What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
The student, privacy data omitted, was doing a recurrency jump with an instructor. His last jump was barely 30 days prior. He had learned first on tandem and was doing very well. He was progressing, with no problems, in free fall or landing pattern and flare. On this particular jump, he was also being guided on radio by the instructor who jumped with him. The instructor stated that he actually didn't need much guidance and did, in his opinion, a flawless pattern and approach for landing. Because of light winds, he landed long, at a distance. Both his instructor and another instructor watched his landing, on which he flared slightly high, but flew the flare and landed, from the instructor's perspective, softly. However, on landing, he broke his ankle. The fracture was a spiral fracture up his leg and spread out the bones in his left foot, indicating his heel hit and turned on landing. Both of the instructors were surprised at the injury, because the landing looked good. The student thought he might have stuck his foot down a little on landing, or perhaps he caught his heel on something. The instructors walked the landing area and could not find any suspect terrain, other than larger tuffets of grass that the student could have caught his foot on while sliding in on landing. He did not do a parachute landing fall (plf), because he had so little descent on landing. The student was carrying a fast horizontal speed, so he decided to slide in as opposed to plf or to run out the landing.
As the FAA filed it
THE STUDENT, ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^, WAS DOING A RECURRENCY JUMP WITH AN INSTRUCTOR. HIS LAST JUMP WAS BARELY 30 DAYS PRIOR. HE HAD LEARNED FIRST ON TANDEM AND WAS DOING VERY WELL. HE WAS PROGRESSING, WITH NO PROBLEMS, IN FREE FALL OR LANDING PATTERN AND FLARE. ON THIS PARTICULAR JUMP, HE WAS ALSO BEING GUIDED ON RADIO BY THE INSTRUCTOR WHO JUMPED WITH HIM. THE INSTRUCTOR STATED THAT HE ACTUALLY DIDN'T NEED MUCH GUIDANCE AND DID, IN HIS OPINION, A FLAWLESS PATTERN AND APPROACH FOR LANDING. BECAUSE OF LIGHT WINDS, HE LANDED LONG, AT A DISTANCE. BOTH HIS INSTRUCTOR AND ANOTHER INSTRUCTOR WATCHED HIS LANDING, ON WHICH HE FLARED SLIGHTLY HIGH, BUT FLEW THE FLARE AND LANDED, FROM THE INSTRUCTOR'S PERSPECTIVE, SOFTLY. HOWEVER, ON LANDING, HE BROKE HIS ANKLE. THE FRACTURE WAS A SPIRAL FRACTURE UP HIS LEG AND SPREAD OUT THE BONES IN HIS LEFT FOOT, INDICATING HIS HEEL HIT AND TURNED ON LANDING. BOTH OF THE INSTRUCTORS WERE SURPRISED AT THE INJURY, BECAUSE THE LANDING LOOKED GOOD. THE STUDENT THOUGHT HE MIGHT HAVE STUCK HIS FOOT DOWN A LITTLE ON LANDING, OR PERHAPS HE CAUGHT HIS HEEL ON SOMETHING. THE INSTRUCTORS WALKED THE LANDING AREA AND COULD NOT FIND ANY SUSPECT TERRAIN, OTHER THAN LARGER TUFFETS OF GRASS THAT THE STUDENT COULD HAVE CAUGHT HIS FOOT ON WHILE SLIDING IN ON LANDING. HE DID NOT DO A PARACHUTE LANDING FALL (PLF), BECAUSE HE HAD SO LITTLE DESCENT ON LANDING. THE STUDENT WAS CARRYING A FAST HORIZONTAL SPEED, SO HE DECIDED TO SLIDE IN AS OPPOSED TO PLF OR TO RUN OUT THE LANDING.
Other reports on N100SD · 1
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.