What happened
On October 17, 2014, a professional pilot was conducting a business flight between Krasocin-Lipie and Pruszcz Gdański. After an initial flight and a period of time on the ground, the pilot departed Pruszcz Gdański at approximately 16:30 for the return leg. The flight was initially conducted under IFR rules at FL 150, later transitioning to VFR.
Shortly before arrival at Krasocin-Lipie, the pilot was informed by air traffic services of light rain over the destination. As the aircraft descended, the pilot requested the airfield lights be turned on due to the approaching sunset. The pilot performed a direct approach to runway 13, which was preferred due to terrain obstacles, despite encountering a slight tailwind.
The aircraft touched down approximately 480 meters past the runway threshold. Although the pilot applied heavy braking to the main wheels, the aircraft failed to decelerate effectively due to the lack of friction on the wet grass surface. During the rollout, the aircraft began to slide and eventually rotated sideways, with the right wing striking the airfield fence. The aircraft then careened into a roadside ditch near a provincial road. The pilot and passengers were able to exit the aircraft without injuries, though the PA-46-350P Mirage, registration SP-NSA, sustained significant damage.
The investigation
The PKBWL investigation examined the aircraft's performance capabilities and the environmental conditions at the time of the accident. The investigators noted that the pilot had a habit of landing near the midpoint of the runway to minimize taxi time and utilize the smoothest section of the grass.
Calculations based on the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) indicated that while the theoretical landing roll for ideal conditions was approximately 380 meters, the actual conditions—specifically a wet, grassy surface and a tailwind—significantly altered the required distance. The investigation compared the aircraft's performance to established safety margins, noting that a wet, short-grass runway can increase landing roll requirements by as much as 60%, and applying a safety factor of 1.43 would have required a much longer runway than was available for a midpoint touchdown.
Findings
- The pilot approached the landing at an excessive speed.
- The touchdown point was too far down the runway (midpoint) given the environmental conditions.
- The presence of a tailwind and a wet, slippery grass surface significantly reduced braking effectiveness.
- The pilot likely failed to realize that the recent light rain would drastically reduce the coefficient of friction on the grass.
- There was a lack of communication from the airfield regarding the specific condition of the runway surface.
- The pilot did not opt for a go-around or a second approach despite the changing surface conditions.