The student pilot was conducting a local, solo flight in the Cessna 150.
He reported that all ground operations were normal and that no water was found in the fuel during the preflight inspection.
He took off with full tanks of fuel. About 40 minutes into the flight and about 1,800 feet mean sea level, he noticed that the airplane was “sluggish” and would not “maintain lift,” but all engine indications were normal, and he noted no sputtering or hesitation.
He applied carburetor heat, and the engine speed dropped by about 300 rpm. Because the airplane continued to fly sluggishly, he turned off the carburetor heat and then decided to conduct a forced landing in a grass field near Matthews, N.C. During the landing, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted.
Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that there were no mechanical issues with the airplane during the flight and that the engine could produce 2,750 rpm (the maximum-rated rpm) at full power. He added that the high ambient temperature of 100°F and the full fuel load may have contributed to the airplane’s sluggishness.
A review of the student’s logbook revealed that he had received only 3.1 hours of dual instruction and 15 hours of solo flight experience and that he did not have an instructor’s endorsement to fly solo. The student’s lack of training and experience likely contributed to his perception that there was a performance problem with the airplane.
Probable cause: The student pilot’s improper decision to conduct a solo flight without an endorsement to do so and to perform an off-airport landing based on a perceived performance issue with the airplane. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s lack of training and overall experience.
NTSB Identification: ERA18LA202
This July 2018 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 am a Private pilot. As I remember you have to have a minimum number of hours to solo. I believe it is 20 hours. Instructor is either not doing his training correctly, or this student has a knows all attitude. Bad combination. The student is going to end up killing someone. My opinion, he still good rpms, he just thought it was sluggish, he should have told control tower and they would have clear for immediate landing. Wonder if he had ground school yet. Required to solo.
I am a pilot and feel qualified to comment. The solo pilot exceeded his authority by soloing without instructor sign off. That was a mistake but does not preclude him from becoming a competent pilot. It is agreed that he may have misinterpreted the aircraft’s performance but he made a decision to effect an emergency landing. That, considering his perception of the problem, was not a bad choice. His landing and nose over are not unusual on an unprepared surface. He was wrong in his evaluation of the problem but he handled the off field landing well.
I hate to say it but without more info I gotta think the Instructor has to take some responsibility for not letting the student know he was not allowed to fly solo without a formal “sign off” in his logbook. Instructors usually know what their students are doing and they monitor their progress closely. Also, who the heck would let a student rent a plane without clearing it with the Instructor… unless the student just took it on himself to get access to a plane without following established protocols.
According to the article “A review of the student’s logbook revealed that he had received only 3.1 hours of dual instruction and 15 hours of solo flight experience and that he did not have an instructor’s endorsement to fly solo.” Your last speculation (…’never having been signed off by his instructor’.) is on the money.
The logbook numbers seem strange. Three hours of dual and 15 solo? That appears to mean he was signed off to solo after only 3.1 hours. OR he has logged 15 hours of solo never having been signed off by his instructor.
It must have been his own plane as no school or FBO would have rented to him unless he was qualified to solo.
According to the article “A review of the student’s logbook revealed that he had received only 3.1 hours of dual instruction and 15 hours of solo flight experience and that he did not have an instructor’s endorsement to fly solo.” Your last speculation (…’never having been signed off by his instructor’.) is on the money.
A. he is not a pilot B. he should never allowed to become one
Really big Amen on that one…