Skip to content

Atlas / NTSB / CHI07LA164

NTSB CAROL · Event

Event CHI07LA164

2007-05-07 Chesterfield, Missouri, United States Airport · SUS None 1 aircraft Status: Completed

Registry · N51827

FAA Aircraft Registry record.

Make / Model

CESSNA 172R

Year of manufacture

2002 · 5 years old at event

Engine

LYCOMING IO-360-L2A (180 hp)

Seats / Engines

4 seats · 1 engine

Last airworthiness date

20020415

ADS-B equipped

Yes — Mode-S A681E5

Registrant of record

B D AVIATION LLC

Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).

Aircraft involved

Probable cause & findings

Inadequate flare during landing. The induced oscillation, not performing a go-around, the pilot's lack of experience and the failure to perform remedial action were factors.

Factual narrative

On May 7, 2007, at 1230 central daylight time, a Cessna 172R, N51827, operated by Skyline Aeronautics LLC as a rental/instructional airplane, received substantial damage on impact with terrain during a hard landing on runway 8L (5,000 feet by 75 feet, asphalt) at Spirit of St. Louis Airport (SUS), Chesterfield, Missouri. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The 14 CFR Part 91 solo instructional flight was not operating on a flight plan. The student pilot was uninjured. The local flight originated from SUS. The student pilot stated that he performed 10 touch and go landings at a nearby airport prior to returning to SUS. He was instructed and complied with air traffic control (ATC) instructions to fly a straight-in approach. He stated that the airplane was probably high and too fast, which was usually not a problem for him and elected to land anyway. He stated that he knew he was high based upon the visual approach slope indicator and could of performed a go-around but elected to continue the landing. He felt pressure to land by air traffic control to fly a straight-in approach. During the flare, he "probably dropped the yoke forward slightly," which dropped the nose resulting in the airplane bouncing. The airplane began to porpoise from which he landed after the third bounce. He wasn't sure what was happening, but he did keep the yoke back and that seemed to help. He stated that he didn't know what a porpoise was at the time and how to correct from it. He also stated that there is pressure to follow ATC directions and to clear the airspace as quickly as possible. The airplane sustained firewall damage. The student pilot stated that during a straight-in visual approach, the airplane was high, fast, and above the glide path provided by the visual approach slope indicator. The student pilot stated that he could have performed a go-around but felt pressure by air traffic control to land. He also stated that he felt pressure to comply with air traffic control instructions and to clear the airspace as quickly as possible rather than seek an alternative course of action. During the flare, the nose was lowered and the airplane began to porpoise. He stated that he didn't know what a porpoise was at the time and how to correct from it. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12

Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file NTSB_2007_CHI07LA164.txt. Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb. Full investigation docket on data.ntsb.gov ↗.

Related research

What the literature says.

Academic papers and agency reports matching this event's aircraft type or causal vocabulary (go-around). Sourced from NASA NTRS, NTSB Safety Studies, FAA CAMI, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons, arXiv, and the Semantic Scholar academic graph.

Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