Flight Instructor and solo student pilot report the student lost directional control of the aircraft during landing resulting in the aircraft not fully clearing the runway.
Synopsis
Flight Instructor and solo student pilot report the student lost directional control of the aircraft during landing resulting in the aircraft not fully clearing the runway.
Narrative
On Day 0 at ZZZ Airport; I was cleared for left traffic; Runway XX; touch and go's. During my second landing on short final; I came in a bit low and slow so I added a small amount of power. What appeared to be a normal round out turned into a slight bounce during touchdown. I reacted by relaxing some back-elevator pressure to correct the high pitch attitude; however; what followed was a subsequent bounce on the front landing gear. At that point; I immediately initiated a go-around. When I came back in for the next touch and go; I was unable to maintain centerline for takeoff due to nose-wheel oscillations and my right rudder input becoming ineffective. As a result; I requested from tower an exit from Runway XX's taxiway 1. The lack of directional control (as the airplane would only steer left) prevented me from fully clearing the runway's exit line. The last part of the airplane's vertical stabilizer was encroaching the runway's side of the exit line. I was advised by ZZZ Ground to stay in place until airport operations arrived. Once they arrived they noted a front landing gear fork crack on the right side of the airplane. The airplane was then pushed to the nearest parking spot across taxiway H. Overall; there is a probability that the landing gear damage was caused by pilot error due to improper timely recovery of an impending faulty landing. I could prevent an incident re-occurrence through additional ground instruction; and focused practice of go-around procedures and corrective actions for landing imperfections. At the same time; there was a preexisting shimmy damper problem with the airplane's landing gear that I mentioned to a couple of instructors dating back several months. I believe this unaddressed maintenance issue may have exacerbated the stress fracture on the landing gear fork. A better system of documenting maintenance concerns needs to be implemented to alleviate more severe incidents.
Second reporter narrative
This is a 2nd hand account taken by myself from my student and other witnesses as to an incident regarding the failure of the nose wheel mounting fork on a Cessna 172N aircraft. My student was in the midst of a solo flight consisting mainly of landing practice at ZZZ airport. Weather was clear with good visibility and no other hazards; winds were light; less than 7 knots at the time of the incident. My student reports that she performed 3 circuits in the pattern performing touch and goes as we had done many times before. She recalls on the second landing she approached the runway at a lower speed than normal and higher over the runway than a normal correct approach. She hesitated to perform a go-around and subsequently began to stall the aircraft over the runway landing with a significantly greater force than normal. Upon impact she reports bouncing twice before fully initiating a go-around and continue with the flight in the pattern. Upon the next landing she felt abnormal control forces on the nose wheel steering and rudder pedals and initiated an aborted takeoff. Upon inspection by ground personnel the nosewheel axle fork connecting the tire assembly to the shock sturt was sheared on one side and the fork bent. No other damage or injuries were reported. And the aircraft remained in positive control at all times.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.