Introduction
A two-seater, single-engine Tecnam P2002JF, registration 9H-SEP, crashed while landing on Runway 23 at Malta International Airport. The aircraft impacted the runway threshold and skidded approximately 60 meters to the left, coming to rest on the grass between Taxiway Juliet and Taxiway Zulu, about 5 meters from Taxiway Juliet and Runway 23. No fatalities or injuries were reported, but the aircraft was significantly damaged. No damage to the runway, runway lights, vehicles, or airport structures occurred.
On-Site Investigation
The investigation began with surveying the crash site, including skid marks and debris. The aircraft first contacted the runway in the mid-section of the painted threshold markings. The pilot and passenger showed signs of shock but had no physical injuries. In a preliminary interview, the pilot stated he lost control while attempting a go-around. The passenger, also a licensed pilot but not flying, confirmed this account.
When asked about the go-around, the pilot explained he initiated it to avoid a flock of birds approaching from left to right. He applied full thrust to discontinue the landing. However, inspection of the cockpit revealed the throttle was slightly below the halfway mark, inconsistent with a full-thrust position.
The aircraft was inspected on-site and later in a hangar. The investigation found the aircraft was technically safe, with no part of the fuselage, control surfaces, or instruments contributing to the accident. All documentation, permits, and licenses were current and correct.
Flight History
Malta Air Traffic Services provided CCTV footage, ATC recordings, and meteorological information. The pilot, a prospective commercial pilot, was performing circuit work and practicing touch-and-go landings. He noted that all previous landings were smooth, but the sun became annoying during final approach. He decided to practice a "short field landing" on his last approach before ending the session.
The pilot stated he began the approach by intercepting the localizer at the correct height and distance but then aimed for the runway threshold rather than the proper aiming point. This resulted in a below-glide-slope approach with an increased rate of descent, deviating from standard VFR procedures and reducing safety margins.
Findings
The pilot acknowledged he ignored the stall warning because he believed the operator had increased the warning speed by about 10 knots. The operator confirmed they had increased the stall warning speed by only 4 knots for added safety. The pilot also ignored the airspeed indicator, which provides visual stall warning.
CCTV footage showed the aircraft approaching at a steeper angle than normal. Just before stalling, the nose rose slightly, the aircraft turned right by 60-80 degrees, fell approximately 30 feet, and struck the runway. The impact broke the propeller, folded the nose gear, detached the left main landing gear, and caused severe damage to the engine cowling and right wing. Minor damage occurred to the left wing and elevator.
During subsequent interviews, the pilot and passenger viewed the CCTV footage, which did not show any birds interfering with the flight. Their reaction suggested the perceived birds may have been an optical illusion caused by sun glare on the canopy, making dirt or imperfections appear as birds.
The throttle position found just under halfway was not consistent with a go-around thrust setting. The investigation did not assign a probable cause but documented these findings.