# NTSB ERA16CA222: Cessna 172M, N12184, Lenoir, NC, June 16, 2016 - Type: NTSB accident investigation - Classification: Accident · No injuries · Data collection · Final report - Date: June 16, 2016, 13:15 local (17:15 UTC) - Place: Lenoir, NC - Coordinates: 35.944442, -81.489997 (estimated) - Nearby events: https://openairdocs.org/map.md?lat=35.9444&lon=-81.4900&mi=10 - Phase of flight: [Landing](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-phases/550) (OpenAirDocs' grouping) - Defining event: [Landing-flare/touchdown: Abnormal runway contact](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/090) - Highest injury: No injuries - Injuries: 1 uninjured - Status: Completed, report March 13, 2017 - Report: Approved by Office Director - NTSB office: Eastern Region Aviation - Parties: FAA / FSDO - NTSB case key (mKey): 93423 - NTSB case page: https://web.ntsb.gov/investigations/?ntsbnumber=ERA16CA222 - NTSB report (PDF, downloads): https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/93423/pdf - NTSB docket: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=93423 - Page: https://openairdocs.org/ntsb/ERA16CA222 ## Probable cause The student pilot’s failure to compensate for gusting wind conditions during landing, which resulted in a bounced landing. Contributing to the accident was the flight instructor’s inadequate review of the weather conditions with the student and his inadequate supervision of the student’s solo cross-country flight. ## Findings NTSB's coded findings; those marked are part of the probable cause. - [Performance/control parameters: landing flare](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/01062041): Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability · Not attained/maintained (probable cause); cases with it: [Cessna 172M, 37 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/01062041/cases.md?model=2072418), [All aircraft, 1,285 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/01062041/cases.md) - [Wind: gusts](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/03034045): Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena · Response/compensation (probable cause); cases with it: [Cessna 172M, 26 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/03034045/cases.md?model=2072418), [All aircraft, 1,199 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/03034045/cases.md) - [Use of equip/info: aircraft control](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02063040): Personnel issues › Task performance · Student/instructed pilot (probable cause); cases with it: [Cessna 172M, 123 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02063040/cases.md?model=2072418), [All aircraft, 9,295 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02063040/cases.md) - [Attention/monitoring](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02021500): Personnel issues › Psychological · Instructor/check pilot (probable cause); cases with it: [Cessna 172M, 1 case](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02021500/cases.md?model=2072418), [All aircraft, 18 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02021500/cases.md) - [Planning/preparation: weather planning](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02061020): Personnel issues › Task performance · Instructor/check pilot (probable cause); cases with it: [Cessna 172M, 3 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02061020/cases.md?model=2072418), [All aircraft, 156 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02061020/cases.md) - [Runway/land/takeoff/taxi surface: soft surface](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/03023020): Environmental issues › Physical environment · Contributed to outcome; cases with it: [Cessna 172M, 5 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/03023020/cases.md?model=2072418), [All aircraft, 264 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/03023020/cases.md) ## Sequence of events The events NTSB coded, in order, by phase of flight. The defining event best describes what happened. - [Prior to flight: Preflight or dispatch event](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/030); cases with it: [Cessna 172M, 6 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/030/sequence.md?model=2072418), [All aircraft, 355 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/030/sequence.md) - [Landing-flare/touchdown: Abnormal runway contact](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/090) (defining event); cases with it: [Cessna 172M, 30 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/090/sequence.md?model=2072418), [All aircraft, 1,506 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/090/sequence.md) - [Landing: Nose over/nose down](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/096); cases with it: [Cessna 172M, 33 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/096/sequence.md?model=2072418), [All aircraft, 2,287 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/096/sequence.md) ## Analysis 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. ## Factual narrative 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. ## Aircraft - Registration: [N12184](https://openairdocs.org/deregistered/N12184-2016-09-06), registration cancelled 2016-09-06, S/N 17261868, built 1973 (OpenAirDocs) - Reported make and model: CESSNA 172M - Registry model: [Cessna 172M](https://openairdocs.org/model/cessna-172m) (registry code 2072418) (OpenAirDocs) - Registry engine: [Lycoming 0-320 series](https://openairdocs.org/engine/lycoming-0-320-series) (registry code 41508, reciprocating) (OpenAirDocs) - Category: Airplane - Serial number: 17261868 - Year built: 1973 - Airframe hours: 3537 - Engines: LYCOMING O-320-E20 160 horsepower reciprocating - Damage: Substantial damage - Flight: Instructional, Part 91 - Operator: Lenoir Aviation Club Inc - Registered owner: Lenoir Aviation Club Inc - Airworthiness certificate: Standard, Normal - Last inspection: Annual, March 4, 2016 - Departed: EXX, LEXINGTON, NC - Destination: NC27, Lenoir, NC - Flight plan: VFR - Airport: NC27, Lower Creek, runway 05, 3,200 × 150 ft, grass/turf - Equipment: Stall warning system ## Flight crew As NTSB recorded them. NTSB leaves out names. - Student pilot; age 59; injuries: none; student; medical: class 3, with waivers/limitations; seat: left; restraint: 3-point; flight hours: 78 total, 78 in this make and model, 11 in the last 90 days, 5 in the last 30 days, 2 in the last 24 hours ## Weather - Conditions: Visual (VMC), Day - Wind: 330° at 11 knots, gusting 16 - Lowest ceiling: none - Temperature: 93 °F, dew point 54 °F - Altimeter: 29.89 inHg - Observed at: MRN, 10 nm away ## FAA reports on this event (1) The FAA's own accident and incident reports, matched to the aircraft by N-number and date (OpenAirDocs). - [Accident 20160616010769A](https://openairdocs.org/incident/20160616010769A), Jun 16, 2016: Cessna 172M, Lenoir, NC, Substantial damage. On June 16, 2016, a student pilot was performing his cross-country solo flight in a Cessna 172M, registration #N12184, registered to Lenoir aviation club,… ## Docket (5 files) The files NTSB released with the investigation on January 23, 2017, on NTSB's docket system: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=93423. 4.8 MB in all. - Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident Report, NTSB Form 6120.1 (item 1, .PDF, 859 KB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40448514&FileExtension=.PDF&FileName=Pilot%2FOperator%20Aircraft%20Accident%20Report,%20NTSB%20Form%206120.1-Master.PDF - Witness Statements and Interview Summaries (item 2, .PDF, 1.3 MB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40448515&FileExtension=.PDF&FileName=Witness%20Statements%20and%20Interview%20Summaries-Master.PDF - Weather Reports and Records - KMRN METARs (item 3, .PDF, 783 KB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40448516&FileExtension=.PDF&FileName=Weather%20Reports%20and%20Records%20-%20KMRN%20METARs-Master.PDF - Logbook Endorsements for Solo Cross-Country (item 4, .PDF, 1.1 MB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40448517&FileExtension=.PDF&FileName=Logbook%20Endorsements%20for%20Solo%20Cross-Country-Master.PDF - Photos (Courtesy of FAA) (item 5, .PDF, 3 photos, 764 KB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40448518&FileExtension=.PDF&FileName=Photos%20(Courtesy%20of%20FAA)-Master.PDF From the NTSB's public API. Aircraft are matched to registry aircraft by N-number and event date, checked against the reported serial number, make and model; the registry's history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model. --- OpenAirDocs.org is an independent research project of [Contrail Labs](https://contraillabs.com/). It is not affiliated with the FAA or the NTSB. Source documents are U.S. government works in the public domain.