Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The following is a narrative of the flight to the best of the Instructor's recollection. Incident occurred on DATE. The exact time is unknown; but it was sometime after XX00; likely closer to XX00. The flight was a pre-solo cross-country progress check for a private pilot applicant in the flight school's 141 program. Student was given a cross-country flight route to ZZZ but was instructed the entire flight would not be completed and he would be requested to fly a diversion to an unplanned airport during the evaluation. He presented a weather brief for the route of flight during the ground portion. Following a satisfactory ground examination; local weather was reviewed; and it was determined the flight could commence.Student's pre-flight was observed and mirrored by Instructor prior to commencing flight. Student properly used checklists. Start-up; taxi; and run-up were completed within standards using checklists. Systems appeared nominal and nothing out of the ordinary was observed or experienced. Takeoff was conducted within standards; systems appeared nominal and nothing out of the ordinary was observed or experienced. Climb out was conducted within standards with checklist usage at appropriate phases of flight (after takeoff and cruise); student's leaning of the fuel system was observed to be done appropriately; systems appeared nominal and nothing out of the ordinary was observed or experienced. The flight departed the ZZZ1 Delta airspace to the North-East and the evaluation proceeded through the cross-country navigation/lost comms/lost procedure portions with a satisfactory performance by student. Systems continued to appear nominal and nothing out of the ordinary was experienced.Student was then given a scenario (told he was experiencing high oil pressure) requiring him to make a decision on a diversion location. No systems were changed; it was a simple verbal scenario. Based on the information available he elected to divert to ZZZ2 and was instructed to divert and plan to make a touch-and-go. He appropriately set up the aircraft's navigation systems; radios; etc. and procedure in-bound to ZZZ2; making appropriate radio calls along the way. His actions inbound and during the descent were observed. He properly adjusted the mixture during the descent. Systems appeared to remain nominal and nothing out of the ordinary was observed.Student completed the touch-and-go and was instructed to navigate back towards ZZZ1. Appropriate checklist usage and actions were observed during the climb back to 7;500; including leaning procedures. Systems remained nominal and nothing out of the ordinary was observed. Somewhere near the south edge of the town student was given a progressive simulated emergency. He was first told we were experiencing high oil pressure and then high oil-temp. He immediately made the decision to turn back toward ZZZ2. Thereafter he was told he was experiencing partial power-loss and RPM was reduced to approximately 2;000. Student immediately pitched for 68 kts. Thereafter student was told the scenario progressed to an engine fire. He reduced throttle to idle; called out his memory items; banked and began to dive. He was told the fire was out and he pitched for 68 kts. while turning for a simulated off-field landing location somewhere near the town. It was noted the stall horn kept coming on anytime the aircraft got even slightly slower than 68 kts. The propeller continued to turn; systems appeared nominal; nothing out of the ordinary was experienced.At approximately 1;000 ft.; when it was determined student would be able to safely reach his selected simulated off-field landing location; he was instructed to commence a go-around and return to ZZZ. Student advanced the throttle and the engine did not respond. Student was observed bringing the throttle out and advancing a second time. At that moment he informed Instructor the engine was not responding. Instructor immediately took control of the plane; ensured it was at best glide speed (68 kts.) and; given the low altitude (estimated below 1;000 ft. at this time); advanced throttle and mixture to see if engine would respond. The propeller continued to turn; but the engine did not respond. Instructor directed student to tune 121.5; then Instructor requested priority; and began to go through off-field landing/engine secure memory items while conducting what was in essence a power-off 180 maneuver to the field Instructor had selected at the outset of the original emergency scenario. Instructor did not continue to students selected field because of power lines in the area and its proximity to structures. From the air; the location selected by Instructor was a cornfield with what appeared to be a flat access road immediately in front of it; and a flat dirt-field preceding the road. It appeared readily accessible to emergency responders and several work trucks were observed near the train tracks running parallel to the field. In addition; no power lines were observed in the vicinity of the selected field. Once turning 'final'; Instructor recalls ordering unlatching of the cabin doors; but specifically instructed not to open until the aircraft came to a stop. Instructor made conscious decision to not turn off master so that flaps could be used to the slow the aircraft down as it approached the ground. The flaps were deployed prior to landing. Instructor recalls maintaining approximately 68 kts. for the longest possible period of time and that the stall horn kept activating around 65 kts.Touchdown was normal in that the main gear touched first; Instructor believes somewhere on the dirt field. Instructor continued to maintain back pressure for as long as possible; but within moments the aircraft struck either the slightly raised dirt road or the ditch; which caused the aircraft to flip onto its roof. Aircraft came to a stop. Instructor ordered unlatching of harnesses and egress from the aircraft. No serious injuries were observed on scene.Though at this point Instructor is uncertain of what caused the engine to fail; I do believe it would be wise to include a requirement in the ACS that during any simulated emergency where the engine is brought to idle; the applicant should continuously clear the engine (like what is allowed in steep spiral descent during the commercial check-ride). If that standard were included; it may have been possible to detect the issue earlier.




Synopsis: Instructor Pilot reported their student suffered engine failure; resulting in an off airport landing.