What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
(-23) Student pilot made a hard landing causing substantial damage to the nose gear structure, engine mounts and engine fire wall. No injuries were reported. Aircraft records were examined for compliance with applicable far's. no discrepancies were found. Student returned to instructor for additional training. Statement take by iic on the scene, robert w switter. (.4) the student pilot reported that the supervised solo flight departed and proceeded to the local training area. After approximately 40 minutes of flight the student pilot returned to the airport where he started a series of touch and go landing. According to the student pilot, on the second touch and go approach he reportedly observed several dogs near the active runway. Believing that he would hit the dogs on the runway, the student applied engine power a pulled back quickly on the flight controls. The airplane settled on the runway and bounced. According to the fixed base operator, the airplane porpoise on the accident landing and the nose wheel collided with the ground. The FBO commented that the pilot made a 'bad landing.' The FBO stated that two other pilots also observed the landing and made similar comments c oncerning the landing. They also reported that there were no dogs observed on or near the runway when the accident occurred. During the subsequent examination of the airplane, major structural damage was discovered to the nose wheel assembly. The student pilot did not report a mechanical problem with the airplane.
As the FAA filed it
(-23) STUDENT PILOT MADE A HARD LANDING CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO THE NOSE GEAR STRUCTURE, ENGINE MOUNTS AND ENGINE FIRE WALL. NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED. AIRCRAFT RECORDS WERE EXAMINED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FAR'S. NO DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND. STUDENT RETURNED TO INSTRUCTOR FOR ADDITIONAL TRAINING. STATEMENT TAKE BY IIC ON THE SCENE, ROBERT W SWITTER. (.4) THE STUDENT PILOT REPORTED THAT THE SUPERVISED SOLO FLIGHT DEPARTED AND PROCEEDED TO THE LOCAL TRAINING AREA. AFTER APPROXIMATELY 40 MINUTES OF FLIGHT THE STUDENT PILOT RETURNED TO THE AIRPORT WHERE HE STARTED A SERIES OF TOUCH AND GO LANDING. ACCORDING TO THE STUDENT PILOT, ON THE SECOND TOUCH AND GO APPROACH HE REPORTEDLY OBSERVED SEVERAL DOGS NEAR THE ACTIVE RUNWAY. BELIEVING THAT HE WOULD HIT THE DOGS ON THE RUNWAY, THE STUDENT APPLIED ENGINE POWER A PULLED BACK QUICKLY ON THE FLIGHT CONTROLS. THE AIRPLANE SETTLED ON THE RUNWAY AND BOUNCED. ACCORDING TO THE FIXED BASE OPERATOR, THE AIRPLANE PORPOISE ON THE ACCIDENT LANDING AND THE NOSE WHEEL COLLIDED WITH THE GROUND. THE FBO COMMENTED THAT THE PILOT MADE A 'BAD LANDING.' THE FBO STATED THAT TWO OTHER PILOTS ALSO OBSERVED THE LANDING AND MADE SIMILAR COMMENTS C ONCERNING THE LANDING. THEY ALSO REPORTED THAT THERE WERE NO DOGS OBSERVED ON OR NEAR THE RUNWAY WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED. DURING THE SUBSEQUENT EXAMINATION OF THE AIRPLANE, MAJOR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE WAS DISCOVERED TO THE NOSE WHEEL ASSEMBLY. THE STUDENT PILOT DID NOT REPORT A MECHANICAL PROBLEM WITH THE AIRPLANE.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.
Other reports on N330JC · 1
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.