I saw this happen

[Weasil]

CHI03FA150
HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On June 7, 2003, at 1031 central daylight time, a Cessna 172M, N13474, operated by Illinois Aviation Academy, was destroyed by impact and post impact fire when it collided with the terrain while taking off on runway 28 (4,751 feet by 75 feet, asphalt), at Dupage Airport, West Chicago, Illinois. Visual Meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The solo instructional flight was operating under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91 without a flight plan. The student pilot was seriously injured. The student pilot was practicing takeoffs and landings at the time of the accident. The accident occurred on the third takeoff.

The airplane departed for a dual instructional flight in the traffic pattern about 0930. On board at the time were the student pilot and his instructor. The student pilot was simulating soft-field landings on runways 20R and 20L. The instructor radioed the tower after the second landing and requested runway 28 for more favorable wind conditions. The student pilot conducted a third soft-field takeoff and landing. The flight instructor subsequently exited the aircraft. The student pilot then conducted two more soft-field takeoffs and landings. Following his second landing the solo student noticed the winds had shifted to the south. On the final take-off the student utilized ten degrees of flaps and applied backpressure to keep the weight off the nose landing gear. The student then leveled the airplane in ground effect and the airplane drifted to the right of the centerline. The student applied a crosswind correction and heard the right main landing gear strike an object. The student pitched up the nose of the airplane and subsequently lost control of the airplane.

The pilot of an airplane holding short of runway 33 for takeoff reported seeing the accident airplane at a very low altitude over the airport in a 45 degree nose high attitude. According to the witness the airplane slowed and rolled to the left, subsequently impacting terrain, left wingtip first, and cartwheeled to a stop. The witness noted that the accident airplane caught fire several moments after it came to a stop.

PERSONNEL INFORMATION

The pilot held a student pilot certificate and a second-class medical certificate, which was issued on October 31, 2002. The last medical certificate contained the restriction, "Must wear corrective lenses."

The pilot's logbook showed the pilot had 109 hours of total flight time and 6 hours of pilot in command time. The pilot also had received a 90-day solo endorsement from his flight instructor on April 22, 2003.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

The airplane was a Cessna 172M, serial number 17262777. The last annual inspection was performed on July 2, 2002, at a tachometer time of 6,263 hours.

The engine was a 150 horsepower Lycoming O-320-E2D, serial number L-36096-27A. A 100-hour inspection was completed on the engine on May 22, 2003, at a tachometer time of 7,122.2 hours. An engine logbook entry showed an oil change was completed on June 5, 2003, at a tachometer time of 7,162 hours.

According to Federal Aviation Administration records, N13474, was owned by Flying W Leasing. The airplane was being operated by Illinois Aviation Academy Inc.

WEATHER INFORMATION

A weather observation station, located at the accident site, recorded the weather as:

Time: 0953
Wind: 270 degrees magnetic at 6 knots
Visibility: 10 statute miles
Sky Condition: Sky Clear
Temperature: 19 degrees Celsius
Dew Point: 13 degrees Celsius
Pressure: 29.81 inches of mercury

Time: 1053
Wind: 200 degrees magnetic at 5 knots
Visibility: 10 statute miles
Sky Condition: Few Clouds at 3,300 feet above ground level
Temperature: 21 degrees Celsius
Dew Point: 13 degrees Celsius
Pressure: 29.80 inches of mercury

WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION

The National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) on-scene investigation began on June 7, 2003.

The main wreckage was located on runway 28, about 60 feet east of runway 20R. The initial impact mark was located to the right side of runway 28.

The general path of the ground scarring was on a magnetic heading of about 200 degrees. The main wreckage came to a rest on a magnetic heading of about 280 degrees. Several impact marks were located between the initial impact mark and the location of the main wreckage.

The fuselage from the engine firewall to the tail was consumed by fire. Both wings sustained extensive fire damage and remained attached to the fuselage. The left wing of the aircraft was bent aft 90 degrees. The left flap and aileron were burned away and the right flap and aileron remained attached to the wing. The rudder, vertical stabilizer, elevator and horizontal stabilizer remained intact. Aileron, elevator, and rudder flight control continuity was established from the flight control surfaces and/or bellcranks to the cockpit.

The fire destroyed all cockpit instrumentation, the fuel selector, and all of the engine controls.

