What happened
On May 14, 2015, a Piper PA28, registration F-OGJF, was conducting a flight test for a Private Pilot License (PPL) over the French West Indies. The flight, which included a student pilot and an examiner, was traveling from Saint-François to Fort-de-France when the examiner requested a series of maneuver exercises near Marie-Galleante.
During the approach to runway 09, the examiner instructed the student to perform a simulated engine failure and forced landing exercise by reducing engine power. The aircraft entered a very long final approach. As the aircraft progressed, the student expressed doubt regarding the ability to reach the runway. Despite this, the examiner instructed the student to extend one notch of flaps. Shortly before the runway threshold, the aircraft struck a row of trees approximately three meters high and subsequently collided with the ground. The impact resulted in one injury to the examiner and one slight injury to the student, while the aircraft sustained heavy damage.
The investigation
The BEA investigation examined the flight trajectory, meteorological conditions, and the crew's decision-making process. Radar data revealed that the aircraft was approximately 8.1 km from the runway threshold when power was reduced. While the aircraft's performance manual suggested a glide range of 5.4 NM under zero-wind conditions, the investigation established that an effective headwind of approximately 18 knots reduced the achievable glide distance to roughly 4.4 NM, making the runway unreachable.
Investigators also reviewed the examiner's training and the safety manuals provided by the Approved Training Organization (ATO). It was noted that the specific maneuver of initiating a simulated engine failure from such a long final approach was not a standard procedure and was not explicitly detailed in the ATO's safety manual.
Findings
- The primary cause of the collision was the late decision to execute a go-around due to an erroneous estimation of the clearance margin over the vegetation.
- An insufficient assessment of the effects of the headwind meant the crew failed to realize the runway was unreachable via gliding.
- The examiner's instruction to extend flaps actually degraded the approach path.
- The student's concerns regarding the glide distance were not addressed by the examiner.
- The pressure to complete the checkride before the student's theoretical knowledge certificate expired the following day may have contributed to the decision to proceed with the exercise.