Narrative:

A student pilot on his first solo flight and landing experienced a loss of directional control and subsequent runway excursion. The student pilot was dispatched on his first solo flight after demonstrating four acceptable landings with an instructor. After an uneventful taxi; run up; and takeoff; the student received his clearance for the option (touch and go; stop and go; low approach; or full stop) on downwind. The instructor had directed the student to make three stop and goes prior to dispatch. From the ground; it appeared the student was making a normal approach and touched down within the first 500 ft of runway. However the aircraft; a C152; landed with no flare; possibly even in a nose low attitude. This caused the aircraft to land with excess airspeed and too much weight on the nose gear; the condition known as 'wheel barrowing'. When a tricycle airplane 'wheelbarrows'; there is a major loss of directional control due to little weight on the two main gear and too much weight on the nose gear. Combined with the excess airspeed from the lack of flare; this caused the student pilot to be unable to correct for a left drift - the student pulled power to idle and added right rudder pressure to counteract the drift; but control could not be obtained. The aircraft exited left of the runway. The instructor attempted to receive a clearance from both ground and tower via radio to proceed to the aircraft but could not obtain contact. The instructor then made the incorrect decision to proceed to the aircraft; approximately 100 ft on the controlled side of the 'do not cross' line. After the event; the instructor contacted tower via cell phone and was strongly reprimanded for the incorrect and unsafe decision. Tower warned the instructor but decided not to file a 'personnel deviation report'. The student pilot had demonstrated in the past a lack of awareness while flying the aircraft. However he had appeared to improve his ability to fly the aircraft by the time of his solo flight. The student had been told many times by his instructor that if any anomalies occur in the landing phase; whether being high; low; fast; or slow on final; bouncing; or ballooning on landing to perform a go-around. The student's decision to attempt to salvage the landing instead of performing a go-around lead to the aircraft exiting the runway. The instructor had never simulated a wheel barrowing condition; and the student's unfamiliarity with the situation played a factor in his incorrect decision making. The runway surface was also wet due to intermittent light rain. While the aircraft did not hydroplane; the wet surface may have played a role in the aircraft's lack of ability to achieve directional control. Had the student flared the aircraft correctly during the landing phase; the situation would have been avoided. After entry into the situation; had the student performed a go-around at the first indication of no directional control; the aircraft would have been able to avoid the runway excursion. Had the instructor ensured that the student would have had the proper reaction to the situation through more simulations of faulty landings; the student may have made the correct decision to perform a go-around.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An Instructor pilot observing his Student pilot's first solo landing reported that the aircraft landed on its nose wheel and eventually drifted off the runway. The Instructor approached the aircraft without ATC's clearance.

Narrative: A student pilot on his first solo flight and landing experienced a loss of directional control and subsequent runway excursion. The Student pilot was dispatched on his first solo flight after demonstrating four acceptable landings with an instructor. After an uneventful taxi; run up; and takeoff; the Student received his clearance for the option (touch and go; stop and go; low approach; or full stop) on downwind. The Instructor had directed the Student to make three stop and goes prior to dispatch. From the ground; it appeared the Student was making a normal approach and touched down within the first 500 FT of runway. However the aircraft; a C152; landed with no flare; possibly even in a nose low attitude. This caused the aircraft to land with excess airspeed and too much weight on the nose gear; the condition known as 'wheel barrowing'. When a tricycle airplane 'wheelbarrows'; there is a major loss of directional control due to little weight on the two main gear and too much weight on the nose gear. Combined with the excess airspeed from the lack of flare; this caused the Student pilot to be unable to correct for a left drift - the Student pulled power to idle and added right rudder pressure to counteract the drift; but control could not be obtained. The aircraft exited left of the runway. The Instructor attempted to receive a clearance from both Ground and Tower via radio to proceed to the aircraft but could not obtain contact. The Instructor then made the incorrect decision to proceed to the aircraft; approximately 100 FT on the controlled side of the 'DO NOT CROSS' line. After the event; the Instructor contacted Tower via cell phone and was strongly reprimanded for the incorrect and unsafe decision. Tower warned the Instructor but decided not to file a 'Personnel Deviation Report'. The Student Pilot had demonstrated in the past a lack of awareness while flying the aircraft. However he had appeared to improve his ability to fly the aircraft by the time of his solo flight. The Student had been told many times by his Instructor that if any anomalies occur in the landing phase; whether being high; low; fast; or slow on final; bouncing; or ballooning on landing to perform a go-around. The Student's decision to attempt to salvage the landing instead of performing a go-around lead to the aircraft exiting the runway. The Instructor had never simulated a wheel barrowing condition; and the Student's unfamiliarity with the situation played a factor in his incorrect decision making. The runway surface was also wet due to intermittent light rain. While the aircraft did not hydroplane; the wet surface may have played a role in the aircraft's lack of ability to achieve directional control. Had the Student flared the aircraft correctly during the landing phase; the situation would have been avoided. After entry into the situation; had the Student performed a go-around at the first indication of no directional control; the aircraft would have been able to avoid the runway excursion. Had the Instructor ensured that the Student would have had the proper reaction to the situation through more simulations of faulty landings; the Student may have made the correct decision to perform a go-around.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.