What happened
On February 11, 2005, a Beechcraft King Air 200, registration LN-MOJ, operated by Lufttransport A/S, was conducting a mandatory proficiency check. Due to poor weather at their home base in Ålesund, the crew relocated the training session to Fagernes Airport, Leirin. The flight program included simulated engine failure and a flapless landing procedure.
During the landing flare, the crew realized the landing gear had not been extended. The captain immediately initiated a go-around. During this maneuver, the aircraft's antennas and anti-collision beacon made contact with the runway. Additionally, the tip of the right propeller struck the pavement, though the crew did not notice any vibrations or engine fluctuations. The aircraft returned to Fagernes to inspect the damage, which included injuries to the underside of the fuselage and the propeller, rendering the aircraft unairworthy.
The investigation
The Norwegian Safety Investigation Authority (NSIA) examined the cockpit environment, the aircraft's mechanical systems, and the company's procedural distribution. The investigation focused on why the gear was not extended and the impact of the training environment on the crew's performance. Investigators also looked into a discrepancy regarding landing speeds, as a recent revision of procedures had not reached the crew, leaving them with outdated speed tables and checklists.
Findings
Several contributing factors led to the incident. The investigation identified a hidden trap in the landing gear warning system: the warning horn failed to reactivate because engine power had not exceeded 80% N1, and the warning light had been illuminated continuously without being noticed.
Furthermore, the crew's situational awareness was compromised by several stressors:
- High workload caused by simultaneous training tasks, including a simulated engine failure and a flapless landing.
- An increased authority gradient between the crew and the Type Rating Examiner (TRE), characterized by frequent radio interference and unnecessary interventions by the examiner.
- A dispute during the approach regarding whether to use new or old landing speeds, which led to a shortened, unstable approach.
- The omission of the "gear down" item from the completed checklist.
Safety action
The investigation noted that the company had issued revised procedures without a clear effective date, which could lead to confusion. While the company's distribution system was ultimately deemed satisfactory, the failure to deliver the latest revisions to the Vigra base was identified as a contributing factor to the operational confusion during the flight.