The engine sustained substantial impact and fire damage. It was remained partially connected to the firewall, although the engine mounts were extensively bent. The engine cowling remained mostly intact but did sustain substantial impact and fire damage.

The propeller was attached to the engine with the spinner still intact with substantial impact damage. Both propeller blades were bent aft and twisted.

MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION

The pilot sustained serious injuries and was taken to the hospital by emergency personnel.

The pilot had a broken tibia and facial injuries.

ADDITIONAL DATA/ INFORMATION

The FAA was a party to the investigation.

 

[avbug]

Okay. It sounds like a typical aircraft accident, if there be such a thing.

But you posted it, and you announced it by stating that you saw it. Anybody can read the statistics or the preliminary report. What did you see, and more importantly, how did it affect you? You didn't post this simply because the event occured, did you?

You're feeling something right now, and it's eating at you. Share it, get it out in the open, take advantage of the interaction. More than a few pilots here have been invovled with, or whitnessed an event, or lost friends in one. You're not the only one.

Speak.

 

[105viking]

"The pilot's logbook showed the pilot had 109 hours of total flight time and 6 hours of pilot in command time."

 

[Timebuilder]

I noticed the ratio of TT to PIC time also.

 

[Mogus]

Another case of a young instructor taking advantage of a filthy-rich kid eager to fly???

 

[WrightAvia]

Thus the metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet.

-Dave Barry

Dave Barry should move to Mexico, where it is illegal for civilians to possess firearms chambered in military calibers. They have no crime there, the police are not corrupt, nor are the politicians and the water and air are clean.

 

[Timebuilder]

You really had me going for a minute. I'm sitting here asking myself if there is another Mexico that I don't know about!!!

 

[WrightAvia]

Hahahaha

 

[Weasil]

There are several things which stand out in this accident report. I believe there is a lot of value for flight instructors to read about things like this so they can learn from them.

There is another thread running at the moment regarding an accident in Hickory NC (again a student doing touch and goes). Several instructors made comments regarding what "may" have been unsafe about that operation and were shot down by other people.

Is there any requirement to teach a student pilot touch and goes? No there isn't. There certainly is no requirement to teach soft field landings until the pre-solo cross country phase.

What are the benefits of doing this as opposed to full stop landings? I don't know but what I do know is this.... 100% of the accidents at my company in the last 12 months occured during the takeoff or landing phase of flight. It seems to me that as instructors we should always be teaching students to be as cautious/conservative as possible.

The only solo landing requirement listed in part 61 in fact is to do 3 full stop landings. And why do you think recent experience requirements require you to do your landings to a full stop if in a tailwheel aircraft or at night? Could it be because the full stop portion is considered more challenging then merely doing a crash and go...? Food for thought.

Here's what else stands out to me, the significantly high Total Time for a student pilot. The fact that the student pilot says the winds shifted to the south ( I assure you they didn't, I was landing on rwy 33 at the same time).


What about stalls? Do you teach your private pilots to do complete stalls or just imminent stalls (both are required by regulation but only one is required by the private PTS). Do you take time to also teach them what pitch attitudes to avoid?

For Example, the pilot in this case reacted to a right drift off the rwy and a wheel striking "something" by pitching up to "45 degrees" and applying left rudder to correct for wind drift. We can all see what this resulted in. At 100 feet agl it is more important to drill into a student the importance of never doing either of this things, because there is NO altitude to recover from a stall/ incipient spin.

Here's the other things which raised red flags, the Fact finding appears to imply that this student was soloed by a different instructor and had received a 90 day from the new instructor. As a flight instructor you might want to ask yourself, what training would I do with somebody else's student before updating their solo endorsement? (Please keep in mind that I"m not assuming something was done wrong in this situation, just food for thought).

 

[105viking]

I noticed the ratio of TT to PIC time also.

ratio aside, i've instructed before, and i can remember students who had 100+ hours of dual, and were nowhere near being a private pilot. infact, i have never been so scared as the first lesson i had with one.

it seems like they're always the crazy ones, wearing AF flight suits to solo the C-150, and carrying a huge set of binoculars around their necks to read the names of water towers when lost.

there is nothing like having to break it to somebody, that they just will never be able to be a pilot.

