What happened
On 7 December 2016, a Robin DR400/180 Regent, registration G-ETIV, was conducting practice forced landings at Rochester Airport. The flight was being operated by a pilot who had recently undergone eye surgery, accompanied by a flight instructor acting in the capacity of a "safety pilot."
During the second approach towards Runway 20L, the aircraft was flying at a low speed and altitude. As the aircraft neared the ground, the flight instructor abruptly intervened by overriding the pilot's control inputs. The instructor turned the aircraft 60 degrees to the right, directing it towards the parallel Runway 20R. During this sudden maneuver, the right mainwheel struck an airfield lighting unit (APAPI) located on the left side of the runway. The pilot managed to regain control and successfully landed the aircraft on Runway 20R, though the aircraft sustained damage to the right mainwheel spats and the brake unit.
The investigation
The investigation examined the roles and responsibilities of the crew, the pilot's medical status, and the communication between the aircraft and the airfield. It was established that the pilot had undergone a cataract removal six days prior to the flight. While the pilot believed his vision had recovered, he had not consulted an Aero-Medical Examiner (AME) regarding the surgical procedure.
Investigators also looked into the crew's understanding of their roles. The pilot and the instructor had not conducted a formal pre-flight briefing to define the Pilot-in-Command (PIC) or to establish procedures for control transfers. The instructor believed he was acting as a safety pilot, but the investigation found that the term "safety pilot" is not a recognized role in this context unless a specific medical limitation is present. Furthermore, because the instructor did not sign the journey log as PIC, he was legally a passenger and should not have been performing instructional maneuvers.
Findings
- The primary cause of the accident was the unannounced and uncoordinated intervention by the flight instructor to take control of the aircraft.
- There was a significant lack of pre-flight briefing regarding crew roles, responsibilities, and the procedure for handing over control.
- The pilot failed to seek medical advice from an AME following a surgical procedure, which is required under EASA regulations.
- A misunderstanding of the regulatory role of a "safety pilot" contributed to the lack of clear command structure during the flight.
- There was a breakdown in communication regarding which runway was in use for landings at the airfield.