This August 2008 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.
Aircraft: Evektor Sportstar. Injuries: None. Location: St. Charles, Mo. Aircraft damage: Substantial.
What reportedly happened: The student pilot had logged 40 hours, with approximately 25 hours in the same make and model as the accident airplane. He was attempting to take off. The lift off was normal, then about 75 to 100 feet above the runway, the plane pitched down sharply. The student pilot had to pull back on the control stick to maintain control. He continued to have difficulty with pitch control as he maneuvered the plane back to land at the airport. He was unable to simultaneously reduce engine power and maintain control of the airplane. During the landing the airplane touched down hard at a higher-than-normal airspeed with the engine still operating near full power. The student pilot lost directional control of the airplane. The airplane veered to the left off the runway, then nosed over in the grass. The post-accident investigation revealed the pitch trim was in the full nose-down position. The student pilot said he didn’t even think about the elevator trim and it was possible that he had taken off with the elevator trim at the wrong setting.
Probable cause: The student pilot’s failure to maintain control due to his task saturation as a result of his failure to set the pitch trim to the neutral position before takeoff.
Probable cause: NTSB.gov
Subject: Aircraft accident, St. Charles, Mo. August 5, 2008 # DFW08LA209
In my view, yet another “classic example” of “incompetent flight instruction”!
After reading the above report, I see no evidence that the NTSB made a “very stringent recommendation” to the FAA to revoke or suspend the Flight Instructor’s Certificate, of the individual who taught this student. Any student who is so incompetent, by 40 hours of flight training, (as determined by the Flight Instructor or Chief Pilot) he cannot use and follow a check-list, needs to be terminated as a student and never again be permitted to hold a student license again. Reasoning: Incompetent students become dangerous pilots. Metaphor: Stop the accident before it can happen!
If then, the fault was not that the student “couldn’t learn” and follow simple directions and a checklist, then the fault lies with the “complete and utter lack” of the necessary instruction to enable that student to be competent enough to perform the duties of a pilot!
(That is the intent of solo)
In my 45 years as a Flight Instructor, I have never had any difficulty in instructing the “competent use” of a checklist, nor the “proper use and setting” of trim, as in this case!
Since it had been six weeks since the student’s last flight, a “review of competency” would have been necessary and required by the Flight Instructor.
It is only on that basis that a student should be again permitted to solo. Therefore, it was the Flight Instructor, who used “egregiously poor judgement” in permitting such a flight.
The responsibility therefore rests entirely with the Flight Instructor and in this case he should be judged “completely incompetent” to give flight instruction, until such time as a “complete re-certification” can be accomplished by the associated FAA Flight Standards District Office and a “determination of competency” reached. This could have easily been another “fatal”, which all of us in the aviation industry doesn’t need.
Probable cause: Stupid CFI