The student pilot was making an approach to the airport at Newcastle, Wyo., in a Cessna 172. When the airplane was about 20 feet above ground level and about 15 feet short of the approach end of the runway, it began to sink.
The airplane came down hard off the runway surface. The nosewheel dug in and the airplane flipped onto its back, resulting in substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer and rudder.
The pilot was not injured.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the student pilot’s failure to attain the proper touchdown point, which resulted in an undershoot of the runway.
NTSB Identification: WPR13CA225
This May 2013 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.
Holy Cow. What are we teaching new students these days. I realize that a predominant number of future pilots are being taught at 90 % federally funded, high rent district, airports with runways over 5000 ft., where one has the liberty to not worry about running off the other end of the runway, and has the freedom to aim 1000 ft. down from the front end. This is definitely NOT the case at many airports or private landing strips with short runways with NO numbers,VASI’s, PAPI’s, etc. I have been instructing since 1960 and first teach my students AIRSPEED CONTROL on final … the type of airspeed control that a Commercial applicant is expected to acquire. In practically all of my conducted Flight Reviews, it is apparent airspeed control is the first thing to go, proficiency-wise. This skill was probably never properly acquired in the first place.
It is true that some paved airports do have a drop-off (lip) at the end, and as an Airport Inspector for some 24 years, that is always fodder for a write-up. ALL pilots should be aware of this and ALWAYS land on the runway surface, but not waste a good part of the runway in accomplishing this. More to say, but I’ll leave it at that.
If indeed this student was aiming for a touchdown near the end of the runway or threshold and that is a technique he/she was taught by a CFI, then the CFI should be held accountable. I assume the airplane’s nose came into contact with the lip of the runway at the end which resulted in the airplane flipping over. Only in rare cases of limited runway length for stopping should the touchdown aim point be near the end of the runway and only an experienced pilot should be attempting such a landing which obviously begs the question: Can a safe takeoff from such a short runway be made? The normal aim point on hard surface runways is 1000 feet beyond the threshold and is generally so marked.
“began to sink” — sounds to me more like improper airspeed control as the cause.
Runway markings have an “aiming point” located 1000′ from the end of the pavement on a hard surface runway. This usually coincides with both the PAPI/VASI and the glideslope if the runway has a precision approach. There is a reason for this….to prevent undershoots! I’ve inspected airports for 30 years and often the very end of the runway consists of either a fairly large lip or lots of broken pavement. Landing short sometimes happens when, in spite of the pilot’s best intentions, the wind “quits” leaving little or no lift resulting in a premature landing.
If a pilot is worried about running off the end of the runway, perhaps he or she needs more training. Slow down on approach and pick your spot (the aiming point) and land there. Landing on the numbers like many of us were taught is a bad idea.
Absolutely guys, It is not how close to the end you can land it’s how precisely you can control and land the airplane. Once when flying as a passenger the pilot drug us into a 5000 ft. strip at nearly full power and 5-6 ft. of altitude. After we were down I questioned why he did that. The answer was that his instructor said to not waste any runway and that we could back taxi to the entry taxiway rather than the midfield turn off.
It is very poor judgement in my opinion to try and hit right at the end of a landing strip. Be sure to MAKE the runway. Over running the runway at a much slower speed will cause you,and the airplane, little damage compared to an approach speed collision when landing short.
I wonder how many dollars it cost the taxpayers for the NTSB to come up with this and some of the other brilliant conclusions they come up with. A ten year old could come up with better conclusions for some of these accidents. I agree with Dan W’s comment.
I wonder how many dollars it cost the taxpayers for the NTSB to come up with this and some of the other brilliant conclusions they come up with. A ten year old could come up with better conclusions for some of these accidents. I agree with Dan W’s comment above.
“The NTSB determined the probable cause as the student pilot’s failure to attain the proper touchdown point, which resulted in an undershoot of the runway.”
This is not helpful. It’s a “like duh” answer. WHY did he fail to make it to the touchdown point? Sounds like he was not properly managing his airspeed, and/or he was trying to extend his glidepath with elevator (classic rookie mistake… we’ve all done it). But I’m just guessing based on limited information… this should have been part of the NTSB investigation.
A more helpful “probable cause” statement would do more to prevent such accidents in the future. The statement provided here does absolutely zilch to advance aviation safety.
I agree completely, and assume that the junior NTSB personnel assigned to this kind of analysis and reporting hate their jobs and would much rather be outside walking through wreckage and leaking body parts while wearing cool official windbreakers.
As all experienced pilots know, unless a wing departs in flight it is always, repeat always, the pilot’s fault.
This is likely another example of the student having been taught by the CFI to “use all the runway when landing.” My two CFI’s used to do the same thing which I couldn’t understand when I was landing a 172 on a 5,000 foot runway? I asked another pilot who has been flying since WWII, with thousands of hours, and he told me he always gave himself some leeway; depending upon the length of the runway and other conditions of course, so that’s what I do.
BJS, You wrote the words that I was thinking when I read the article. If you are flying an airplane that that land in a couple of hundred feet, why not give yourself some wiggle room? I understand the CFI’s reasoning, by there should be a little common sense thrown in for good measure.