short. Examination found the engine separated from its mounts and located near the right door, forward of the right wing.
That finding does not mean the engine separation caused the power loss. The sequence could also involve engine failure followed by structural separation during the forced landing. Until the engine examination is complete, the causal direction must remain unresolved.
The NTSB explicitly cautioned that its preliminary account was not final: “preliminary and subject to change.”
Why the Emergency Was Survivable
The airplane remained largely intact after the forced landing. The NTSB reported no injuries to the pilot or pilot-rated passenger. The NTSB reported that the airplane came to rest upright and that there was no post-crash fire.
At low altitude, survival depends heavily on where the pilot can put the airplane. The aircraft did not reach the runway, but the forced landing occurred in terrain where the occupants survived. The decision-making window was short, and the final outcome demonstrates why maintaining control and choosing a survivable landing area can matter more than completing a preferred return-to-runway maneuver.
What Remains Unknown
The investigation had not yet established the initiating engine failure, the precise reason for the loss of power or whether any maintenance or component issue contributed. Those questions require the recovered engine and additional evidence.
A responsible accident reconstruction therefore stops at the evidence available. N7833P lost power shortly after takeoff, attempted a turnback, landed short and sustained substantial damage. Two occupants survived. The final cause remained open in the latest preliminary report consulted.
The Turnback Was Already Constrained by the Runway Geometry
The radio exchange shows that the pilot's first plan was to return toward runway 22R. The aircraft had departed runway 22L, so a return to the opposite direction would require a rapid reversal and alignment with a runway that was no longer directly beneath the aircraft. The later request for runway 4L shows that the pilot was adapting to the aircraft's actual position rather than simply following the original plan.
The controller's gear observation added another complication. A landing-gear check at very low altitude consumes attention and may require configuration changes while the pilot is already managing the power loss. The controller's confirmation that the gear looked good removed one uncertainty, but it did not restore the lost engine power.
The NTSB's preliminary account therefore supports a picture of a rapidly narrowing decision space: engine power was lost, the aircraft turned back, runway options changed and the forced landing occurred before a normal approach could be completed.
Why the Engine Separation Must Be Read Carefully
The engine being found separated from its mounts is visually dramatic, but investigators did not state that the separation was the initiating failure. The preliminary report says the engine was found adjacent to the right door and that the airplane was recovered for further examination.
That means the final investigation still has to determine whether the engine failure preceded the structural separation, whether the separation occurred during the impact sequence or whether another mechanical event links the two. The correct article therefore treats the engine position as evidence, not a conclusion.
This is particularly important because early reporting described engine issues, while the NTSB's preliminary report uses the more precise wording that the aircraft “radioed tower personnel that they had lost engine power.” The latter is the safer factual anchor until the engine examination is complete.
Conclusion
N7833P's accident was not a long chain that unfolded over hours. It was a low-altitude emergency compressed into minutes. The pilot lost engine power, tried to return, changed runway options and ultimately landed short. The investigation has established the sequence but not yet the reason for the engine failure.
Until the NTSB completes its work, the strongest lesson is procedural rather than mechanical: when power is lost immediately after takeoff, the safest outcome depends on rapid aircraft control, realistic landing options and avoiding assumptions about what the engine will do next.