20180723017629I

Incident · Minor damage

FAA incident report · Cessna 175A · Madisionville, TN · July 23, 2018

Date
July 23, 2018 · 17:00 local
Place
Madisionville, TN
Airport
Monroe County Airport
Phase of flight
Landing: Touchdown
Operating rules
General operating rules (Part 91)
Damage
Minor damage
Aircraft
N6949E
Reported as
Cessna 175A
Reported engine
Continental GO-300 series
People aboard
2
Fatal injuries
0
Other injuries
0
Pilot’s certificate
Student
Pilot’s flight hours
10 total5 in this make and model10 in the last 90 days

From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

What happened

The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.

The student pilot was interviewed via telephone. The student pilot is the owner of the aircraft involved. The student pilot and his instructor pilot were conducting crosswing landing training when this incident occured. The student states that one landing had been accomplished with no incident. A second landing was attempted. Upon landing the aricraft was between the runway centerline and the runway right edge. He felt as if the aicraft was going to run off of the right side of the runway. He input left rudder to correct the aircraft's position. In doing so the student pilot overcorrected the aircraft. The nose landing gerar and the left main landing departed the runway on the left side. The student pilot corrected the aircraft position back onto the runway. The aircraft was taxied to the ramp. A physical inspection was conducted and it was noted that the propeller was damaged on both blade tips. The propeller was removed for maintenance. Upon inspection of the runway lights it was noted that one light lens was broken. Database research was conducted and no previous events were noted involving the student pilot.

A telephone inteview was conducted with the instructor pilot. He confirmed in his own words that the student pilot overcorrected the aircaft upon landing causing the aircraft to depart the runway. He also confirmed the damage to the propeller blade tips and the runway light.

As the FAA filed it

THE STUDENT PILOT WAS INTERVIEWED VIA TELEPHONE. THE STUDENT PILOT IS THE OWNER OF THE AIRCRAFT INVOLVED. THE STUDENT PILOT AND HIS INSTRUCTOR PILOT WERE CONDUCTING CROSSWING LANDING TRAINING WHEN THIS INCIDENT OCCURED. THE STUDENT STATES THAT ONE LANDING HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED WITH NO INCIDENT. A SECOND LANDING WAS ATTEMPTED. UPON LANDING THE ARICRAFT WAS BETWEEN THE RUNWAY CENTERLINE AND THE RUNWAY RIGHT EDGE. HE FELT AS IF THE AICRAFT WAS GOING TO RUN OFF OF THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE RUNWAY. HE INPUT LEFT RUDDER TO CORRECT THE AIRCRAFT'S POSITION. IN DOING SO THE STUDENT PILOT OVERCORRECTED THE AIRCRAFT. THE NOSE LANDING GERAR AND THE LEFT MAIN LANDING DEPARTED THE RUNWAY ON THE LEFT SIDE. THE STUDENT PILOT CORRECTED THE AIRCRAFT POSITION BACK ONTO THE RUNWAY. THE AIRCRAFT WAS TAXIED TO THE RAMP. A PHYSICAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE PROPELLER WAS DAMAGED ON BOTH BLADE TIPS. THE PROPELLER WAS REMOVED FOR MAINTENANCE. UPON INSPECTION OF THE RUNWAY LIGHTS IT WAS NOTED THAT ONE LIGHT LENS WAS BROKEN. DATABASE RESEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AND NO PREVIOUS EVENTS WERE NOTED INVOLVING THE STUDENT PILOT.

A TELEPHONE INTEVIEW WAS CONDUCTED WITH THE INSTRUCTOR PILOT. HE CONFIRMED IN HIS OWN WORDS THAT THE STUDENT PILOT OVERCORRECTED THE AIRCAFT UPON LANDING CAUSING THE AIRCRAFT TO DEPART THE RUNWAY. HE ALSO CONFIRMED THE DAMAGE TO THE PROPELLER BLADE TIPS AND THE RUNWAY LIGHT.

Other reports on N6949E · 1

Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.