N99HVCessna 172S · 2005

On November 20, 2020, about 1450 central standard time, a Cessna 172S airplane, N99HV, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Lawrence, Kansas. The student pilot was not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight.

According to the student pilot, he planned a solo flight. The instructor checked out the airplane from the flight school and passed it off to the student. The instructor indicated that although he would be with another student, he would still be available on the radio if the student needed anything.

The student pilot reported that he didn't notice anything unusual during the pre-fight inspection and proceeded through the checklist for obtaining weather and runway information. The student pilot added that that he finished the engine runup and magneto checks and manipulated the control yoke through its full range of motion.

The student pilot reported that during the first takeoff the nose pitched up and the airplane climbed much faster than expected, which he attributed to the weight difference from flying solo rather than with an instructor in the airplane. He added that it felt like he had to apply a lot of forward pressure on the yoke to keep the nose down, more than he was used to. He double checked the trim wheel, adding that it felt like it was out of trim, but the wheel was where he set it during the pre-flight.

The student pilot stayed in the traffic pattern and on final he reduced the throttle and prepared to land. He stated he was centered on the runway and pulled back on the yoke for the flare. The yoke suddenly came back, and the nose pitched very high. The student pilot added that he didn't expect this sudden pitch change and prepared to add full throttle for a go-around when the airplane stalled and landed hard.

After landing the student pilot moved the yoke through the full range forward and backward to check the functionality. He stated that he did not notice the same "pop" forward and backward like he did during the previous landing, so he taxied back for another takeoff. He stated that during the initial climb there was a noticeable change in the yoke pressure, and it was difficult to apply enough forward pressure to keep the nose down.

He then turned from base to final and lined up for the landing. The student pilot again reported that it was very difficult to control the pitch and airspeed and the yoke seemed to push either forward or backward over some type of "stuck" point, so he selected full flaps on final. After he initiated the landing flare, there was again a noticeable "snap" back of an inch or two of the yoke. The main gear landed first, however; the nose wheel came down very fast. The student pilot reported that the yoke was as far back as it he could hold it, but the airplane didn't seem to respond to the control input.

An initial inspection of the airplane noted damage to the airplane’s nose gear and substantial damage to the firewall and fuselage.

An additional examination of the airplane found damage to the forward fuselage structure. Elevator control movement was limited and there was impact damage to the airplane’s tunnel structure and control yoke guides, which jammed the elevator controls. Additional damage was found to the airplane’s landing gear which included the nose gear being tilted 15-degrees. There were no abnormities that would indicate the damage was present before the student’s hard landings.

The flight instructor reported that, during a simulated engine failure in the traffic pattern, with gusting wind conditions, the student pilot entered a forward slip on final approach. He added, that 10 to 20 ft. above the runway surface, "the wind gust we were riding suddenly halted wherein the aircraft began a rapid downward descent." The flight instructor reported that he "went for the flight controls to take command," but the student pilot at that same time applied back pressure on the flight controls. Subsequently, the airplane touched down hard, bounced back into the air, and the flight instructor performed a go-around. The flight instructor completed the subsequent traffic pattern and landing without further incident.

The engine mounts and firewall sustained substantial damage.

The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.

An automated weather observation station at the accident airport, about the time of the accident, reported the wind from 170° at 16 knots, gusting to 24 knots. The flight instructor reported that the landing was on runway 15.

On the student pilot’s second solo landing of the day, he realized that the airplane was too high and fast; however, he elected to continue the approach. On touchdown the airplane landed nosewheel first, bounced back into the air, and then settled back to the runway. The student pilot was able to taxi the airplane to the ramp. An examination of the airplane following the accident revealed that the airplane’s firewall sustained substantial damage during the hard landing. The student pilot reported no pre-impact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.

The student pilot was practicing touch and go landings. During the first approach she felt her approach was too high, so she pitched down slightly, leveled off, and landed on the main landing gear. After landing the airplane porpoised twice and then landed flat and hard. The pilot taxied back to the hangar and had the airplane examined for damage. None was found, so she took off again and continued her training. Sometime after the flight the firewall was found buckled. The student pilot's recommendation for preventing the accident was to add power and go around.