A C-172 student pilot flies his aircraft with malfunctioning nose gear strut that was not fixable at...

Narrative:

I was flying 3-LEG round-robin solo cross-country flight in a rented cessna 172. In preparation for departure on the final leg, my preflight inspection demonstrated the nosewheel strut was 'flat' (not extended). I contacted the FBO/flight school that owned the aircraft and I was advised to have a mechanic to inflate the strut and then continue the flight. The strut went flat again, leaking air and oil. The mechanic stated that the that the strut would no longer hold air or oil and would need complete service, which could not be performed for another day or so at the earliest. I again called the FBO/flight school and advised them of the situation. I was put in touch with my CFI, who advised me that the aircraft was able to be safely and properly flown with a flat nosewheel strut as long as I used a soft field technique on taxi, takeoff, and landing and avoided undue loads on the nosewheel. He stated he felt this was well within my capabilities as a pilot. I confirmed there was at least six inches of clearance between the propeller tip and the ground, completed the preflight inspection, and then completed the final leg of flight back, to my (and the aircraft's) home base without incident. At a later time, I discussed the incident with the person who was the owner of the FBO/flight school, the supervisor of my CFI, and the owner of the aircraft. I specifically asked him if I had perhaps committed an error in flying an aircraft that was not truly airworthy. He assured me that the aircraft was in fact airworthy and there was nothing inappropriate in my flying the 172 with a flat nose strut. On further reflection, and review of the poh, I feel the aircraft was not airworthy -- the poh calls for proper strut extension in the preflight checklist and I could not correct the deficiency. Since it was not airworthy, the aircraft should not have been flown by a student pilot and should not have been flown without a proper ferry permit. The factors that led to my error were: my eagerness to complete the flight. It had taken a while to arrange this flight (the long cross-country flight required for the private pilot license), and I did not want to have my investment of time and energy ruined by something as 'minor' as a nose strut. The inconvenience of being stranded from my home base. It would have taken hours to arrange for me to be picked up by someone and get home. Machismo. My instructor said I was capable of making the flight. To refuse to fly would be 'wimping out' -- admitting I was not as capable a pilot as my instructor felt I was. Lack of responsibility. I relied too much on the judgement of another and did not, as the pilot-in-command, make my own proper, reasoned decision about the purpose of the preflight inspection and the airworthiness of the aircraft I was plting. In the future, I will take my responsibility as pilot-in-command more seriously, and will strive to prevent inconvenience, pride, or individuals (including my instructor!) to adversely influence my judgement regarding the safety of a flight I am conducting.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C-172 STUDENT PLT FLIES HIS ACFT WITH MALFUNCTIONING NOSE GEAR STRUT THAT WAS NOT FIXABLE AT A THROUGH STATION DURING HIS CROSS COUNTRY FLT AT THE THV, PA.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING 3-LEG ROUND-ROBIN SOLO CROSS-COUNTRY FLIGHT IN A RENTED CESSNA 172. IN PREPARATION FOR DEPARTURE ON THE FINAL LEG, MY PREFLIGHT INSPECTION DEMONSTRATED THE NOSEWHEEL STRUT WAS 'FLAT' (NOT EXTENDED). I CONTACTED THE FBO/FLIGHT SCHOOL THAT OWNED THE ACFT AND I WAS ADVISED TO HAVE A MECHANIC TO INFLATE THE STRUT AND THEN CONTINUE THE FLIGHT. THE STRUT WENT FLAT AGAIN, LEAKING AIR AND OIL. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE THAT THE STRUT WOULD NO LONGER HOLD AIR OR OIL AND WOULD NEED COMPLETE SERVICE, WHICH COULD NOT BE PERFORMED FOR ANOTHER DAY OR SO AT THE EARLIEST. I AGAIN CALLED THE FBO/FLIGHT SCHOOL AND ADVISED THEM OF THE SITUATION. I WAS PUT IN TOUCH WITH MY CFI, WHO ADVISED ME THAT THE ACFT WAS ABLE TO BE SAFELY AND PROPERLY FLOWN WITH A FLAT NOSEWHEEL STRUT AS LONG AS I USED A SOFT FIELD TECHNIQUE ON TAXI, TKOF, AND LNDG AND AVOIDED UNDUE LOADS ON THE NOSEWHEEL. HE STATED HE FELT THIS WAS WELL WITHIN MY CAPABILITIES AS A PLT. I CONFIRMED THERE WAS AT LEAST SIX INCHES OF CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE PROPELLER TIP AND THE GROUND, COMPLETED THE PREFLIGHT INSPECTION, AND THEN COMPLETED THE FINAL LEG OF FLIGHT BACK, TO MY (AND THE ACFT'S) HOME BASE WITHOUT INCIDENT. AT A LATER TIME, I DISCUSSED THE INCIDENT WITH THE PERSON WHO WAS THE OWNER OF THE FBO/FLIGHT SCHOOL, THE SUPERVISOR OF MY CFI, AND THE OWNER OF THE ACFT. I SPECIFICALLY ASKED HIM IF I HAD PERHAPS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN FLYING AN ACFT THAT WAS NOT TRULY AIRWORTHY. HE ASSURED ME THAT THE ACFT WAS IN FACT AIRWORTHY AND THERE WAS NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE IN MY FLYING THE 172 WITH A FLAT NOSE STRUT. ON FURTHER REFLECTION, AND REVIEW OF THE POH, I FEEL THE ACFT WAS NOT AIRWORTHY -- THE POH CALLS FOR PROPER STRUT EXTENSION IN THE PREFLIGHT CHECKLIST AND I COULD NOT CORRECT THE DEFICIENCY. SINCE IT WAS NOT AIRWORTHY, THE ACFT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FLOWN BY A STUDENT PLT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FLOWN WITHOUT A PROPER FERRY PERMIT. THE FACTORS THAT LED TO MY ERROR WERE: MY EAGERNESS TO COMPLETE THE FLIGHT. IT HAD TAKEN A WHILE TO ARRANGE THIS FLIGHT (THE LONG CROSS-COUNTRY FLIGHT REQUIRED FOR THE PRIVATE PLT LICENSE), AND I DID NOT WANT TO HAVE MY INVESTMENT OF TIME AND ENERGY RUINED BY SOMETHING AS 'MINOR' AS A NOSE STRUT. THE INCONVENIENCE OF BEING STRANDED FROM MY HOME BASE. IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN HOURS TO ARRANGE FOR ME TO BE PICKED UP BY SOMEONE AND GET HOME. MACHISMO. MY INSTRUCTOR SAID I WAS CAPABLE OF MAKING THE FLIGHT. TO REFUSE TO FLY WOULD BE 'WIMPING OUT' -- ADMITTING I WAS NOT AS CAPABLE A PLT AS MY INSTRUCTOR FELT I WAS. LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY. I RELIED TOO MUCH ON THE JUDGEMENT OF ANOTHER AND DID NOT, AS THE PLT-IN-COMMAND, MAKE MY OWN PROPER, REASONED DECISION ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE PREFLIGHT INSPECTION AND THE AIRWORTHINESS OF THE ACFT I WAS PLTING. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL TAKE MY RESPONSIBILITY AS PLT-IN-COMMAND MORE SERIOUSLY, AND WILL STRIVE TO PREVENT INCONVENIENCE, PRIDE, OR INDIVIDUALS (INCLUDING MY INSTRUCTOR!) TO ADVERSELY INFLUENCE MY JUDGEMENT REGARDING THE SAFETY OF A FLIGHT I AM CONDUCTING.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	524432
Time
Date	200109
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : thv.airport
State Reference	PA
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	ground : preflight
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Affiliation	other
Function	instruction : trainee
Qualification	pilot : student
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 27 flight time total : 70 flight time type : 70
ASRS Report	524432
Person 2
Affiliation	other
Function	maintenance : technician
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : critical maintenance problem : improper maintenance maintenance problem : non compliance with mel non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : unable none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance Company Aircraft Maintenance Human Performance
Primary Problem	Aircraft

A C-172 student pilot flies his aircraft with malfunctioning nose gear strut that was not fixable at a through station during his cross country flight at the thv, PA.