The pilot under instruction was flying a practice power-off 180° maneuver from the downwind leg at the airport in Sanford, Florida.
The flight instructor stated that on final approach the Cessna 172’s airspeed was slow and the flight path was low.
He stated that since the purpose of the flight was to evaluate the student’s piloting skills, he allowed the approach to proceed and did not tell the student to add power or go-around.
The airplane landed firmly at the runway threshold and the horizontal stabilizer hit a runway threshold light.
Post-accident examination revealed that the horizontal stabilizer sustained substantial damage.
The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation and that a go-around maneuver should have been initiated when the approach became unstable.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s unstable approach, which resulted in a hard landing and impact with a runway threshold light. Also causal was the flight instructor’s failure to take remedial action to prevent the hard landing.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This October 2022 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
I’ll assume that the left seat pilot , 84 hrs pic, was testing for a commercial rating. he should have been doing the pwr off 180s , unless this was his first one. [?]
The instructor should have known the capabilities of the pilot, but didn’t interfere until it was too late.
I’m surprised that the 7 lb runway light only did minor damage to the .032 leading edge and some ribs…not cheap, but repairable, unless the main spar is damaged.
Mistakes happen. I don’t think that any actions should be taken against either, or a 709 ride.
Sometimes s$%t just happens.
My goodness, the draconian penalties some espouse! All must be perfect pilots who have never made a mistake.
I agree that both the pilot and the CFI are responsible. But not criminally responsible. Maybe a 709 ride would be appropriate after some remedial training.
James Brian Potter, the person who espoused draconian penalties (charges, fines and imprisonment), is not a pilot nor aircraft owner by his own admission.
I feel bad for the instructor….but his fault. I was going to become a scuba diving instructor which required a lot of time, effort and money. All I needed to do was to take one last test. Before taking the test there was another instructor who had just received his license and took his first group of students (7 max in class) on an open water dive. One of the students neglected to disclose that he had asthma. While diving the student had an attack and ended up dying. I then decided right then that I didn’t want to become an instructor after all.
The lack of a frangible light fixture, as specified in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5220-23A, is indeed a concern for airfield safety. My thorough, investigation to determine the cause and ensure compliance with all safety standards.
Hmm. I thought it was one of those new rubber aircraft.
The essence of good instruction is to know when the mistake has gone far enough. I’m not a big believer in letting things get too far. It is often fairly obvious when the maneuver is going awry and that’s the time to take action. Flight instruction should never be a collection of “gothchas”.
“I recommend a new enforcement mechanism wherein incompetent CFIs AND POTENTIALLY UNDER-TRAINED STUDENTS be brought-up on charges, have their licenses and certs temporarily suspended pending the outcome of their cases.”
What a chilling effect on the growth of GA this would be. Imagine if anyone thinking of learning to fly had to worry about being brought up on charges and potentially face fines and/or imprisonment whenever an incident occurred during training, as JBP suggests.
Being in the airport lighting business for 40 yrs, and very knowledgeable about frangibility of elevated light fixtures, it would be interesting to see the type of threshold fitting that was hit and if the fixture was mounted on a frangible coupling, as required by FAA. The damage seems excessive for impacting one threshold fitting…
Like every other sub-group in society (e.g., medicine, accounting, skilled trades, ham radio, et.al.,) the few bad apples cast doubt and derision on the whole barrel. From home-built hobbyists to commercial operations, the vast majority of the GA community are responsible safety-conscious persons who know and respect the regulations and behave accordingly. It’s the moronic airplane cowboys who sully the image of the vast majority in the public eye.
Decades ago, in recognition of the same problem, governments at all levels passed laws with teeth against reckless and irresponsible driving, particularly DUI and DWI. On the commercial side, the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) removed the toothless old drunks from behind the wheel of the 18-wheelers and turned that occupation into a profession. Big truck accidents have since diminished to the vanishing point. The insurance companies helped and championed the movement.
While the FAA promulgates thoughtful rules and regulations and the NTSB investigates accidents yielding analyses having excruciating detail, where is the toothy enforcement mechanism to get the incompetent unworthy idiots out of the cockpits? The story above typifies stories we read day-after-day on this news service wherein student pilots with too few hours of experience are allowed to ‘learn the hard way’ about novice aviation while the CFI sits in the right seat declining to grab the controls and save the day. The ones who survive such landings are lucky they lived, with no credit to the idling CFI.
I recommend a new enforcement mechanism wherein incompetent CFIs and potentially under-trained students be brought-up on charges, have their licenses and certs temporarily suspended pending the outcome of their cases. And when found guilty of gross negligence, have a range of penalties ranging from permanent credential revocation to fines to imprisonment or all three. In a word: Teeth. Let’s clean-up GA the way it was done for highway driving and get the dangerous incompetents grounded.
If you’re one of those GA cowboys who, like real cowboys of yesteryear, ride the range singing ‘Don’t Fence Me In,’ disregarding everyone else’s rights and safety, the I have no sympathy for you when you and your expensive flying machine turn into a charcoal cinder in a smoking wreck on the ground. My sympathies lie with your friends and family left in your careless wake; death and property damage to innocents at your impact site, plus the soaring insurance rates for everyone else.
One man’s opinion, let’s hear yours, GA pilots!
Regards/J
peepul like you scare people like me
You’re kidding, right?
“I recommend a new enforcement mechanism wherein incompetent CFIs and potentially under-trained students be brought-up on charges, have their licenses and certs temporarily suspended pending the outcome of their cases”. “And when found guilty of gross negligence, have a range of penalties ranging from permanent credential revocation to fines to imprisonment or all three.”
Well, that’s a fantastic idea! Yes, let’s fill the prisons with with $25/hour CFIs who can’t make a perfect wheel landing or a soft-field takeoff! The world is full of unintentional incompetence and yet you want people brought up on charges when they make unintentional mistakes? And you want that while career criminals with 25 prior arrests routinely get their charges dismissed because the justice system already is overloaded?
Do you not hear yourself?
Hi, looks like a 300 hr. CFI wonder.
Here we go again. Instructors failing to “take over” when they see (not realized) that something is not right and still let the “student” fly the aircraft! Instructors like this guy should have is “Instructor’s certification revoke, no excuses for not taking over when needed! How many times has he done this before and everything turned out “ok” and he thought this time will be “ok” to? Time for him to “hang up” his certification. This could have turned out deadly for one or both!
I definitely do not want to even fly with him. If he does this? Well else does he do to take chances?
What about the “student pilot” ? How will this effect him? Poor instructions, poor pilot to be! Definitely get another Instructor and quick!
The pilot had 84 hrs as pic, so not a student. If this was the first time that he tried a power-off 180, the instructor should have demonstrated the maneuver first.
And, the instructor should have told the pilot what corrections to make early in the pattern.
So, not a crisis action.
This is like a car driver failing to make a turn onto another road, and sliding into the ditch.
Would JBP send him off to jail and revoke his DL.??? I don;t think so.!