What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
On 7/7/2025 the FAA in jackson Mississippi was notified by the roc of and potential aircraft accident/incident. The initial report showed the aircraft noted in this activity had collapsed the nose gear upon landing
And destination airport on 7/7/2025 about 1750Z. On 7/7/2025 privacy data omitted and another inspector traveled to Indianola Airport (idl) to assess the damage to the aircraft. Contact was made with the student pilot and privacy data omitted. The privacy data omitted stated that he had sent another aircraft to pick up the student and that they would be returning to the departure airport. The student and privacy data omitted were made aware that the inspectors needed to speak with the student and instructor in the near future and plans were made to meet the following day. The student pilot was asked to write a report on the events that took place that lead to the incident/accident and it would be collected the following day. Upon investigation of the aircraft it was noted that the front landing gear had collapsed, engine cowling had been damaged, engine gascolator had been punctured, and engine prop had struck the ground. Photos of all damage were taken and will be uploaded to the FSDO file for storage. After examination, it was determined that no substantial damage occurred and the event would be classified as an incident. On 7/8/2025 inspectors from the jan FSDO met with student pilot, instructor pilot and mechanic
Who had been maintaining the aircraft. The student pilot stated he had set up to land on runway 18 and on final approach just past the threshold he pulled back slightly on the elevator controls because he normally
Pulls back too abruptly and will go into ground effect higher than normal. It was at this point he realized that the aircraft was about to make a 3 point landing, so he tried pulling back on the elevator more, but by that time it was too late and the aircraft landed flat on all three wheels. The aircraft then began to bounce and he tried to control it with elevator inputs, however it was too late and he lost control of
The aircraft and the prop struck the runway. He knew at this time there was not much more he could do and did the best he could to get the aircraft off the edge of the runway. Through aircraft logbooks and pilot
Statements, it was determined that the aircraft was in an airworthy state and that no malfunctions to the aircraft contributed to the incident. Pilot records were also examined on this date to included the cfi's
Certificate, ID, and medical; the student pilot certificate, id andmedical and all were found to be in compliance with current regulations. Upon reviewing student logbook endorsements it was determined that the student pilot had all required endorsements, however, the 90 day solo endorsement was past the 90 day period, with the student pilot having been endorsed the first week of March 2025. This endorsement being past the 90 day time frame is a violation of 61.87 (p), however logbook records did show the pilot had flown with the student pilot numerous times in the past two weeks before and the missed endorsements were
Simply an oversight due to an instructor change that occurred two weeks prior. An on the spot correction to include counselling was conducted with the CFI and documentation and information related to the correction can be found in the triggered record.
As the FAA filed it
ON 7/7/2025 THE FAA IN JACKSON MISSISSIPPI WAS NOTIFIED BY THE ROC OF AND POTENTIAL AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT/INCIDENT. THE INITIAL REPORT SHOWED THE AIRCRAFT NOTED IN THIS ACTIVITY HAD COLLAPSED THE NOSE GEAR UPON LANDING
