Narrative:

I was practicing lndgs with a student at mckinney airport, runway 17. We had a good 1.5 hours of training and I decided to take my student back in the pattern. He had been having various problems with the landing phase, including pitch attitude and the flare. He had been doing well with his pitch in the previous attempts, and I had felt it was time to move on to the flares. We had gotten past the point in this part of the landing where I was helping him with the yoke and I was talking him through it. On our third landing, my student developed a high glide path on final, and I instructed him that in order to maintain airspeed he would have to lower the nose more in order to keep from stalling. Over the threshold, he pitched forward very excessively and progressively down through ground effect. I put back pressure in to prevent a 'wheelbarrow' landing. Because of the excessive airspeed and amount of back pressure, the plane bounced back up above the runway about half of a wingspan. We did have sufficient airspeed to attempt another flare, so I guided him through another, talking him through it. My student abruptly put the plane in about a 10 degree pitch, bringing us behind the power curve causing it to sink rapidly. As we sank through ground effect he brought the nose up even further, increasing our descent. I repeatedly called for power and 'full power' as we did so, the student did not respond. I then called 'my plane' and was able to apply full power just as the aircraft hit the ground. The plane's windshield collapsed on us (there was a crack that was substantial that we found in the windshield) and the right main gear suffered damage from the impact on the ground. Contributing factors/judgements/decisionsecond officerther factors: the student was 65 yrs old and had delayed reaction time, the student did not pass his eyesight portion of his medical, the day after (pitch and flare attitudes), the effective use of full power, instead of 'go around', reaction time by the instructor in taking plane -- instructor putting too much faith in student. Should a medical be required before starting flight training? In conclusion I believe that risks are included in teaching anyone to fly and land. By assuming a training level by just evaluating previous lessons and trials, you can never be too right on the perceptions of a student. Corrective actions were taken as far as my standardization. I received recurrent training on aborting lndgs and going around, which was no problem. My student and I have discussed and trained exclusively now on go around decisions and landing characteristics.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C172 TRAINING FLT ENDS WITH A HARD LNDG WHICH DAMAGES THE ACFT AT TKI, TX.

Narrative: I WAS PRACTICING LNDGS WITH A STUDENT AT MCKINNEY ARPT, RWY 17. WE HAD A GOOD 1.5 HRS OF TRAINING AND I DECIDED TO TAKE MY STUDENT BACK IN THE PATTERN. HE HAD BEEN HAVING VARIOUS PROBS WITH THE LNDG PHASE, INCLUDING PITCH ATTITUDE AND THE FLARE. HE HAD BEEN DOING WELL WITH HIS PITCH IN THE PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS, AND I HAD FELT IT WAS TIME TO MOVE ON TO THE FLARES. WE HAD GOTTEN PAST THE POINT IN THIS PART OF THE LNDG WHERE I WAS HELPING HIM WITH THE YOKE AND I WAS TALKING HIM THROUGH IT. ON OUR THIRD LNDG, MY STUDENT DEVELOPED A HIGH GLIDE PATH ON FINAL, AND I INSTRUCTED HIM THAT IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN AIRSPD HE WOULD HAVE TO LOWER THE NOSE MORE IN ORDER TO KEEP FROM STALLING. OVER THE THRESHOLD, HE PITCHED FORWARD VERY EXCESSIVELY AND PROGRESSIVELY DOWN THROUGH GND EFFECT. I PUT BACK PRESSURE IN TO PREVENT A 'WHEELBARROW' LNDG. BECAUSE OF THE EXCESSIVE AIRSPD AND AMOUNT OF BACK PRESSURE, THE PLANE BOUNCED BACK UP ABOVE THE RWY ABOUT HALF OF A WINGSPAN. WE DID HAVE SUFFICIENT AIRSPD TO ATTEMPT ANOTHER FLARE, SO I GUIDED HIM THROUGH ANOTHER, TALKING HIM THROUGH IT. MY STUDENT ABRUPTLY PUT THE PLANE IN ABOUT A 10 DEG PITCH, BRINGING US BEHIND THE PWR CURVE CAUSING IT TO SINK RAPIDLY. AS WE SANK THROUGH GND EFFECT HE BROUGHT THE NOSE UP EVEN FURTHER, INCREASING OUR DSCNT. I REPEATEDLY CALLED FOR PWR AND 'FULL PWR' AS WE DID SO, THE STUDENT DID NOT RESPOND. I THEN CALLED 'MY PLANE' AND WAS ABLE TO APPLY FULL PWR JUST AS THE ACFT HIT THE GND. THE PLANE'S WINDSHIELD COLLAPSED ON US (THERE WAS A CRACK THAT WAS SUBSTANTIAL THAT WE FOUND IN THE WINDSHIELD) AND THE R MAIN GEAR SUFFERED DAMAGE FROM THE IMPACT ON THE GND. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS/JUDGEMENTS/DECISIONS/OTHER FACTORS: THE STUDENT WAS 65 YRS OLD AND HAD DELAYED REACTION TIME, THE STUDENT DID NOT PASS HIS EYESIGHT PORTION OF HIS MEDICAL, THE DAY AFTER (PITCH AND FLARE ATTITUDES), THE EFFECTIVE USE OF FULL PWR, INSTEAD OF 'GAR', REACTION TIME BY THE INSTRUCTOR IN TAKING PLANE -- INSTRUCTOR PUTTING TOO MUCH FAITH IN STUDENT. SHOULD A MEDICAL BE REQUIRED BEFORE STARTING FLT TRAINING? IN CONCLUSION I BELIEVE THAT RISKS ARE INCLUDED IN TEACHING ANYONE TO FLY AND LAND. BY ASSUMING A TRAINING LEVEL BY JUST EVALUATING PREVIOUS LESSONS AND TRIALS, YOU CAN NEVER BE TOO RIGHT ON THE PERCEPTIONS OF A STUDENT. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WERE TAKEN AS FAR AS MY STANDARDIZATION. I RECEIVED RECURRENT TRAINING ON ABORTING LNDGS AND GOING AROUND, WHICH WAS NO PROB. MY STUDENT AND I HAVE DISCUSSED AND TRAINED EXCLUSIVELY NOW ON GO AROUND DECISIONS AND LNDG CHARACTERISTICS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.