What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
On 02/26/2022 a student pilot took off on a solo cross country from montgomery field (myf) to palm springs airport (psp). While enroute to psp the student pilot chose to land at Banning airport (bng). The student believed his instructor wanted him to land at Banning airport and thought he was endorsed to do so.
While on descent to bng, the student set the frequency for the AWOS and then immediately encounter turbulence and stated he was solely focused on handling the turbulence he "tuned out" the AWOS report playing on the frequency. The student pilot looked at the tetrahedron at bng airport and believed it showed wind coming from the west. An owner of privacy data omitted, a company based on the field, stated that the tetrahedron was showing winds from the northeast and runway 8 was the favorable runway that morning.
The student pilot elected to land runway 26 and upon touch down struck the ground hard and veered to the left, (south), ran off the runway with a high amount of speed. He hit two parked cars and crashed into the hangar door destroying his aircraft and damaging two aircraft in the hangar belonging to privacy data omitted. The two damage aircraft stored in privacy data omitted hangar were privacy data omitted, (Cessna-206) and privacy data omitted a (Cessna-150A).
One of the owners at privacy data omitted shutdown their operations for the day due to heavy winds and turbulence at bng airport and within the area.
A review of the student's log book showed he was endorsed for the flight. However, Banning was not listed as an approved airport to land, only as a point of reference along his route to psp. Both the student and his instructor stated there was a miscommunication between the two of them about what the purpose of Banning airport was while on this solo cross country. The student pilot and instructor also stated the student pilot was unfamiliar with bng and psp and never landed at either airport prior to this solo cross country flight.
Conversations with the student pilot, his instructor and privacy data omitted of the flight school training the student, all stated the morning the student took off from myf, no one reviewed or briefed the flight with the student. All three stated the flight school did not have any staff members present at the time the student arrived at the flight school to check out the aircraft and take off.
The student pilot and his instructor stated the student was briefed the afternoon before the flight which only consisted with a review of terminal aerodrome forecasts of two airports along the route of flight and one slightly off route.
Nav logs were not prepared for the flight. Estimated time enroute, estimated fuel burned and specific aircraft headings were not determined prior to the flight.
As the FAA filed it
ON 02/26/2022 A STUDENT PILOT TOOK OFF ON A SOLO CROSS COUNTRY FROM MONTGOMERY FIELD (MYF) TO PALM SPRINGS AIRPORT (PSP). WHILE ENROUTE TO PSP THE STUDENT PILOT CHOSE TO LAND AT BANNING AIRPORT (BNG). THE STUDENT BELIEVED HIS INSTRUCTOR WANTED HIM TO LAND AT BANNING AIRPORT AND THOUGHT HE WAS ENDORSED TO DO SO.
WHILE ON DESCENT TO BNG, THE STUDENT SET THE FREQUENCY FOR THE AWOS AND THEN IMMEDIATELY ENCOUNTER TURBULENCE AND STATED HE WAS SOLELY FOCUSED ON HANDLING THE TURBULENCE HE "TUNED OUT" THE AWOS REPORT PLAYING ON THE FREQUENCY. THE STUDENT PILOT LOOKED AT THE TETRAHEDRON AT BNG AIRPORT AND BELIEVED IT SHOWED WIND COMING FROM THE WEST. AN OWNER OF ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^, A COMPANY BASED ON THE FIELD, STATED THAT THE TETRAHEDRON WAS SHOWING WINDS FROM THE NORTHEAST AND RUNWAY 8 WAS THE FAVORABLE RUNWAY THAT MORNING.
THE STUDENT PILOT ELECTED TO LAND RUNWAY 26 AND UPON TOUCH DOWN STRUCK THE GROUND HARD AND VEERED TO THE LEFT, (SOUTH), RAN OFF THE RUNWAY WITH A HIGH AMOUNT OF SPEED. HE HIT TWO PARKED CARS AND CRASHED INTO THE HANGAR DOOR DESTROYING HIS AIRCRAFT AND DAMAGING TWO AIRCRAFT IN THE HANGAR BELONGING TO ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^. THE TWO DAMAGE AIRCRAFT STORED IN ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ HANGAR WERE ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^, (CESSNA-206) AND ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ A (CESSNA-150A).
ONE OF THE OWNERS AT ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ SHUTDOWN THEIR OPERATIONS FOR THE DAY DUE TO HEAVY WINDS AND TURBULENCE AT BNG AIRPORT AND WITHIN THE AREA.
A REVIEW OF THE STUDENT'S LOG BOOK SHOWED HE WAS ENDORSED FOR THE FLIGHT. HOWEVER, BANNING WAS NOT LISTED AS AN APPROVED AIRPORT TO LAND, ONLY AS A POINT OF REFERENCE ALONG HIS ROUTE TO PSP. BOTH THE STUDENT AND HIS INSTRUCTOR STATED THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM ABOUT WHAT THE PURPOSE OF BANNING AIRPORT WAS WHILE ON THIS SOLO CROSS COUNTRY. THE STUDENT PILOT AND INSTRUCTOR ALSO STATED THE STUDENT PILOT WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH BNG AND PSP AND NEVER LANDED AT EITHER AIRPORT PRIOR TO THIS SOLO CROSS COUNTRY FLIGHT.
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE STUDENT PILOT, HIS INSTRUCTOR AND ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ OF THE FLIGHT SCHOOL TRAINING THE STUDENT, ALL STATED THE MORNING THE STUDENT TOOK OFF FROM MYF, NO ONE REVIEWED OR BRIEFED THE FLIGHT WITH THE STUDENT. ALL THREE STATED THE FLIGHT SCHOOL DID NOT HAVE ANY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT AT THE TIME THE STUDENT ARRIVED AT THE FLIGHT SCHOOL TO CHECK OUT THE AIRCRAFT AND TAKE OFF.
THE STUDENT PILOT AND HIS INSTRUCTOR STATED THE STUDENT WAS BRIEFED THE AFTERNOON BEFORE THE FLIGHT WHICH ONLY CONSISTED WITH A REVIEW OF TERMINAL AERODROME FORECASTS OF TWO AIRPORTS ALONG THE ROUTE OF FLIGHT AND ONE SLIGHTLY OFF ROUTE.
NAV LOGS WERE NOT PREPARED FOR THE FLIGHT. ESTIMATED TIME ENROUTE, ESTIMATED FUEL BURNED AND SPECIFIC AIRCRAFT HEADINGS WERE NOT DETERMINED PRIOR TO THE FLIGHT.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.