AND DESTINATION AIRPORT ON 7/7/2025 ABOUT 1750Z. ON 7/7/2025 ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ AND ANOTHER INSPECTOR TRAVELED TO INDIANOLA AIRPORT (IDL) TO ASSESS THE DAMAGE TO THE AIRCRAFT. CONTACT WAS MADE WITH THE STUDENT PILOT AND ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^. THE ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ STATED THAT HE HAD SENT ANOTHER AIRCRAFT TO PICK UP THE STUDENT AND THAT THEY WOULD BE RETURNING TO THE DEPARTURE AIRPORT. THE STUDENT AND ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ WERE MADE AWARE THAT THE INSPECTORS NEEDED TO SPEAK WITH THE STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR IN THE NEAR FUTURE AND PLANS WERE MADE TO MEET THE FOLLOWING DAY. THE STUDENT PILOT WAS ASKED TO WRITE A REPORT ON THE EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE THAT LEAD TO THE INCIDENT/ACCIDENT AND IT WOULD BE COLLECTED THE FOLLOWING DAY. UPON INVESTIGATION OF THE AIRCRAFT IT WAS NOTED THAT THE FRONT LANDING GEAR HAD COLLAPSED, ENGINE COWLING HAD BEEN DAMAGED, ENGINE GASCOLATOR HAD BEEN PUNCTURED, AND ENGINE PROP HAD STRUCK THE GROUND. PHOTOS OF ALL DAMAGE WERE TAKEN AND WILL BE UPLOADED TO THE FSDO FILE FOR STORAGE. AFTER EXAMINATION, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE OCCURRED AND THE EVENT WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS AN INCIDENT. ON 7/8/2025 INSPECTORS FROM THE JAN FSDO MET WITH STUDENT PILOT, INSTRUCTOR PILOT AND MECHANIC
WHO HAD BEEN MAINTAINING THE AIRCRAFT. THE STUDENT PILOT STATED HE HAD SET UP TO LAND ON RUNWAY 18 AND ON FINAL APPROACH JUST PAST THE THRESHOLD HE PULLED BACK SLIGHTLY ON THE ELEVATOR CONTROLS BECAUSE HE NORMALLY
PULLS BACK TOO ABRUPTLY AND WILL GO INTO GROUND EFFECT HIGHER THAN NORMAL. IT WAS AT THIS POINT HE REALIZED THAT THE AIRCRAFT WAS ABOUT TO MAKE A 3 POINT LANDING, SO HE TRIED PULLING BACK ON THE ELEVATOR MORE, BUT BY THAT TIME IT WAS TOO LATE AND THE AIRCRAFT LANDED FLAT ON ALL THREE WHEELS. THE AIRCRAFT THEN BEGAN TO BOUNCE AND HE TRIED TO CONTROL IT WITH ELEVATOR INPUTS, HOWEVER IT WAS TOO LATE AND HE LOST CONTROL OF
THE AIRCRAFT AND THE PROP STRUCK THE RUNWAY. HE KNEW AT THIS TIME THERE WAS NOT MUCH MORE HE COULD DO AND DID THE BEST HE COULD TO GET THE AIRCRAFT OFF THE EDGE OF THE RUNWAY. THROUGH AIRCRAFT LOGBOOKS AND PILOT
STATEMENTS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE AIRCRAFT WAS IN AN AIRWORTHY STATE AND THAT NO MALFUNCTIONS TO THE AIRCRAFT CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCIDENT. PILOT RECORDS WERE ALSO EXAMINED ON THIS DATE TO INCLUDED THE CFI'S
CERTIFICATE, ID, AND MEDICAL; THE STUDENT PILOT CERTIFICATE, ID ANDMEDICAL AND ALL WERE FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT REGULATIONS. UPON REVIEWING STUDENT LOGBOOK ENDORSEMENTS IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE STUDENT PILOT HAD ALL REQUIRED ENDORSEMENTS, HOWEVER, THE 90 DAY SOLO ENDORSEMENT WAS PAST THE 90 DAY PERIOD, WITH THE STUDENT PILOT HAVING BEEN ENDORSED THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH 2025. THIS ENDORSEMENT BEING PAST THE 90 DAY TIME FRAME IS A VIOLATION OF 61.87 (P), HOWEVER LOGBOOK RECORDS DID SHOW THE PILOT HAD FLOWN WITH THE STUDENT PILOT NUMEROUS TIMES IN THE PAST TWO WEEKS BEFORE AND THE MISSED ENDORSEMENTS WERE
SIMPLY AN OVERSIGHT DUE TO AN INSTRUCTOR CHANGE THAT OCCURRED TWO WEEKS PRIOR. AN ON THE SPOT CORRECTION TO INCLUDE COUNSELLING WAS CONDUCTED WITH THE CFI AND DOCUMENTATION AND INFORMATION RELATED TO THE CORRECTION CAN BE FOUND IN THE TRIGGERED RECORD.