 

[Weasil]

You got that right. Ever had a student threaten to sue you when you told them they were struggling and would spend a lot of money and then threaten to sue you again BECAUSE they spent a lot of money and weren't done?

There's an experience I'd rather not repeat.

By the way, how is it you have instructed when your profile says you are a 200hr PP?

 

[Denizen]

Ya Know I don't post much

Gentelmen,


I am amazed by the profound wisdom of the Message board.

"Ratio of total time to PIC"

What? you never had an "adult" show up for lessons. I have had many 15 hour a year pilots show up at the fbo and need instruction.

Avbug was(a common occurance) correct, a common accident.

You know I have a few hours dual given, not once did someone show up with a "flight suit or binocualrs"

And in my short time as an instructor, I can't recall anyone who couldn't be taught to fly.

Oh wait, yet more, 200 hour, airport cafe experts. Sorry I didn't realize what agust company i was keeping.

Oh Time, Wright, You may or may not have had a chance to Visist Mexico. I happen to live near it, and have traveled in it. Try Guymas, Hermisio<sp> or San Carlos, Guns? well the only guns I saw were on the 18 year old soldiers necks but the beer was cold the women pretty and It is pretty much gringo-ville. meaning my "cerveza por favor" was all the spanish I needed. thankfully.

Take Care

P.S. Beer and flightinfo do not mix

 

[DitchDriver]

Re: Ya Know I don't post much

By the way, how is it you have instructed when your profile says you are a 200hr PP?

I am an "aspiring CFI" and I have instructed, mmOkay?

Oh wait, yet more, 200 hour, airport cafe experts. Sorry I didn't realize what agust company i was keeping.

P.S. Beer and flightinfo do not mix

But Jim Beam works great!


The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

Suggestions for agust:

1. egoist
2. august
3. aghast
4. August
5. agist
6. agues
7. agouti
8. egoism
9. egos
10. arroused
11. accost
12. Aust
13. egoists

 

[Denizen]

ouch

Thanks for keeping me honest.

Me and Jim Beam parted ways yeas ago...actually on the road from memphis to millington.


But Dewars and I have a nice relationship.....

Take Care

 

[avbug]

I am an "aspiring CFI" and I have instructed, mmOkay?

No, not okay.

Teach students full stalls? Yes, absolutely. Teach students touch and go landings? Yes, absolutely. A student should be able to do both.

I would never solo a student who couldn't confidently do a touch and go landing.

One would be insane to do otherwise. Surely you teach a student to go around, don't you? But you don't teach them to go aroundon the runway? That's a touch and go landing...and the student had better be able to do it.

The only time I will insist on a full stop with taxi back is after a power off approach, and then for the sake of the engine, not hte student. Otherwise, only if the student needs a break, the time to talk, runway conditions require it, etc.

100% of the accidents at my company in the last 12 months occured during the takeoff or landing phase of flight.

How many accidents has your company seen in the past year? There's not a lot to hit in flight, but the ground is everywhere, and you stand the greatest chance of hitting it when you get close to it. In my limited experience, this happens at least twice on each flight; usually close to the time you're planning on landing, and frequently about the time you take off. Seems that landing and takeoff accdients might be more prevelant...especially for an operation involving people who are just beginning to learn, instructors who are too young to have opened their eyes yet, and constant trips around the pattern. But that could just be a guess.

At 100 feet agl it is more important to drill into a student the importance of never doing either of this things, because there is NO altitude to recover from a stall/ incipient spin.

Wanna bet? Perhaps you're just teaching the recoveries wrong. After spending a great deal of time never climbing above one hundred feet while in flight, and operating on the edge of a stall and in and out of the stall while performing steep turns at that altitude, I'd have to disagree...but then I'm still learning (as are we all).

I certainly don't recommend teaching students to recover in this distance...but as an instructor one should understand that it can be done, in case on ever needs to do it. Too often instructors frighten students into their graves by creating a lifelong fear of slow flight and stall recoveries...those mind-bending pushovers that leave the student feeling as though their testicles are floating by their adams apple, in a dramatic effort to recreate some great moment on a microsoft flight simulator. Why can't instructors teach stalls with the nose below the horizon, and recoveries that truly involve decreasing AoA one degree...instead of 30?

