What happened
On December 30, 2012, a private Dyn’Aéro MCR Sportster, registration HB-YKH, was conducting a flight from Zaragoza, Spain, to Carcassonne, France. During the approach to Carcassonne Salvaza aerodrome, the air traffic controller informed the pilot of a commercial transport aircraft ahead, instructing the pilot to maintain a following position and warning of potential wake turbulence. The controller also noted that the preceding aircraft would continue up the runway after landing.
As the HB-YKH transitioned to short final, the controller observed that the preceding aircraft was still occupying the runway and instructed the pilot of the MCR Sportster to perform a go-around and re-establish on the downwind leg. Despite this explicit instruction, the pilot chose to continue the landing approach. The aircraft touched down on the runway while the other aircraft was still present, narrowly avoiding a collision.
The investigation
The investigation examined the pilot's decision-making process, the aircraft's performance capabilities, and the communication between the pilot and the controller. The pilot reported that at the moment of the go-around instruction, the aircraft was approximately 30 meters from the runway threshold at an altitude of 5 to 10 meters, traveling at 65 knots with flaps partially extended.
The pilot expressed concerns that a go-around would be difficult due to the low airspeed and the presence of the other aircraft directly ahead. The pilot feared that attempting to climb would require more speed than was available to safely clear the obstacle. However, technical analysis of the MCR Sportster performance indicated that the aircraft's engine power would have been sufficient to initiate a climb even with the flaps extended, as the electric flap retraction process would have allowed time for the aircraft to accelerate.
Findings
- The primary cause of the incident was the pilot's decision to continue the landing approach and land on an occupied runway despite being instructed by the controller to execute a go-around.
- A lack of anticipation by the pilot regarding the possibility of an interrupted approach meant they were not prepared for the controller's instruction.
- The pilot's lack of familiarity with the specific performance capabilities of the aircraft contributed to the error, as they incorrectly believed a go-around was not a viable option.
- The pilot's reliance on controller instructions led to a loss of situational control, as they failed to prioritize the safety necessity of an independent go-around decision.