ERA24LA188

Factual narrative

The student pilot and flight instructor initially flew together on the day of the accident with the intention of practicing pattern work and landings, with the possibility of the student pilot performing her first solo flight given that the conditions were favorable. The student pilot first performed three circuits of the traffic pattern, with the instructor in the airplane, without incident. The flight instructor characterized that the student’s landings were “good,” and her patterns were consistent. The windsocks at the approach end of the runway were limp, indicating low wind. After the third landing, the flight instructor endorsed the student for solo flight and her first solo landing was uneventful. The student pilot described that when she was coming in for her second solo landing, she heard other pilots calling in over the radio saying they were on final approach to land, and she wanted to get out of the way as soon as possible. Also, during her landing, the precision approach path indicator was not on, and she had difficulty with her depth perception. She realized that she was too high and fast coming in on short final. The airplane then struck the runway and porpoised 4-times. She was subsequently unable to steer the airplane using the rudder pedals and the airplane was towed back to the ramp. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the fuselage was substantially damaged. The operator reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.

• — Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Student/instructed pilot
• — Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Landing flare-Not attained/maintained