Event DEN05LA055

Factual narrative

On February 2, 2005, approximately 1450 mountain standard time, a Cessna 172N, N618MN, piloted by a commercial certificated flight instructor, was substantially damaged during a hard landing at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (FNL), Loveland, Colorado. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The instructional flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 91 without a flight plan. The flight instructor and his student reported no injuries. The local flight originated at 1430. According to the written statement submitted by the flight instructor, he and his student were performing a touch-and-go landing on runway 15. During the landing flare, the flight instructor requested that the student perform a go-around and the student acknowledged. The instructor stated that the student added full power and "fully and abruptly moved the control yoke to its full forward limit." The instructor stated that he attempted to take control of the airplane; however, the nose gear impacted the runway and the airplane bounced. The instructor stated that he was able to land the airplane, following the bounce. He brought the airplane to a complete stop approximately 15 feet off of the left side of the runway. According to the written statement submitted by the student pilot, he performed what he felt was a "normal landing." He stated that he "held back the yoke"; however, the airplane bounced "slightly above normal" and touched down again. The student stated that upon the application of the brakes, the airplane began to "yaw to the left." The nose landing gear assembly collapsed and the firewall was wrinkled. A postimpact examination of the airplane systems, conducted by the FAA, revealed no anomalies. In two separate telephone interviews, both the flight instructor and the student were asked about the discrepancy between their statements. The flight instructor stated that the accident sequence was as he had stated in his written statement. He felt the student was not remembering approximately 20 seconds of the landing sequence. The student stated that the accident sequence was exactly as he had stated in his written statement. The student also stated that the purpose of the flight was to perform touch-and-go landings, not go-arounds. The student stated that the hard landing was only his third landing. He was unaware of what a go-around procedure was. According to the flight instructor, they were performing a touch-and-go landing. During the landing flare, the flight instructor requested that the student perform a go-around and the student acknowledged. The instructor stated that the student added full power and "fully and abruptly moved the control yoke to its full forward limit." The instructor stated that he attempted to take control of the airplane; however, the nose gear impacted the runway and the airplane bounced. The instructor stated that he was able to land the airplane, following the bounce. He brought the airplane to a complete stop approximately 15 feet off of the left side of the runway. In two separate telephone interviews, both the flight instructor and the student were asked about the discrepancy between their statements. The flight instructor stated that the accident sequence was as he had stated in his written statement. He felt the student was not remembering approximately 20 seconds of the landing sequence. The student stated that the accident sequence was exactly as he had stated in his written statement. The student also stated that the purpose of the flight was to perform touch-and-go landings, not go-arounds. The student stated that the hard landing was only his third landing. He was unaware of what a go-around procedure was. The airplane was substantially damaged. A postimpact examination of the airplane systems revealed no anomalies. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12