What happened
During a flight training progress check at Aarhus (EKAH), a Tecnam P2002 JF was performing a sequence of demanding maneuvers. The flight, which was part of an ATPL syllabus, began with a short field takeoff. Shortly after reaching an altitude of approximately 100 to 150 feet, the flight instructor (FI) simulated an engine failure by reducing throttle power to test the student pilot's response.
While the student had correctly identified the necessary procedures during the pre-flight briefing, they failed to react to the power reduction. Instead of lowering the nose to maintain airspeed, the student maintained a high pitch angle. When the instructor called out the decreasing airspeed, the student experienced an acute stress response, characterized by a violent pull-back on the control stick. This sudden input caused the aircraft to pitch up sharply, leading to a wing drop and a perceived stall.
The instructor attempted to intervene by applying forward pressure on the controls, but encountered significant resistance because the student pilot had effectively frozen while maintaining backpressure on the stick. Unable to immediately remove the student's hand or increase power due to the low altitude, the instructor focused on using ground references to manage the descent. The aircraft eventually regained enough airspeed to unstall, but the instructor was unable to prevent the aircraft from contacting the runway. During the landing flare, a metal protection pin beneath the tail scraped the runway surface, causing minor damage to the aircraft. There were no injuries to the two occupants.
The investigation
The investigation focused on the student pilot's unexpected reaction and the instructor's ability to manage the resulting upset. Investigators examined the flight sequence, the student's training history, and the instructor's qualifications. The investigation also reviewed the training organization's (ATO) procedures regarding progress checks and instructor limitations. The analysis considered the high workload created by performing a short field takeoff and a simulated engine failure in rapid succession, as well as the instructor's training in handling unexpected student inputs.
Findings
- The primary cause of the incident was the student pilot's acute stress response, which led to an inappropriate and violent control input.
- The high workload of performing two complex maneuvers in quick succession likely contributed to a decrease in the student's cognitive performance.
- The instructor's recovery attempt was successful in preventing a more severe accident, though the student's physical resistance to control inputs made regaining full authority difficult.
- The instructor's decision to use outside visual references was a critical factor in managing the low-altitude descent.
Safety action
Following the incident, the training organization implemented several changes to prevent recurrence:
- Student lesson plans were modified to ensure that simulated engine failures are no longer performed immediately following short field takeoffs, thereby reducing student stress.
- Flight instructors were trained on specific physical techniques to block improper control inputs from students during emergencies.
- The organization updated its instructor requirements, ensuring that only unrestricted instructors (those with at least 100 hours of instruction and 25 supervised solo flights) perform progress checks.
- The incident scenario was integrated into the instructor training syllabus and future recurrence training.