Rio Vista, CA, USA
N68475
Cessna 152
The student pilot bounced the airplane during touchdown, lost direction control, veered off the runway, and nosed over. During the approach, the pilot realized that the crosswind was very strong, which made control difficult, and he decided to execute a go around. On the second approach attempt, he decreased the airplane's airspeed to approximately 60 knots, and still found the crosswind to be very strong, making the airplane difficult to control. Shortly thereafter, the airplane made contact with the runway and bounced four times. The student pilot lost directional control of the airplane and it veered off the side of the runway onto the grass median and nosed over. During the preflight briefing with his CFI, the instructor told the student pilot to divert to another airport if he could not make the landing into Rio Vista, California. The pilot stated that the airplane and engine had no mechanical failures or malfunctions during the flight.
On July 18, 2005, about 0910 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 152, N68475, bounced upon touchdown at the Rio Vista Municipal Airport (O88), Rio Vista, California. During the subsequent rollout, the airplane veered off the side of the runway onto the grass and nosed over. California In Nice, Inc., was operating the airplane under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The student pilot was not injured; the airplane sustained substantial damage. The initial solo cross-country flight departed Reid-Hillview Airport (RHV), San Jose, California, about 0830 with planned intermediate destinations of Rio Vista, the Oakdale Airport (O27), Oakdale, California, and a final destination of San Jose, California. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a visual flight rules (VFR) flight plan had been filed. In a written statement, the student pilot stated that he obtained a standard weather briefing and filed a flight plan with the Flight Service Station (FSS) before the flight. From the briefing, he learned that there was a Notice To Airmen (NOTAM) issued for Rio Vista pertaining to the closing of runways 7 and 25. The student pilot reported that upon arrival to Rio Vista, he made a radio call in an attempt to obtain a traffic advisory; however, he did not receive a response. He then flew over the field at 2,200 feet to identify the wind direction by checking the windsock. He determined that the windsock was indicating a crosswind condition for runways 14 and 32, and decided to land on runway 32. While on approach to runway 32, he realized that the winds were very strong, which made it difficult to land, and decided to execute a go-around. On the second approach attempt, the student pilot decreased the airplane's airspeed to approximately 60 knots, and still found the winds to be very strong making the aircraft difficult to control. Shortly thereafter, the airplane made contact with the runway, bounced four times, and the student pilot lost control of the airplane. During the rollout, the airplane veered off the side of the runway onto the grass and nosed over. The resulting damage was to the nose wheel, propeller, engine, and firewall. In his statement, the student pilot also reported that he talked to an airport employee following the accident who notified him that runways 7 and 25 had reopened; therefore making the NOTAM he received in his weather briefing outdated. He felt that if he had received the correct information, he would have used the correct runway given the wind conditions, and the landing would have been successful. The student pilot stated that the airplane and engine had no mechanical failures or malfunctions during the flight. In a telephone conversation, the student pilot's certified flight instructor (CFI) reported that he gave the student pilot a preflight briefing. They discussed his planned route of flight, and the information that he received from the standard weather briefing. In the weather briefing, the student pilot was told that Rio Vista reported that the winds were calm, and that a NOTAM was issued pertaining to the closure of runways 7 and 25. During their discussion of the NOTAM, the CFI told the student pilot to divert to Oakdale if he could not make the landing into Rio Vista, California.
the student pilot's inadequate recovery from a bounced landing and his failure to maintain directional control of the airplane during landing rollout. A contributing factor was the student's failure to divert to an airport with less severe crosswind conditions.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
