What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
On March 13, 2026, at approximately 1300 local time, I responded to the site to conduct an investigation of the reported occurrence involving the subject aircraft.
Upon arrival, the aircraft was positioned with the nose cowling and associated fairings removed to facilitate inspection. A visual examination of the aircraft revealed substantial damage to the nose landing gear assembly. The nose landing gear was found to be destroyed, with a portion of the internal strut protruding through the upper section of the assembly.
Further inspection revealed deformation and wrinkling on the left side of the forward firewall bulkhead. Examination beneath the floor panels identified additional minor wrinkling of the forward bulkhead structure.
The firewall bulkhead on this aircraft is considered a primary structural component. It functions as a structural reinforcement of the fuselage and serves as the attachment point for the nose landing gear strut, transmitting landing loads directly into the airframe. The observed deformation of this component is indicative of load exceedance and structural compromise.
Based on the extent of damage to the primary structure, specifically the firewall bulkhead, the event meets the criteria for classification as an aircraft accident rather than the initial report of an occurrence.
The national transportation safety board (NTSB) declined to investigate the event as an accident. The NTSB indicated that the damage was limited primarily to the nose landing gear and firewall bulkhead. Additionally, the assessment group reported that the minor wrinkling observed in the bulkhead beneath the floor panels was likely attributable to a previous repair, as evidenced by bent-over rivets and visible scratches consistent with bucking bar contact.
The flight was conducted as an instructional operation with a certificated flight instructor (CFI) and a student pilot on board. According to statements obtained, the student pilot was instructed to remain in the traffic pattern and conduct a landing on runway 21. The student reported executing the pattern, making appropriate radio communications, and turning left to final approach. Flaps were configured and airspeed was verified. The instructor made reference to the glide slope indicator lights during the approach.
As the aircraft approached the runway, the instructor observed that the student was not initiating the landing flare. The instructor then issued a verbal command, “flare, pull back.” when no corrective response was observed, the instructor attempted to take control of the aircraft by applying aft control input. The instructor reported that the student was holding forward pressure on the controls, preventing effective control input. The instructor then announced, “my controls,” but continued to encounter resistance.
Despite continued efforts to apply aft control input and mitigate the impact, the aircraft contacted the runway nose gear first, resulting in a hard landing. During a subsequent bounce, the student released the controls, allowing the instructor to regain full control of the aircraft. The instructor then completed the landing without further incident
As the FAA filed it
ON MARCH 13, 2026, AT APPROXIMATELY 1300 LOCAL TIME, I RESPONDED TO THE SITE TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE REPORTED OCCURRENCE INVOLVING THE SUBJECT AIRCRAFT.
UPON ARRIVAL, THE AIRCRAFT WAS POSITIONED WITH THE NOSE COWLING AND ASSOCIATED FAIRINGS REMOVED TO FACILITATE INSPECTION. A VISUAL EXAMINATION OF THE AIRCRAFT REVEALED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO THE NOSE LANDING GEAR ASSEMBLY. THE NOSE LANDING GEAR WAS FOUND TO BE DESTROYED, WITH A PORTION OF THE INTERNAL STRUT PROTRUDING THROUGH THE UPPER SECTION OF THE ASSEMBLY.
FURTHER INSPECTION REVEALED DEFORMATION AND WRINKLING ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE FORWARD FIREWALL BULKHEAD. EXAMINATION BENEATH THE FLOOR PANELS IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL MINOR WRINKLING OF THE FORWARD BULKHEAD STRUCTURE.
THE FIREWALL BULKHEAD ON THIS AIRCRAFT IS CONSIDERED A PRIMARY STRUCTURAL COMPONENT. IT FUNCTIONS AS A STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT OF THE FUSELAGE AND SERVES AS THE ATTACHMENT POINT FOR THE NOSE LANDING GEAR STRUT, TRANSMITTING LANDING LOADS DIRECTLY INTO THE AIRFRAME. THE OBSERVED DEFORMATION OF THIS COMPONENT IS INDICATIVE OF LOAD EXCEEDANCE AND STRUCTURAL COMPROMISE.
BASED ON THE EXTENT OF DAMAGE TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, SPECIFICALLY THE FIREWALL BULKHEAD, THE EVENT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION AS AN AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT RATHER THAN THE INITIAL REPORT OF AN OCCURRENCE.
THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD (NTSB) DECLINED TO INVESTIGATE THE EVENT AS AN ACCIDENT. THE NTSB INDICATED THAT THE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED PRIMARILY TO THE NOSE LANDING GEAR AND FIREWALL BULKHEAD. ADDITIONALLY, THE ASSESSMENT GROUP REPORTED THAT THE MINOR WRINKLING OBSERVED IN THE BULKHEAD BENEATH THE FLOOR PANELS WAS LIKELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PREVIOUS REPAIR, AS EVIDENCED BY BENT-OVER RIVETS AND VISIBLE SCRATCHES CONSISTENT WITH BUCKING BAR CONTACT.
THE FLIGHT WAS CONDUCTED AS AN INSTRUCTIONAL OPERATION WITH A CERTIFICATED FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR (CFI) AND A STUDENT PILOT ON BOARD. ACCORDING TO STATEMENTS OBTAINED, THE STUDENT PILOT WAS INSTRUCTED TO REMAIN IN THE TRAFFIC PATTERN AND CONDUCT A LANDING ON RUNWAY 21. THE STUDENT REPORTED EXECUTING THE PATTERN, MAKING APPROPRIATE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS, AND TURNING LEFT TO FINAL APPROACH. FLAPS WERE CONFIGURED AND AIRSPEED WAS VERIFIED. THE INSTRUCTOR MADE REFERENCE TO THE GLIDE SLOPE INDICATOR LIGHTS DURING THE APPROACH.
AS THE AIRCRAFT APPROACHED THE RUNWAY, THE INSTRUCTOR OBSERVED THAT THE STUDENT WAS NOT INITIATING THE LANDING FLARE. THE INSTRUCTOR THEN ISSUED A VERBAL COMMAND, “FLARE, PULL BACK.” WHEN NO CORRECTIVE RESPONSE WAS OBSERVED, THE INSTRUCTOR ATTEMPTED TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT BY APPLYING AFT CONTROL INPUT. THE INSTRUCTOR REPORTED THAT THE STUDENT WAS HOLDING FORWARD PRESSURE ON THE CONTROLS, PREVENTING EFFECTIVE CONTROL INPUT. THE INSTRUCTOR THEN ANNOUNCED, “MY CONTROLS,” BUT CONTINUED TO ENCOUNTER RESISTANCE.
DESPITE CONTINUED EFFORTS TO APPLY AFT CONTROL INPUT AND MITIGATE THE IMPACT, THE AIRCRAFT CONTACTED THE RUNWAY NOSE GEAR FIRST, RESULTING IN A HARD LANDING. DURING A SUBSEQUENT BOUNCE, THE STUDENT RELEASED THE CONTROLS, ALLOWING THE INSTRUCTOR TO REGAIN FULL CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT. THE INSTRUCTOR THEN COMPLETED THE LANDING WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT