Accident to the Tecnam P2002 registered F-HEJB on 21/04/2023 at Chavenay-Villepreux

This is a courtesy translation by the BEA of the Final Report on the Safety Investigation. As accurate as the translation may be, the original text in French is the work of reference.

Note: The following information is principally based on statements made by the two people on board and the air traffic controller. This information has not been independently validated by the BEA.

1. History of the flight

As part of a practical examination to obtain the PPL(A) licence, the examiner asked the candidate to perform handling exercises on the return leg to Chavenay-Villepreux aerodrome. The last exercise combined the simulation of an engine failure and a landing without flaps. The candidate began the exercise at 2,000 ft, overhead the aerodrome, after two 360° holding patterns due to the density of the traffic in the circuit. He joined the downwind leg of the left-hand circuit south of the installations with a view to landing on runway 28[1]. He turned onto the base leg a little earlier than usual to position himself between an aircraft on short final and another on the base leg of a right-hand circuit.

On final, the aeroplane was a little high on the approach slope and the speed was around 80 kt. During the flare, the aeroplane floated above the runway at a height of about one metre. According to the air traffic controller, the aircraft landed after the intersection of the two runways located about 250 m from the threshold of runway 28. The candidate began braking and then considered a go-around. The examiner refused, judging that the aeroplane's low energy and the remaining run distance were insufficient to take off again. The aeroplane overran the runway and came to rest a few metres after the end of the runway in an unmaintained area. The nose  gear failed, deforming the front of the aeroplane. The two occupants evacuated the aeroplane.

2. Additional information

2.1. Aerodrome information

Chavenay-Villepreux aerodrome has two intersecting grass runways, 10/28 and 05/23.

Runway 28 (measuring 710 m long and 100 m wide) has an offset threshold. The landing distance available (LDA) is 560 m. The intersection of the two runways is approximately 250 m after the displaced threshold.

2.2. Aircraft information

The approach speed indicated in the forced landing procedure without engine power in the aeroplane flight manual is 69 kt with the flaps retracted.

The aeroplane flight manual does not give the performance for a landing without flaps. However, in landing configuration, the manual indicates a landing distance of around 280 m with a landing run distance of around 140 m on a grass runway, with a short final speed of 51 kt and a weight of 580 kg[2].

Note: the Aeroplane pilot’s manual[3], an example of a book used to prepare the PPL(A) and LAPL(A) theoretical  exams, specifies that the landing distance should be increased by 50% in the event of a flap failure, when the information is not available in the aeroplane flight manual.

​​​​​​​2.3. Combining exercises during a PPL examination

The DGAC indicates that in the scope of a PPL examination, it is possible, at the discretion of the examiner (FE), to combine the simulated forced landing exercise with in particular, a landing without flaps.

The SEP safety manual published by the French aeronautical federation (FFA), intended for FFA PPL(A) FEs states in its chapter on simulated failures, that the combination of a major failure (engine failure, for example) and another failure (flap failure) is only desirable if it is realistic and of educational interest.

​​​​​​​2.4. Persons on board information

The 25-year-old candidate had logged 43 aeroplane flight hours. He held an SPL and had logged around 100 glider flight hours.

The 26-year-old examiner held a CPL(A) obtained in 2020. He had obtained his PPL(A) five years earlier. He had logged 2,450 flight hours including 1,250 hours on single-engine aeroplanes. He was a FI(A) since 2020 and held the FE ratings since 2021. He was also a pilot for an air operator.

​​​​​​​2.5. Summary of statements

The air traffic controller indicated that he had granted clearance for the engine out exercise when the aeroplane was overhead the aerodrome. In these conditions, he specified that he asks to be contacted when the aeroplane is in the downwind leg in order to clear the pilot to land or to order a go-around. He lets the pilot manage his flight path during the exercise. The air traffic controller indicated that he had passed traffic information to the pilot concerning the aeroplane following F-HEJB and considered that he did not have to ask the candidate to shorten his flight path.

The candidate indicated that the downwind leg had been shortened at the examiner's request in order to comply with the sequencing given by the controller and thus fit between the two aircraft in the circuit.

The candidate indicated that, on the base leg, he was on a steep slope with an excess speed of around 10 kt. According to him, he wanted to widen the turn to re-align with an appropriate approach slope, but the examiner intervened and refused this manoeuvre. The candidate explained that he continued on final with the same steep slope at high speed. He added that he also proposed aborting the approach, which the examiner also refused because he feared a potential in-flight conflict with the aeroplane starting its initial climb. The examiner indicated that, as this was not an instruction flight, the candidate was to carry out his exercise and it was only if safety was at stake that the examiner would intervene and take control.

The candidate added that he felt at ease during the combined exercise and that he was not tired. The examiner indicated that he had chosen to combine two exercises at the end of the test because the candidate had a good level. He did not want to lengthen the test, which had already lasted two hours. In specified that the workload was high. There were two other aeroplanes in the circuit and two aeroplanes at the holding point.

The examiner added that the following factors probably contributed to the accident:

• the context of the flight (candidate’s fatigue and pressure related to the test);
• Chavenay-Villepreux aerodrome and that flight overhead towns in the vicinity was to be avoided;
• the shortened downwind leg to increase the distance with traffic in flight;
• excess speed on final;
• the late landing clearance because the preceding aircraft was landing;
• monitoring traffic in flight;
• reaction time for braking;
• less effective braking on a grass runway.

The examiner explained that he did not want to abort the landing and that it was preferable to  overrun the runway at low speed rather than go around with low energy and risk a stall at low altitude.

Note: this last element of the examiner's statement is in line with a safety lesson previously issued by the BEA[4].