- Date
- April 6, 2016, 08:45 local (15:45 UTC)
- Place
- Payson, AZ
- Injuries
- 1 uninjured
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Phase of flight
- Landing
- Aircraft
- N5275SCessna 172
- Defining event
- Landing-flare/touchdown: Abnormal runway contact
- Weather
- Visual (VMC) · Day
- Status
- Completed · report July 14, 2016
- Report
- Approved by Office Director
- NTSB office
- General Aviation Accidents
- Parties
- FAA
- FAA report
- 20160406008689A
- Case key
- 92997
From the NTSB’s public API. By law, NTSB reports can’t be used as evidence in lawsuits over the accident.
On this page
Probable cause
The student pilot's failure to maintain pitch control during the landing flare, resulting in the subsequent porpoise during landing and substantial damage to the firewall.
Findings · 2
NTSB’s coded findings. Those marked are part of the probable cause; the rest are factors or other findings. Under each, the cases with the same finding.
Sequence of events
The events NTSB coded, in order, by phase of flight. The defining event is the one that best describes the accident. Under each, the cases with the same event anywhere in their sequence.
Analysis
According to the student pilot, during landing on his solo flight the airplane porpoised. He reported that after landing he repositioned the airplane, but prior to takeoff, a fellow pilot, who witnessed the porpoise, contacted him on the VHF radio, and informed him that he should have the airplane checked out before attempting to takeoff. The student pilot taxied to the parking area and the airport manager and airframe and powerplant mechanic inspected the airplane. The student pilot called his flight instructor and conveyed the situation and the level of damage. However, according to the flight instructor, the student pilot only conveyed the damage to the tail skid. The flight instructor reported that he told the student to confer with the mechanic and determine if the airplane was airworthy. The student pilot departed and proceeded to the airport where his flight school was based. Shortly after the departure, the airport manager that looked the airplane over for the student pilot, called the flight school and conveyed the gravity of the situation and informed the school that the airplane actually sustained damage to the firewall, tail skid and rudder fairing. The flight instructor did not confer with anyone other than the student pilot to ensure the airplane was airworthy. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fire wall. The student pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with the airplane prior to or during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operation.
Factual narrative
According to the student pilot, during landing on his solo flight the airplane porpoised. He reported that after landing he repositioned the airplane, but prior to takeoff, a fellow pilot, who witnessed the porpoise, contacted him on the VHF radio, and informed him that he should have the airplane checked out before attempting to takeoff. The student pilot taxied to the parking area and the airport manager and airframe and powerplant mechanic inspected the airplane. The student pilot called his flight instructor and conveyed the situation and the level of damage. However, according to the flight instructor, the student pilot only conveyed the damage to the tail skid. The flight instructor reported that he told the student to confer with the mechanic and determine if the airplane was airworthy. The student pilot departed and proceeded to the airport where his flight school was based. Shortly after the departure, the airport manager that looked the airplane over for the student pilot, called the flight school and conveyed the gravity of the situation and informed the school that the airplane actually sustained damage to the firewall, tail skid and rudder fairing. The flight instructor did not confer with anyone other than the student pilot to ensure the airplane was airworthy. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fire wall. The student pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with the airplane prior to or during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operation.
Aircraft
- Registration
- N5275S
- Reported as
- Cessna 172 (S)
- Category
- Airplane
- Serial number
- 172S9203
- Built
- 2002
- Airframe hours
- 9,244
- Engine
- Lycoming IO-360-L2A, 180 horsepower, reciprocating
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Instructional · Part 91
- Operator
- Westwind School of Aeronautics
- Registered owner
- Westwind Aero Group LLC
- Airworthiness certificate
- Standard, Normal; Standard, Utility
- Last inspection
- 100 hour · March 30, 2016
- Departed
- DVT · Phoenix, AZ
- Destination
- PAN · Payson, AZ
- Airport
- PAN · Payson, runway 06, 5,504 × 75 ft, asphalt
- Equipment
- Stall warning system
Matched to the registry by N-number and the event date; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.
Flight crew
As NTSB recorded them. NTSB leaves out names.
- Role
- Student pilot
- Age
- 30
- Injuries
- None
- Certificate
- Student
- Medical
- Class 1, With waivers/limitations
- Seat
- Left
- Restraint
- 3-point
- Flight hours
- 75 total · 75 in this make and model · 4 as pilot in command · 35.2 in the last 90 days · 13.1 in the last 30 days · 1 in the last 24 hours
Weather
- Conditions
- Visual (VMC) · Day
- Wind
- 20° at 9 knots
- Visibility
- 10 statute miles
- Lowest ceiling
- None
- Temperature
- 61 °F, dew point 9 °F
- Altimeter
- 30.37 inHg
- Observed at
- KPAN
Docket · 2
The files NTSB released with the investigation on June 14, 2016, on NTSB’s docket system: statements, records, photos and specialists’ reports. 1.3 MB in all.
FAA reports on this event · 1
The FAA’s own accident and incident reports, matched to the aircraft by N-number and date.
Other investigations on N5275S · 1
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.