What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
During the final approach and landing of the flight lesson, the student pilot was on a steeper than normal approach at a slightly slower rate of speed. The CFI allowed the student pilot to continue to the point of shouting "pull back, pull back" causing the student to abrubtly pull back on the controls causing the aircraft to begin to climb. Due to the slower than normal approach speed, the aircraft quickly began to stall. The aircraft then abruptly fell to the runway from approximately 8-10 feet, landing nose high (striking the tailskid causing damage). The CFI did not at any point during this event instruct the student to go-around, take over, or provide control inputs to assist in lessening the impact. The CFI or student pilot did not complete a post flight walk around, and the damage was only caught on the next lesson scheduled to be dispatched. During the interview process of both airmen, the CFI did not provide any constructive criticism of the event or any lessons learned on his behalf. It is the recommendation that the CFI be re-examined on landings, go arounds, and CFI responsibilities and teaching techniques. The student pilot provided an excellent synopsis and analysis of the event and will be receiving extra training from the air agency.
As the FAA filed it
DURING THE FINAL APPROACH AND LANDING OF THE FLIGHT LESSON, THE STUDENT PILOT WAS ON A STEEPER THAN NORMAL APPROACH AT A SLIGHTLY SLOWER RATE OF SPEED. THE CFI ALLOWED THE STUDENT PILOT TO CONTINUE TO THE POINT OF SHOUTING "PULL BACK, PULL BACK" CAUSING THE STUDENT TO ABRUBTLY PULL BACK ON THE CONTROLS CAUSING THE AIRCRAFT TO BEGIN TO CLIMB. DUE TO THE SLOWER THAN NORMAL APPROACH SPEED, THE AIRCRAFT QUICKLY BEGAN TO STALL. THE AIRCRAFT THEN ABRUPTLY FELL TO THE RUNWAY FROM APPROXIMATELY 8-10 FEET, LANDING NOSE HIGH (STRIKING THE TAILSKID CAUSING DAMAGE). THE CFI DID NOT AT ANY POINT DURING THIS EVENT INSTRUCT THE STUDENT TO GO-AROUND, TAKE OVER, OR PROVIDE CONTROL INPUTS TO ASSIST IN LESSENING THE IMPACT. THE CFI OR STUDENT PILOT DID NOT COMPLETE A POST FLIGHT WALK AROUND, AND THE DAMAGE WAS ONLY CAUGHT ON THE NEXT LESSON SCHEDULED TO BE DISPATCHED. DURING THE INTERVIEW PROCESS OF BOTH AIRMEN, THE CFI DID NOT PROVIDE ANY CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM OF THE EVENT OR ANY LESSONS LEARNED ON HIS BEHALF. IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CFI BE RE-EXAMINED ON LANDINGS, GO AROUNDS, AND CFI RESPONSIBILITIES AND TEACHING TECHNIQUES. THE STUDENT PILOT PROVIDED AN EXCELLENT SYNOPSIS AND ANALYSIS OF THE EVENT AND WILL BE RECEIVING EXTRA TRAINING FROM THE AIR AGENCY.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.