Morrilton, AR, USA
N6412G
CESSNA 150K
The noncertificated student pilot's flight instructor had the student pilot performing touch-and go-landings during her first solo flight. During the student pilot's second touch-and-go landing, the airplane veered off the runway and subsequently nosed over while the flight instructor was talking to her over the radio, which likely increased her taskload. Typically, flight instructors have students practice full-stop landings during their first solo flights because such landings allow ample time for correcting any errors and help prevent student pilots from becoming overwhelmed. One flight training reference states that touch-and-go landings should never be performed during a student's first solo flight. The majority of the student pilot's training was in takeoffs and landings, and training logbook entries indicated that she was not in compliance with the minimum regulatory presolo training requirements. Further, during postaccident interviews, the student pilot stated that she did not know what many of the maneuvers she had performed during her flight training were called, which exemplified a lack of a solid and fundamental understanding of these maneuvers. The student pilot only held an airman medical certificate, which the flight instructor had endorsed on the back for the solo flight; she did not hold a student pilot certificate. The airplane was not equipped nor was it required to be equipped with a shoulder harness, which might have mitigated injuries to the student pilot when the airplane impacted terrain and nosed over.
On June 10, 2013, about 0800 central daylight time, a Cessna 150K, N6412G, nosed-over and impacted terrain during landing on runway 27 at Morrilton Municipal Airport (BDQ), Morrilton, Arkansas. The airplane veered off the left side of the runway while the student pilot was attempting a touch-and-go landing during a first solo flight. The flight instructor told the student pilot to perform the touch and go landings instead of full stop landings. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage. The student pilot received minor injuries. The airplane was registered to and operated by the flight instructor under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as an instructional flight that was not operating on a flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local flight that originated from BDQ about 0730.The student pilot stated that she studied Gleim FAA Test Preparation since her first flight and believed that her flight instructor's "diligent" flight training along with the Gleim material prepared her for her first solo. During a telephone interview, the student pilot stated that her flight instructor told her to perform touch-and-go landings for her first student solo flight. She performed one touch-and-go landing and her flight instructor told her over the radio that the landing was "great." She then attempted a second touch-and-go landing, during which the accident occurred. The student pilot stated that she did not remember if her flight instructor was talking to her over the radio during landing rollout. The student pilot said that she never lost consciousness during the accident, and she did not remember what occurred during the accident sequence. She said she received a black eye, blood was running from her nose while the airplane was inverted, and the left side of her face sustained injures. She did not have any broken bones. The student pilot said that the airplane was not equipped with a shoulder harness and that her flight instructor had ensured that the airplane was in good condition. The student pilot said that she will continue flying and wants to continue taking lessons from the flight instructor. The student pilot said her flight instructor is a "great" instructor, and the ground training she received from him was "great." She said that she talked to her flight instructor's students and they were "happy" with the flight instruction they received from him. When the student pilot was asked what maneuvers she performed during her flight training, she said that she did not know what the maneuvers were called. The student pilot said she performed two stalls, one of which was a "major stall," and she did not remember what the configuration of the airplane was when those stalls were performed. She was asked if she had performed ground reference maneuvers during her flight training and said she did not know what a ground reference maneuver was and asked what it was. An example of a turn about a point, such as a tree or road intersection at a lower altitude, was provided and she said that she had not performed that maneuver. She said she performed a simulated engine-out during her flight training. The student pilot was asked if she had performed emergency procedures and she said that they had only discussed emergency procedures. When the student pilot was asked if she performed go-arounds during her flight training, she responded by asking what a go-around was. When a go-around maneuver was described to her, she said she had performed go-arounds. The flight instructor stated that when the airplane landed, he talked to her using a portable radio to tell her the second landing (the accident landing) was "perfect" and to perform one final landing. The student pilot acknowledged "ok," and then the airplane veered off the left side of the runway. Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector revealed that the airplane nosed-over. The flaps were fully retracted, and flight control continuity was confirmed. According to The Flight Instructor's Manual, Third Edition, by William K. Kershner, Shooting Take-and Solo, states, in part, "Never have the student shoot touch-and-go's on the first solo." A review of the student pilot's logbook revealed a total of 14 entries that began on May 13, 2013 and ended on June 10, 2013. The total flight time was 12.5 hours, excluding the accident flight. The fifth entry was dated May 18, 2013, which was preceded by an entry dated May 23, 2013. The May 18, 2013, entry was the first entry that cited takeoff and landings and was followed by eight subsequent entries for takeoff and landings. The logbook entries did not cite all of the pre-solo maneuvers that the student pilot was required to have received instruction under Part 61.87, Solo Requirements for Student Pilots. The maneuvers/procedures in Part 61.87 include: 1. Proper flight preparation procedures, including preflight planning and preparation, powerplant operation, and aircraft systems 2. Taxiing or surface operations, including runups 3. Takeoffs and landings, including normal and crosswind 4. Straight and level flight, and turns in both directions 5. Climbs and climbing turns 6. Airport traffic patterns, including entry and departure procedures 7. Collision avoidance, windshear avoidance, and wake turbulence avoidance 8. Descents, with and without turns, using high and low drag configurations 9. Flight at various airspeeds from cruise to slow flight 10. Stall entries from various flight attitudes and power combinations with recovery initiated at the first indication of a stall, and recovery from a full stall 11. Emergency procedures and equipment malfunctions 12. Ground reference maneuvers 13. Approaches to a landing area with simulated engine malfunctions 14. Slips to a landing 15. Go-arounds According to the FAA inspector, the student pilot was not certificated because she had only applied received a medical certificate, and a student pilot certificate was not issued. The flight endorsed the back of the student pilot's medical certificate for the solo flight. According to the FAA inspector, the flight instructor renewed his flight instructor certificate after he attended a 2-day flight instructor refresher clinic in February 2013. The flight instructor's pilot logbook revealed no entries showing compliance with Part 61.57, Recent Flight Experience: Pilot in command, for three take off landings in the previous 90 days. The flight instructor was unable to provide a flight instructor logbook during review by the FAA inspector. The flight instructor last reported 27,110 hours of total flight time. The total time of instruction given by the flight instructor was unknown because the flight instructor could not produce a flight instructor logbook. In the last two years, he endorsed three airman for a pilot certificate examination and those airman had a 100 percent pass rate. These airman were examined by a designated pilot examiner (DPE), who became inactive on July 24, 2012. The DPE's pass rate could not be determined.
The flight instructor's inadequate training and oversight of the student pilot, which resulted in the noncertificated student pilot's loss of control during landing.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
