N35408Cessna 172R

According to the flight instructor, the student pilot was practicing takeoffs and landings at the time of the accident. He reported that the student pilot completed 4 takeoffs and landings with the tendency to initiate the landing flare “a little early” and the airplane “came down a little harder” than expected. On the following landing, the instructor decided to tell the student when to start the landing flare. The approach was stabilized, but when he instructed the student to begin to flare, the student “pulled back on the yoke hard” which he had not done before. The airplane pitched “way up” and started to drift off the runway. The flight instructor assumed control, but the airplane “landed extremely hard.” The student pilot noted that he pulled back on the control wheel “too quickly and too hard.” They taxied off the runway to inspect the airplane. Observing no obvious damage, they returned to their home airport with no further difficulties. He subsequently reported the event to the flight club chief pilot and mechanic. Neither pilot reported any anomalies with respect to the airplane. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed damage to the lower fuselage aft of the nose landing gear.

The flight instructor of a light single-engine airplane reported that while he and the student pilot were on a taxiway under air traffic control (ATC) instruction, the airplane encountered prop wash, originating from a larger (four engine) turbine-powered airplane performing a maintenance engine(s) run-up. The maintenance run-up was performed in a location adjacent to the active taxiway that was authorized for parking as well as 80% engine(s) power run-ups. The larger turbine-powered airplane was the third in a row a five, of like model airplanes being parked at the location. The light single-engine airplane was not on frequency when the larger turbine-powered airplane was given the clearance, and was not told by ATC at any time during their taxi of the larger turbine-powered airplane's intentions. Subsequently, the light single-engine airplane was blown approximately 80 feet from its original location while taxing behind the larger turbine-powered airplane, which resulted in substantial damage to the firewall.

The flight instructor reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.

As a safety recommendation the flight instructor stated that the incident could have been prevented with better communications between the tower controllers and the larger turbine-powered airplane's ground personnel.