This is an excerpt from a report made to the Aviation Safety Reporting System. The narrative is written by the pilot, rather than FAA or NTSB officials. To maintain anonymity, many details, such as aircraft model or airport, are often scrubbed from the reports.
In the morning, after discussing with my student and combing through various weather reports to make an appropriate go/no-go decision, I made the determination to send my student for a solo, takeoffs and landings, to a full stop. This was to be her second solo in a 141 program.
According to the ASOS and METAR, weather conditions for the morning were appropriate to a pattern solo — winds variable at 5 knots, 10 sm of visibility, pressure 30.09, density altitude 1,675 feet.
We conducted an analysis of the aircraft’s performance data, located in the “performance and limitations” section of the POH to account for the day’s aircraft performance.
Following that, we filled up the tanks from the local FBO, and proceeded with the aircraft walk around. There were not any items damaged on the plane prior to takeoff and the aircraft was not due for any maintenance.
After that, my student entered the aircraft, and departed for her second solo.
After her run-up was complete at the run-up area, I watched her taxi for the first circuit in the pattern of the day. She was cleared for takeoff, and proceeded to takeoff and make left closed traffic.
I was monitoring her progress on ForeFlight and listening to her radio calls on the tower frequency.
After being cleared to land, she appeared stabilized throughout her descent both on FlightAware (ADS-B), and visually, and made her first of four landings.
She adhered to my instructions, decelerating to a full stop before taxiing back to the runway for full-length departures.
Her second takeoff was also very stable, and once again commenced left closed traffic. On the second circuit in the pattern, she was extended downwind before being cleared for another full stop landing. While she was outside of my direct sightline at this time, in reviewing the ADS-B data, she appears to have initiated a stabilized descent at airspeeds consistent with her training.
About 50 feet over the runway and prior to touchdown, my student states she “hit something and there was a loud thud on the right side of the plane.”
Upon debrief, she states that she believes it was a bird or possible drone strike.
In the moments following the strike, she says was unfocused and continued with her landing instead of proceeding with a go-around procedure. While attempting to regain control, she suffered from a runway excursion, and hit a Runway Distance Remaining sign while departing the runway.
The tower sent assistance, and she was able to get out of the grass and taxi back to the ramp under her own power.
Upon post-flight walk around, there was substantial damage to the aircraft’s left wing, and what appeared to be an impact point of the bird strike on the right side of the cowling.
According to her training, she has logged countless takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds, consistently demonstrating premier procedural knowledge of traffic pattern operations, and radio communications.
During her pre-landing brief, she states to expect the go-around and has previously demonstrated that she will not hesitate to increase the aircraft’s power and initiate a go-around.
My analysis is that while she was stabilized on her final descent, the strike and resulting loud thud redirected her attention and caused her to lose focus during the most critical phase of flight.
Following this accident, we will be conducting three lessons exclusively working on go-arounds and go-around procedures to ensure this does not happen again.
During those lessons, I plan to use all the tools at my disposal to continue simulating real world distractions.
Primary Problem: Ambiguous
ACN: 2020901
Under the same circumstances I would have continued the landing and would not consider a go around, not knowing what had.caused the noise.
From the narrative it appears that the aircraft was still controllable and the approach was stable.
I would land normally, immediately advise the tower of the incident, and continue to taxi clear of the runway unless there was indication of a need to stop the aircraft immediately or the the tower or ground control instructed otherwise.
I can’t fault a student pilot on the second solo flight for deviating from the runway, but a more experienced pilot should be able to continue the
approach to a normal landing
In my opinion, it would be unwise to continue flight unnecessarily in an aircraft that may have sustained unknown damage,
This ASRS report reads more like a relatively-neophyte CFI trying to prove he/she did all the right things in preparing the student pilot…as if the incident will be a poor reflection on their instructor skills.
The student pilot absolutely did the right thing; she’ll have a great “lessons learned” story to share with her own students someday.
Speaking of which: The ASRS report should’ve been written by the student pilot, from her perspective and using her own words…not from the CFI who carefully crafted a narrative designed to deflect blame.
Unplanned bad things happen. How you handle them matters.
Two incidents happens 50 years ago at Ft Worth Spinks airport.
A student pilot on her first solo had a near miss when a twin flew under her. Cessna 150.when sh was at 200 feet. She landed successfully. Her CFI saw the whole thing and had words with the twin pilot.
