ERA16CA222

The student pilot was returning to his home airport while on his first solo cross-country flight. The wind sock at the airport was favoring a landing on runway 23 with a slight crosswind. He entered the traffic pattern, and when he lined up on the final leg of the traffic pattern to the turf runway, the airplane encountered a large wind gust. He then aborted the landing and rejoined the traffic pattern. The wind sock was still favoring a landing on runway 23, so he set up for the landing again, and this time encountered a larger wind gust, so he aborted the landing a second time. He then entered the traffic pattern again and noticed that the wind sock was still indicating a slight crosswind but now favored a landing on runway 5. He then flew around the traffic pattern and set up for a landing on runway 5. The student reported that, while on final approach for runway 5, the airspeed was "good." The airplane touched down and then "bounced," and the pilot attempted to recover the landing, but the nose landing gear then dug into the ground. The airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted, which resulted in substantial damage to the empennage and vertical stabilizer. Review of archived weather information revealed that, about the time of the accident, the wind was 330° at 11 knots, gusting to 16 knots. Additionally, wind gusts were present for nearly 4 hours before the accident and continued for about 4 hours after the accident. Before the flight, the student pilot met with his flight instructor and showed him his flight plan. The instructor spoke with the student but did not look at the weather reports, and they "did not call in to check the weather." Review of the student's logbook revealed that it contained an endorsement from the instructor stating that he had reviewed the student's cross-country planning and preparation and found it to be correct and adequate for the flight. The endorsement also contained the caveat that the weather should be "clear," and crosswinds should not exceed 7 knots.

The student pilot was returning to his home airport while on his first solo cross-country flight. The wind sock at the airport was favoring a landing on runway 23 with a slight cross wind. He entered the traffic pattern, and when he lined up on the final leg of the traffic pattern to the turf runway, he encountered a large wind gust. He then aborted the landing, and then rejoined the traffic pattern. The wind sock was still favoring a landing on runway 23, so he set up for the landing again, and this time encountered a larger wind gust, so he aborted the landing a second time. He then entered the traffic pattern again and noticed that the wind sock was still indicating a slight cross wind but now favored a landing on runway 5. He then flew around the traffic pattern, and set up for a landing on runway 5. While on final approach for runway 5, the airspeed was "good," and he touched down. The airplane then "bounced," and the pilot attempted to recover the landing, but the its nose landing gear then dug into the ground. The airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted, resulting in substantial damage to the empennage and vertical stabilizer.Review of archived weather information revealed that about the time of the accident, the wind was 330 degrees at 11 knots, gusting to 16 knots. Additionally, wind gusts were present for nearly 4 hours prior to the accident, and continued for about 4 hours after the accident. Prior to the flight, the student pilot met the instructor at the instructor's place of business with his flight plan. The instructor spoke with the student pilot but did not look at the weather reports, and they "did not call in to check the weather." Review of the student pilot's logbook revealed that it contained an endorsement from the flight instructor stating that he had reviewed the student's cross-country planning and preparation and found it to be correct and adequate for the flight. The endorsement also contained the caveat that the weather should be "clear," and crosswinds should not exceed 7 knots.