Colorado Aviation Accidents & Incidents

On June 10, 2015, at 1538 mountain daylight time, a single engine Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc. DA20-C1 airplane, N919DA, was substantially damaged during landing at the Pueblo Memorial Airport (PUB), Pueblo, Colorado. The solo student pilot was not injured. The airplane was owned by Doss Aviation Incorporated and operated under contract for the United States Air Force (USAF). Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 public aircraft (no longer using Public Use) flight, which was returning on a training flight from the Lamar Municipal Airport (LAA), Lamar, Colorado.

The student was flying his second of four required cross-country solos in the USAF directed syllabus. Prior to the flight, a flight instructor conducted a briefing with the student, which included a review of the weather information, planned route of flight, and possible divert airports if the weather precluded a return to PUB. Following this briefing, the supervisor of flying (SOF) reviewed weather information with the student and identified a flight instructor that would be airborne until the student landed.

The flight to LAA was uneventful. At 1445, as the student was making his last approach at LAA, the SOF initiated a weather recall to PUB. On the return flight from LAA, with convective activity in the area increasing, the airborne flight instructor directed the student to fly direct to PUB. The PUB tower controller subsequently cleared the student to land on runway 17 and reported wind 190 degrees at 26 knots (published wind limit for solo flight was 20 knots). About one minute prior to the accident, the controller reported wind 200 degrees at 20 knots.

As the student turned the airplane from base to final, the controller reported wind 210 degrees at 40 knots. During his landing, the student allowed the airplane to contact the runway nose wheel first. The airplane subsequently porpoised multiple times and slid to a stop, during which the nose wheel assembly strut penetrated the fuselage.

The student stated two reasons why he elected to continue the approach and landing, despite recognizing the wind velocity was above the published limits. First, he had received guidance from the SOF and the airborne flight instructor throughout his arrival and thought they would continue to advise him until landing. Therefore, the student perceived that he was expected to land unless he was specifically told to go-around or divert. Second, the student noticed the storms approaching PUB from the southwest and perceived the better option was to attempt the landing than to risk a go-around and possible entry into the weather.

When asked about the lack of instructor input during the final portion of the flight, the airborne flight instructor pilot stated that he did not want to distract the student during a critical phase of flight. The SOF stated that he was not providing inputs because he heard the airborne flight instructor talking wit