A frightened student doesn't learn, a frightened student makes mistakes when the chips are down. A frightened student does as the one in the accident report did. But don't blame that on a touch and go landing, or the use of full-stall training by the instructor.

The only solo landing requirement listed in part 61 in fact is to do 3 full stop landings. And why do you think recent experience requirements require you to do your landings to a full stop if in a tailwheel aircraft or at night? Could it be because the full stop portion is considered more challenging then merely doing a crash and go...? Food for thought

Where is this only solo requirement located?

Do you not understand why full stop landings in a conventional gear airplane are required, where in a nosewheel airplane, they are not? It has nothing to do with challenging, or otherwise. In fact, a touch and go can be more challenging in a conventional gear airplane. How does this apply?

 

[EDUC8-or]

The pilot also had received a 90-day solo endorsement from his flight instructor on April 22, 2003.

Hmmm... I saw someone mention this before, but I don't see anything about a recent endorsement. Think his CFI soloed him on an expired endorsement?

 

[rettofly]

"The pilot's logbook showed the pilot had 109 hours of total flight time and 6 hours of pilot in command time."

Have the regs changed since my last instructor gig? I thought the holder of a student pilot certificate can only log "dual received" or "solo". Solo is not PIC on a student pilot certificate.

 

[105viking]

Re: Ya Know I don't post much

Gentelmen,


What? you never had an "adult" show up for lessons. I have had many 15 hour a year pilots show up at the fbo and need instruction.

You know I have a few hours dual given, not once did someone show up with a "flight suit or binocualrs"

And in my short time as an instructor, I can't recall anyone who couldn't be taught to fly.

Oh wait, yet more, 200 hour, airport cafe experts. Sorry I didn't realize what agust company i was keeping.

so i may have a few more than 200hrs.

this accident report just reminded me of a couple of the stand-outs of my years in flight instruction.

in general, it is very rare that somebody CANNOT learn to fly, but it happens.

wasn't trying to amaze anybody. ...back to the cafe.

105VIKING

 

[EDUC8-or]

Have the regs changed since my last instructor gig? I thought the holder of a student pilot certificate can only log "dual received" or "solo". Solo is not PIC on a student pilot certificate.

Solo time is now logged as PIC.

 

[TWA Dude]

Nobody's mentioned it so I will. How can a student pilot have 6 hours of PIC time? We all know pre-private solo time is not loggable as PIC.

Next, this hasn't evolved into a large pro/con touch-n-go discussion but I'll put in my two cents. I found that it just depended on the student. Some handled the higher situational awareness required to touch-n-go better than others. Hence, most students I soloed I instructed to touch-n-go but others I had do only full-stop taxibacks.

Dude

 

[Weasil]

Avbug,
Thanks for your comments. You missed my point however. Not only was I saying it IS appropriate to teach full stalls it is also required by regulation. And no I am NOT teaching recoveries wrong. It is my job to hand out pilot certificates, so part of my job is to determine what other instructors are doing wrong, and help change that!

Clearly 100 feet wasn't enough altitude for this particular student to recover in - does that mean he never demonstrated good stall recovery at altitude in a controlled situation - probably not. So what else then does an instructor need to do? Maybe there's nothing you can do but i like to believe that you can always try to improve yourself.

Also I do teach students touch and goes. I was not saying you shouldn't. I am just trying to have an informed discussion on the topic of accident prevention. To take the attitude that something is a common accident and just forget about it is a mistake in my book. I believe it is important to always be wondering what you can do better an to learn from other people's mishaps.

Of course you or I can recover from a stall at 100 feet agl but my point was that a student can't after pitching to 45 degrees above the horizon in an aircraft with limited thrust. Any examiner you talk to regarding stall/spin awareness wants an applicant to be able to discuss situations to avoid/be aware of where stalls can be most hazardous, not just be able to recover from one.
In the interest of that I am always looking at stall/spin accidents to see how they occured and more often than not it is not the inability to recover that is the problem, it is the lack of altitude.

Students need to be taught to avoid nose high attitudes at slow airspeeds near the ground with uncoordinated control inputs wouldn't you agree?

And as for the landing accidents, what I meant to say was that 100% of these occured doing touch and goes. There has not been an accident on or near the runway involving full stop landings in the last 12 months. So in analysing these accidents it is my job to develop training policies to help avoid these in the future.

