Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 50; Flight Crew Total 700; Flight Crew Type 350
Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
General Maintenance Action
Human Factors
I received a call from a fellow instructor when a student pilot who I had flown with previously decided to take his personal 172 on a solo flight in the pattern in winds reported to be gusting to 22 knots. Although I did not sign off the student for solo flight; I did feel it was necessary for me as a CFI to sit down with the student following his flight and help him understand why what he did was not okay. I spoke with [an observer]; and was told the student's landings 'did not look pretty'. This prompted me to go out to the aircraft the next day and inspect [it]for damage. I found that the tail tie-down eye bolt was missing; and judging by rust; had been missing for some time. I also noticed that there were shiny (fresh) scrapes to the skin on the tail section and bottom of the rudder cap (very minor scratches and abrasion). When I finally got a chance to sit down with the owner/student; I showed him a picture of the damage. He replied that he had no idea he had struck the tail; and that he believed the winds were 11 gusting 22; which he thought to be within his 12 knot solo wind limit (the instructor who signed him off had apparent not explained the limitations to him).After our meeting; he agreed that there were deficiencies in his training and should not be flying solo; and handed me the keys to the aircraft; and also asked if I would take it to get quotes on repairing the worn skin and rudder cap. Feeling bad for the situation he had arrived at; I agreed to take the aircraft to obtain two quotes and return the airplane to its home base along with the two quotes. Upon having the aircraft inspected; the A and P mechanics found that there was also firewall damage (likely the result of the same series of landings; or possibly a previous incident when the owner's son had landed the aircraft hard on the nose wheel; damaging the wheel pant). Upon examination of the warping to the firewall; I did not note any cracking or signs of metal fatigue; or have any reason to believe that the aircraft would not perform the way it was intended to by the manufacturer. Without any comments on the damage found in the POH; and with the aircraft in safe flying condition; I believed it to be airworthy and left the maintenance shop to return the aircraft back to its owner along with the quotes for repairs that would be completed at the time of annual.At no time did the aircraft behave any differently than other 172s I had flown; or give me any indication it was unsafe or not airworthy to fly. After seeking the advice from a [experienced aviator] on how to proceed with the student (who had already accumulated over 100 hours of dual with multiple instructors); he brought up the point that depending on the level of damage; the aircraft should not be flown again until repaired. It was at this time that I began to search further for guidance from the manufacturer in the POH and other manuals; as to what type of damage would qualify an aircraft as 'not airworthy'. I was unsuccessful in finding any official publication as to what would qualify the airplane as airworthy or not; and do believe there is a lack of information available to pilots to determine the airworthiness of the aircraft that they will be flying. After placing a call into the local FSDO; and not hearing back; I decided to not fly the aircraft again; and recommended the owner file for a ferry permit to have someone fly the airplane to a point of repair for him. Given that every flight training aircraft in the US has some level of scratches or dents; I do believe more information should be made available to pilots to give standard practices for pilots determining the airworthiness of an aircraft with certain tolerances or gauges for normal damage.
A flight instructor reported that after becoming aware of slight damage to a local pilot's aircraft; the instructor flew the aircraft to another airport for maintenance evaluation. When other minor damage was also noted; the instructor was unable to locate airworthiness limitations; and returned the aircraft to the home airport. Later; in discussion with a more experienced aviator; it was suggested that the damage may have deemed the aircraft unairworthy and should not have been flown. The reporter suggested that more detailed information be available to access the airworthiness of an aircraft.