2nd. The CFI knew I was planning to be a CFI too. He told me about a conversation with a student that went like this…
If you could do 3 landings safely and the same you re ready to solo. But you couldn’t do worse if you closed your eyes.
” I do close my eyes, “she said.
She was the PIC, she made the decision and walked away from it all.
The decision was her sole decision to make.
She made the right decision to land. What if that noise was caused by a serious structural problem?
Adding full power and changing pitch angles could have caused the breakup of the aircraft. I say it was instinct that got her thru that scenario.
I wouldn’t try to suppress her instinct with structured rules sitting on the ground.
After all, each scenario will be different and a pilot (vs a robot) has to make the right decisions, in most cases, the first time, every time.
When USAIR put that Airbus in the Hudson they didn’t have enough airspeed or altitude to go anywhere else, it was a snap decision by an experienced crew. Saved many lives that day. That scenario had Never been practiced in a simulator before because IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN. If it can, it eventually will. So lesson plans can only take you so far. Flexibility and the ability to think and act under pressure and time constraints are the goal.
The inexperienced pilot made the correct decision to continue the landing. The loud bang against the airframe would rattle the most experienced pilot, particularly on short final close to the ground. She maintained control of the aircraft and landed to walk away. She was too green to recall the cardinal rule of airmanship to never stop flying the airplane. Bird hits the windscreen the pilot knows what he is dealing with. After the impact, she had less than a minute or two at most to establish control, check her guages and make the landing and safely walk away. Fly Safe!
She needs an older “salty” CFI to teach her to command the plane, instead of rote AI instruction.
Had a similar scenario when the CFI told my fiance she was ready to solo. Nope, not by a long shot.
Was the bird cleared for take-off? And have you checked if it was OK after the incident?
“According to her training, she has logged countless takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds…”
“Countless” takeoff, and landings? I’m pretty sure you count them all and document them. And then there they are, to read, by other CFIs, etc.
Not knowing what was damaged, or to what degree; I think that since the pilot had the approach established and the runway made the proper decision was to recover from the incident and land the damaged airplane. Her only issue was not properly controlling the aircraft following the incident. Her remedial training needs to focus on properly flying the aircraft during a distraction. Taking an aircraft with unknown damage for another circuit of the pattern has the potential for disaster. She definitely made the correct decision to land. I think the FAA would agree.
Concur. Read the full report.
Also agree with “Jim”.
Note: this was a Piper Cherokee (listed as just PA28 — don’t know which variant)
To make this a bit more clear: Student has hit something and|or something came off the plane. Now the CFI wants them to TOGA (TakeOff|Go Around)? What happens if there is serious damage to a control surface (e.g. flap or an aileron) including it being gone? The pilot (student to ATP) is too low to start trying to look out and check that right wing (this is a low wing aircraft). You may now have control problems that you may not be able to deal with.
Putting that plane on the runway at this point and risking an excursion (such as what happened here) is far better than losing control in the air. This student got the plane back to the FBO.
I only had 1 bird strike in 50 years of flying. Lonesome Dove hit the lower windshield and at about 90 kts (approach speed) the guts quickly oozed their way to the top of the windscreen, making visibility nil. Called for a go around just to settle myself and figure which patch of the windscreen I could use for a peep hole.
All in a days work….
Why exactly do we always include “possible drone strike” now? I must live in the wrong area because I’ve NEVER seen one but every time a pilot has something happen they seem to say “i saw a drone” im not saying this person did, but constantly bringing them up has resulted in the FAA playing with and trying to rule supreme over the evil toy helicopters. Embarrassing. Glad your pilot was ok though.
This narrative seems to strongly imply that a go around would have been appropriate. I strongly disagree.
This student found herself on very short final in a stabilized approach with the runway clearly made. There would be no problem getting on the ground, and considering that there is unknown damage from an unknown cause, the ground would be the very best place to be.
Why take a potentially crippled airplane back into the air?
Yes, she needs to learn not to be distracted and to maintain control, but being spring loaded to a go around is inappropriate.
I think this Instructor believes that a go around is the landings equivalent of an abort on takeoff. I do not agree with that philosophy, I believe the overriding philosophy should be at the safest place to be while in a crippled single engine Airplane is on the ground.
You forgot to brief the bird.