Incident Overview
On 16 May 2024, a Tecnam P2008 JC aircraft, registration SP-FAN, was involved in a serious incident at Krępa Słupska airfield (EPSK). The flight was a training sortie with an instructor and a student pilot. The aircraft had departed from Gdańsk Lech Wałęsa Airport (EPGD) at 09:37 local time and landed at EPSK at 11:20. After discussing weather conditions—no clouds, wind from 120° at 8–12 knots—the instructor briefed the student on a plan involving simulated emergency procedures: rejected takeoffs, engine failure on the circuit, and power-off approaches.
Sequence of Events
The training flights from EPSK began at 11:40. First, two rejected takeoffs were performed on Runways 10 and 28. The student then flew a circuit to simulate an engine failure after the third turn. During the approach, the student selected flaps to take-off (T/O) position and reduced speed to about 65 knots. Both the student and instructor recounted that during subsequent circuits, the student had to add power to reach the runway. On the third circuit, as the aircraft aligned with Runway 10, the instructor reduced power to idle at circuit altitude (1300 ft). The student lowered flaps to T/O and maintained 65 knots, correcting for a right crosswind with right aileron and left rudder. At an altitude of approximately 2–3 meters, the student began to flare but noted a speed decrease, adding power. In the final moments, as the aircraft descended, the student pulled back on the control column, causing the aircraft to bank right, stall, and collide with the ground. After impact, the aircraft rolled left and came to rest on its left wing.
However, analysis of airport camera footage and Garmin G3X flight data contradicted the crew's accounts. The footage showed no distinct flare phase; the aircraft descended smoothly with slight oscillation until stalling at around 3 meters, then banked right and struck the ground, likely first on the main wheels (possibly the right main) and then the nose wheel almost simultaneously. The aircraft rolled about 12 meters before stopping, tilting left and hitting the left wing on the ground before returning to a two-wheel position.
Damage
The hard landing resulted in damage to the nose gear leg, left wing, and propeller blade.
Crew Information
The instructor, a 50-year-old male, held a valid CPL(A) license with SEP(L), IR(A), MEP(L), and FI(A) ratings and a Class 1 medical certificate. His total flight time was 4518 hours 37 minutes, with 13 hours 40 minutes on the Tecnam P2008.
The student pilot, 25 years old, held a CPL(A) license with SEP(L) and IR(A) ratings and a Class 1 medical certificate. Total flight time was 219 hours, with zero hours in the preceding 90 days.
Meteorological Conditions
Just before the stall, wind was from 146° at 22 knots, with a crosswind component of 15.5 knots and headwind component of 15.5 knots. The aircraft flight manual specified a maximum demonstrated crosswind of 15 knots. Wind speed and direction varied significantly during the flight, exceeding forecast values.
Findings and Contributing Factors
Investigation determined that the incident resulted primarily from errors by the student and a lack of reaction from the instructor. The student incorrectly planned the circuit during the power-off landing maneuver, failing to maintain proper altitude and distance from the runway, which required repeated power additions. The instructor remained passive, not correcting the student's errors during the first two circuits and not intervening during the third approach despite decreasing speed and altitude visible on the Garmin G3X display.
Contributing factors included the student's improper distribution of attention due to excessive focus outside the cockpit before the flare, the instructor's limited experience on the Tecnam P2008, the student's significant break from flying, and variable, gusty wind conditions.
Causes
2.1 Incorrect planning of the circuit by the student during the power-off landing maneuver, which did not ensure the aircraft would clear the runway and led to a stall.
2.2 Lack of supervision and reaction to errors by the student on the part of the instructor.
Preventive Actions
The investigating entity conducted additional training with the instructor on methods of supervising student pilots during flight.
Safety Recommendations
None were issued.