Cessna C172 SP accident at Ambert - Le Poyet (F-GMLA)

Flight and accident sequence On 2 August 2016 at about 15:15 local time, a Cessna C172 SP (180 hp) registered F-GMLA was on a navigation flight from Le Puy-Loudes to Ambert - Le Poyet. The aircraft carried an instructor, a student pilot, and two passengers. During the final approach to runway 02, the aircraft was on the centreline and on the glide path at 60 to 65 kt with the flaps set to 20°. The instructor estimated a headwind of 5 to 10 kt. Just before touchdown, over the threshold and on the runway centreline, the aircraft suddenly rolled left and deviated by about 30°. The instructor took control and applied full power. He found that the aircraft did not respond normally and did not regain altitude. The aircraft flew over a grassy area to the left of the runway at about one metre, touched the ground, regained about one metre of height, struck barbed-wire fences and a post, crossed a road, and ended against a barrier outside the aerodrome perimeter. All four occupants left the aircraft uninjured. ## Aircraft, crew, and conditions The instructor held a PPL(A) and an instructor qualification from 2014. On the day of the accident, he had 1,110 hours of flight time, including 17 hours on type in the previous three months and 4 hours 20 minutes in the previous month. The student had 34 hours of flight training, of which 33 hours were on APM aircraft and one hour on a Cessna C172 (160 hp). Estimated local weather was a north-easterly wind of 5 kt, CAVOK, and a temperature of 27 °C. After the accident, the engine was restarted on site and no power anomaly was found. At the time of the landing, after about 1 hour 30 minutes of flight, the aircraft was close to its maximum mass of 1,158 kg. ## Findings The BEA report states that, given the mass, altitude, and temperature conditions, the sudden left roll during the flare may have corresponded to the onset of a left-wing stall. The instructor's excessive pitch-up probably put the aircraft into a second regime, making the go-around ineffective. Engine performance at the aerodrome altitude and temperature was probably lower than the instructor usually expected, creating the perception of a power deficit. The aerodrome had a short paved runway. The flight manual recommended a 30° flap setting and a 61 kt approach speed for short-runway landings. The narrow runway, displaced threshold, slight downhill slope, and high temperature increased the difficulty of the landing. The student had trained mainly on APM aircraft, and the instructor's choice of destination aerodrome was probably not appropriate for the student's level. The instructor's monitoring during the landing was insufficient to prevent the left roll, and the entry into a second regime during the go-around indicated insufficient mastery of the manoeuvre in an emergency.