# NTSB GAA16CA386: Cessna 172, N128RM, Chesterfield, MO, July 18, 2016

- Type: NTSB accident investigation
- Classification: Accident · No injuries · Data collection · Final report
- Date: July 18, 2016, 15:00 local (20:00 UTC)
- Place: Chesterfield, MO
- Coordinates: 38.660278, -90.645835 (estimated)
- Nearby events: https://openairdocs.org/map.md?lat=38.6603&lon=-90.6458&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 December 5, 2016
- Report: Approved by Office Director
- NTSB office: General Aviation Accidents
- Parties: FAA
- NTSB case key (mKey): 93674
- NTSB case page: https://web.ntsb.gov/investigations/?ntsbnumber=GAA16CA386
- NTSB report (PDF, downloads): https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/93674/pdf
- NTSB docket: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=93674
- Page: https://openairdocs.org/ntsb/GAA16CA386

## Probable cause

The student pilot's improper pitch control during the landing flare, which resulted in a porpoise and substantial damage to the firewall.

## Findings

NTSB's coded findings; those marked are part of the probable cause.

- [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 172S, 206 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02063040/cases.md?model=2072439), [All aircraft, 9,295 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02063040/cases.md)
- [Performance/control parameters: pitch control](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/01062022): Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability · Not attained/maintained (probable cause); cases with it: [Cessna 172S, 26 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/01062022/cases.md?model=2072439), [All aircraft, 526 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/01062022/cases.md)

## Sequence of events

The events NTSB coded, in order, by phase of flight. The defining event best describes what happened.

- [Landing-flare/touchdown: Abnormal runway contact](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/090) (defining event); cases with it: [Cessna 172S, 77 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/090/sequence.md?model=2072439), [All aircraft, 1,506 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/090/sequence.md)

## Analysis

The student pilot reported that on the second landing during her first solo flight, the airplane porpoised. On the second bounce the nose wheel impacted first, which resulted in substantial damage to the firewall. The student pilot reported that she taxied the airplane to the tie down area without further incident. According to the student pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. The Federal Aviation Administration has published the Airplane Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-3A (2004). This handbook discusses porpoising and states in part: In a bounced landing that is improperly recovered, the airplane comes in nose first setting off a series of motions that imitate the jumps and dives of a porpoise—hence the name. The problem is improper airplane attitude at touchdown, sometimes caused by inattention, not knowing where the ground is, mistrimming or forcing the airplane onto the runway. Ground effect decreases elevator control effectiveness and increases the effort required to raise the nose. Not enough elevator or stabilator trim can result in a nose low contact with the runway and a porpoise develops. Porpoising can also be caused by improper airspeed control. Usually, if an approach is too fast, the airplane floats and the pilot tries to force it on the runway when the airplane still wants to fly. A gust of wind, a bump in the runway, or even a slight tug on the control wheel will send the air plane aloft again. The corrective action for a porpoise is the same as for a bounce and similarly depends on its severity. When it is very slight and there is no extreme change in the airplane's pitch attitude, a follow-up landing may be executed by applying sufficient power to cushion the subsequent touchdown, and smoothly adjusting the pitch to the proper touchdown attitude.

## Factual narrative

The student pilot reported that on the second landing during her first solo flight, the airplane porpoised. On the second bounce the nose wheel impacted first, which resulted in substantial damage to the firewall. The student pilot reported that she taxied the airplane to the tie down area without further incident. According to the student pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. The Federal Aviation Administration has published the Airplane Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-3A (2004). This handbook discusses porpoising and states in part: In a bounced landing that is improperly recovered, the airplane comes in nose first setting off a series of motions that imitate the jumps and dives of a porpoise—hence the name. The problem is improper airplane attitude at touchdown, sometimes caused by inattention, not knowing where the ground is, mistrimming or forcing the airplane onto the runway. Ground effect decreases elevator control effectiveness and increases the effort required to raise the nose. Not enough elevator or stabilator trim can result in a nose low contact with the runway and a porpoise develops. Porpoising can also be caused by improper airspeed control. Usually, if an approach is too fast, the airplane floats and the pilot tries to force it on the runway when the airplane still wants to fly. A gust of wind, a bump in the runway, or even a slight tug on the control wheel will send the air plane aloft again. The corrective action for a porpoise is the same as for a bounce and similarly depends on its severity. When it is very slight and there is no extreme change in the airplane's pitch attitude, a follow-up landing may be executed by applying sufficient power to cushion the subsequent touchdown, and smoothly adjusting the pitch to the proper touchdown attitude.

## Aircraft

- Registration: [N128RM](https://openairdocs.org/deregistered/N128RM-2018-05-30), registration cancelled 2018-05-30, S/N 172S8937, built 2001 (OpenAirDocs)
- Reported make and model: CESSNA 172 (S)
- Registry model: [Cessna 172S](https://openairdocs.org/model/cessna-172s) (registry code 2072439) (OpenAirDocs)
- Registry engine: [Lycoming I0360 SER A&C](https://openairdocs.org/engine/lycoming-i0360-ser-a-c) (registry code 41511, reciprocating) (OpenAirDocs)
- Category: Airplane
- Serial number: 172S8937
- Year built: 2001
- Airframe hours: 7944
- Engines: LYCOMING IO-360-L2A 180 horsepower reciprocating
- Damage: Substantial damage
- Flight: Instructional, Part 91
- Operator: T&C Aviation, doing business as Air Associates of Missouri
- Registered owner: Tmc Aviation LLC.
- Airworthiness certificate: Standard, Normal
- Last inspection: Annual, June 10, 2016
- Departed: SUS, Chesterfield, MO
- Destination: SUS, Chesterfield, MO
- Airport: SUS, Spirit Of St Louis, runway 26R, 5,000 × 75 ft, asphalt
- Equipment: Stall warning system

## Flight crew

As NTSB recorded them. NTSB leaves out names.

- Student pilot; age 19; injuries: none; student; medical: class 2, with waivers/limitations; seat: left; restraint: 3-point; flight hours: 31.7 total, 31.7 in this make and model, 0.5 as pilot in command, 31.7 in the last 90 days, 17.8 in the last 30 days, 0.5 in the last 24 hours

## Weather

- Conditions: Visual (VMC), Day
- Wind: 190° at 4 knots
- Visibility: 8 statute miles
- Temperature: 91 °F, dew point 77 °F
- Altimeter: 30.13 inHg
- Observed at: KSUS, 1 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 20160718011219A](https://openairdocs.org/incident/20160718011219A), Jul 18, 2016: Cessna 172S, Chesterfield, MO, Substantial damage. The student was on first solo flight and she had made one solo traffic pattern, then on the second landing the aircraft ballooned with the flare, the student…

## Docket (3 files)

The files NTSB released with the investigation on October 19, 2016, on NTSB's docket system: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=93674. 1.4 MB in all.

- Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident Report, NTSB Form 6120.1 (item 1, .PDF, 1.0 MB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40445520&FileExtension=.PDF&FileName=Pilot%2FOperator%20Aircraft%20Accident%20Report,%20NTSB%20Form%206120.1-Master.PDF
- Student Pilot Statement (item 2, .PDF, 231 KB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40445521&FileExtension=.PDF&FileName=Student%20Pilot%20Statement-Master.PDF
- Accident Photo (Courtesy of FAA) (item 3, .PDF, 1 photo, 134 KB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40445522&FileExtension=.PDF&FileName=Accident%20Photo%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.