PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Flight Crew Student
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 19; Flight Crew Total 144; Flight Crew Type 6
Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Weather; Human Factors; Procedure
During an authorized long distance cross-country student solo flight; attempted landing at ZZZ on runway 18. Wind was >10 knots with gusts from 260 degrees. Had 25 degrees flaps. As the plane was about to touch down; a wind gust blew plane from right to left and past the edge of the runway. Was unable to maintain alignment with the runway. Executed a go-around and as power was brought in; the nose began to raise up slightly and as such the tail lowered. The left endcap of the stabilator struck a runway light. The impact was felt in the yoke. Remained in the pattern; and landed on runway 18. Had the plane refueled. Inspected the plane for damage. The left plastic stabilator endcap had a hole in it on the leading edge.Filled out an incident report at the airport terminal to report the damage to the runway light. An aircraft mechanic was available to effect a repair by fabricating and attaching a sheet metal patch. The plane was inspected for additional damage; none was found. Upon completion of the temporary repair; the plane was returned to service. The mechanic did not provide documentation for the repair other than a description on the cash receipt. I was ignorant of the fact that this is improper maintenance record keeping and subsequently learned that the aircraft should not have been placed back in service without proper documentation. The details described in this report were reported to the FBO/owner of the aircraft upon return two days later.The incident could have been avoided by selecting another airport prior to the flight when it was learned from a NOTAM that [other] runways [at ZZZ] were closed. The airport was chosen specifically because it offered multiple runways. This fact was missed because of fixated focus on local weather for making the go/no go decision for the flight and was not noted and added to the plan of flight. The fuel burn rate was over-estimated and there was more than adequate fuel available to have deviated from the plan of flight to another airport. The cross wind component was at the margin of my skill level and surpassed by the gusts; so upon listening to AWOS another opportunity to deviate was missed. The FAR requirements for signed documentation for returning an aircraft to service following a repair should have been known (43.9; 91.407).
A PA28 Student Pilot reported that after damaging the aircraft during a go-around; the repair made by a local mechanic did not have the proper documentation.