Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight Crew Student
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 18; Flight Crew Total 18; Flight Crew Type 18
Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Aircraft; Human Factors
During the preflight inspection; for a solo flight at my flight school; I observed a half-inch bend on both ends of the propeller. While I was observing; I believed that the aircraft was still airworthy and that the damage would have little to no effect on the flight. I was properly trained by my CFI; that any damage of the prop should be reported; but I failed to comprehend that the prop damage could have resulted in a major failure. During the flight I felt the airplane vibrate more than usual and the performance was sluggish; but nothing to warrant an emergency landing or aborting a takeoff. Because of the negligible effect that the damaged prop had on the airplane; to me it confirmed that nothing was wrong; which in hindsight I realize it was not a good decision. With this situation; I should have asked any other person; and my instructor whether or not the aircraft is airworthy due to the prop damage. In the future; I will report ANY minor or major problems with the aircraft to flight operations as a preventative measure. I feel that inexperience contributed to me making this decision. I will also be conducting post flight inspections more thoroughly after every flight.
One of my students on a solo flight practicing stop and go's in the pattern sent me a message that the plane had bounced abnormally; causing him to feel uncomfortable. In his message he said he did not notice anything wrong with the instruments or any outside damage; so did not know what to write up on the discrepancy form for the plane; per our [flight school] policy. At the time I was on a flight with another student; and when I returned the solo student had already left; so I did not have a chance to speak with him. I did not know anything else had happened until I received a call from one of the [Assistant Chief Pilots] the next afternoon. They explained that on that plane there had been a prop strike the previous afternoon. Another solo student had a flight in the same plane after my student; but reported that the damage was already there when he was pre-flighting. Even after noticing the damage he flew anyway. I then called my student to get more details on his flight. He explained that on the first landing; the plane had bounced abnormally when the nose-wheel touched down; causing the plane to go back up 10-15 feet in the air; so he added full power to execute a go-around. He did two more landings that were normal; then ended the flight because he felt uncomfortable. He reported that on post-flight inspection he did not see anything abnormal on the strut or prop. The following [week] my student and I each filled out an incident report for the [flight school]. The [flight school] grounded both students involved in order to [evaluate] what occurred; and whether the damage occurred during my student's flight or in the following student's flight. They had a meeting with each student and each instructor to go over the events and discuss what could be done differently to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
C172 flight instructors and a student pilot reported the student flew an aircraft with known prop damage.