As for conventional gear aircraft, I have flown high powered military tailwheel aircraft for years so I am talking about something which I know. My question is if touch and goes are harder (as you say) then why do the regs require full stop landings before carrying passengers? Wouldn't it make more sense to require the more difficult operation as is the FAA's tendency. Why do you think they require instrument students to do a partial panel non-precision approach - they state that because they feel this is the most difficult approach you can do partial panel. So it seems that the FAA feels that full stops are more difficult. I am not saying I agree with this, I am just trying to discuss it without attacking other people's ideas.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only solo landing requirement listed in part 61 in fact is to do 3 full stop landings. And why do you think recent experience requirements require you to do your landings to a full stop if in a tailwheel aircraft or at night? Could it be because the full stop portion is considered more challenging then merely doing a crash and go...? Food for thought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Where is this only solo requirement located?

61.109 (a) 5 (iii)

3 takeoffs and landings to a full stop at an airport with an operating control tower.

Do you know how many times I have had an instructor send his private student to me for a checkride only to discover that he had the student do touch and goes when he soloed and has never done 3 full stop landings!

Again, to make my position clear. I do teach touch and goes. I am not saying they are bad/wrong. I am just discussing the situation at hand, every instructor should make it his mission to give their students every chance of never having an accident.

 

[Weasil]

Nobody's mentioned it so I will. How can a student pilot have 6 hours of PIC time? We all know pre-private solo time is not loggable as PIC.



Dude

The regulations now say that a student pilot can log PIC time while solo.

 

[Timebuilder]

What? you never had an "adult" show up for lessons. I have had many 15 hour a year pilots show up at the fbo and need instruction.

Sure, I had them. After three years they had 45 hours. They just don't represent the majority of flight students, the group into whom this student who crashed has the greatest chance of "falling into". Sorry. Bad pun.

I thought that the ratio of TT to PIC time represented someone who either flew infrequently or was having a hard time "getting it". Not specifically a "cause" of the accident, but certainly a lack of PIC experience is a contributing factor in a typical accident, and certainly when you have logged a whole bunch of time without being the PIC.

My last job was an SIC job in a jet. I logged a fair amount of "sole manipulator" time, and I could get in right now and make a safe takeoff and landing. Am I ready to jump right back into harness for regular operations and an 8410 ride after almost seven months off? No, absolutley not.

As soon as you get out of the airplane, your abilities begin to atrophy a little. It's the PIC experience, the management of the entire process, that makes you a pilot. So, a lack of PIC time (in a single pilot airplane in this case) was a red flag to me, not a cause of the accident.

I found touch and goes were a great drill that allowed the student to experience the max number of takeoff and landing experiences in the limited instruction time available. As Avbug mentioned, one great reason is the rejected landing. Another is the fact that such a small number of hours in a pilot's lifetime are spent in the flare or on the takeoff roll. Practice is never a bad idea.

I learned to solo the airplane at a little strip that had a crosswind on most days, so airplane control was second nature. Since then I have drilled the idea of applying correct control inputs into students. It seems that this is what was needed here, in this case.

 

[Weasil]

. Since then I have drilled the idea of applying correct control inputs into students. It seems that this is what was needed here, in this case.

Couldn't agree more!

 

[TurboS7]

little more personal

My wife was doing touch and goes on runway 15 at DuPage County Airport. This was before they put in the new runways. On her third touch and go, I was watching from the old picnic area. I heard a pop and I couldn't believe my eyes. There was my wife at 200 feet just hanging on the prop, not going up or down.She just kept on going, I heard her on the radio(I had a hand-held) declare an emergency, the tower cleared her to land on any runway. Then he added you are cleared to land on the grass, on the airport, anywhere. She staggered along straight ahead but needed to clear those power lines off of 15. I could tell that she wasn't going to make it. Then she turned to the left very gently and did a very shallow 270 at 200 feet or less inside the powerlines.She came around and landed on runway 28 with a quartering tailwind. My heart was beating like crazy. When she landed we took the airplane to the hangar and did a compression check. I found that she had dropped not one valve but two at the same time. She was literally running on 2 cylinders. I had spent countless hours training my wife in slow flight a Zero indicated airspeed, that is the way we train when we have to fly in the bush. It all paid off and my wife is still with me today. The next day we rented a C152 and she got her private pilot ticket.

 

[Weasil]

Turbo, that's a great story. That must have been hard to watch. Sounds like she had good training.

I saw a cropduster once have an engine failure right after takeoff and to clear the powerlines he pulled back on the stick, the aircraft stalled and fell into the powerlines and landed in a field and he hurt his back. This is what I am talking about, teaching students to avoid unsafe flight attitudes. Too often engine problems near the ground result in stalls which is what ends up causing the fatality/injury. It really burns me to see this described as a common accident as though there's nothing that can be done about it, there can be in a lot of cases, better instruction!

Another thought comes to mind regarding touch and goes. The ultimate goal of student pilot training is to pass a private pilot checkride. A lot of times I get students who have done lots of touch and go training and when I ask them to demonstrate a short or soft field landing I get a touch and go with no demonstration of max braking, retracting the flaps or holding the nosewheel off for a soft until it is no longer possible. It sure is a good exercise to soft field touch and goes though with some students where you have them keep the nosewheel off the runway during the entire touch and go, and still maintain directional control while retracting the flaps.

 

[Crizz]

Where is this only solo requirement located?

61.109 (a) 5 (iii)

3 takeoffs and landings to a full stop at an airport with an operating control tower.

Do you know how many times I have had an instructor send his private student to me for a checkride only to discover that he had the student do touch and goes when he soloed and has never done 3 full stop landings!

I think this reg has more to do with control tower and ground operations. Full stop @ a controlled field also includes talking to ground control.

IMO, this reg is an attempt to make sure students are proficient dealing with a control tower, not making sure they can land a plane. Weather it does that, is up for debate.

 

[avbug]

Quite right. The requirement is for towered landings...the point of being full stop is to require complete involvement with tower and ground operations in a controlled environment. The FAA never intended to require that only three full stop landings be conducted, nor was that regulation ever intended to stress such a ridiculous idea.

It's about the tower, not the landings.

Why does the FAA require that conventional gear airplanes be flown to full stop landings for currency requirements? Simply put, a conventional gear airplane doesn't finish flying when the airspeed ends; the landing isn't hardly complete until it's come to a full stop. Additionally, torque and other issues are a bigger factor for a conventional gear airplane with respect to runway alignment and aircraft control on the ground.

Again, the emphasis is on the specific airplane and type, not on the fact that it's full stop. Otherwise, all aircraft would be required to conduct landings to a full stop for the sake of currency, instead of just conventional gear airplanes.

In many instances, going full stop is cost prohibitive, and very unnecessary. A student should be able to handle the airplane on the fly, and touch and go landings help achieve that skill.

 

[Weasil]

a touch and go can be more challenging in a conventional gear airplane. How does this apply?

Quote from Avbug's later post
________________________
"Simply put, a conventional gear airplane doesn't finish flying when the airspeed ends; the landing isn't hardly complete until it's come to a full stop. Additionally, torque and other issues are a bigger factor for a conventional gear airplane with respect to runway alignment and aircraft control on the ground."

You just completely contradicted yourself. Nice job. And what about night landings in a nosewheel, those are also to a full stop.
The emphasis is on the full stop, not on the specific airplane type.

The FAA never intended to require that only three full stop landings be conducted, nor was that regulation ever intended to stress such a ridiculous idea.

Again you are wrong. This is the only requirement for solo landings. Read the regulation. Nowhere in there do they require a student to practice solo touch and goes. I am not saying that you shouldn't have students do touch and goes, I have many times in the past. I am asking the question, why do you think they wrote the regulation in this way, is it significant. Lots of towered fields at which you do full stop landings you don't talk to ground control, you often stay with the tower and do a stop and go or stay with the tower and taxi back to the runway.

If the reg was written just for the purpose of it being at a towered field then why not just make it 3 landings at a towered field instead of making it 3 full stop landings?

 

[avbug]

Good gravy, Weasil. You waste no time, do you? Who are you really? Clownpilot, resurrected, or another of his logins?

The FAA never intended that only three landings be conducted; they set a minimum. No regulation exists which stipulates that only the minimum need be accomplished; pilots are certainly encouraged to do more.

If the reg was written just for the purpose of it being at a towered field then why not just make it 3 landings at a towered field instead of making it 3 full stop landings?

Read the previous post, you dingbat.