Casualties unknown

2013-04-10: Piper PA 28-161 (F-GGFX) — FR

FR

On April 10, 2013, a Piper PA 28-161 (registration F-GGFX) was involved in an aviation accident near FR. Investigators recorded the probable cause as: The accident was caused by a lack of coordinated procedures between the instructor and pilot regarding the landing/go-around decision, compounded by the presence of a non-frangible obstacle within the takeoff clearance area. This summary draws on records from the French Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA); 8 related events involving the same aircraft type or operator are linked below.

Sourcesthe French Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA)Primary reportUpdated 1785058346Data APIEditorial standards

A training flight involving a Piper PA-28-161 ended in a collision with a non-frangible fence after an unexpected go-around at Chavenay-Villepreux aerodrome.

What happened

On April 10, 2013, a Piper PA 28-161, registered F-GGFX, was conducting a local training flight at the Chavenay-Villepreux aerodrome. The flight crew, consisting of a pilot and an instructor, was performing an engine failure simulation exercise.

Upon approaching runway 23, the pilot performed a landing. During the landing roll, the instructor requested that the crew execute a go-around to perform an additional circuit. The pilot applied power to initiate the maneuver; however, during the acceleration, the aircraft struck the lower part of the aerodrome's perimeter fence, which was located immediately after the runway end. The aircraft came to a stop approximately 90 meters beyond the fence, resulting in heavy damage to the aircraft.

The investigation

The investigation examined the coordination between the crew and the airfield's infrastructure. The instructor stated that they had planned for an engine failure exercise followed by a circuit, and that upon the landing roll, they decided to attempt a go-around. The instructor noted they saw the fence but believed they could avoid it. The pilot reported that the landing flare was long, and they had intended to come to a complete stop. The pilot was also surprised by the sudden instruction to perform a go-around.

An air traffic controller confirmed that the pilot had been granted an "option" for the engine failure exercise, allowing a choice between a landing or a go-around. The controller noted that the aircraft appeared to be decelerating significantly, suggesting a full stop was intended, but heard the engine power increase after the aircraft had passed the runway intersection.

Regarding the airfield, a previous audit in August 2012 had identified that the non-frangible perimeter fence encroached upon the takeoff clearance area for runway 23. While the aerodrome manager had proposed updates to aeronautical information to note the fence's presence and height, these specific updates were not yet reflected in the active aeronautical documentation at the time of the accident.

Findings

  • The crew lacked a shared action plan regarding the procedure to follow following the landing of the engine failure exercise.
  • The pilot's long landing flare, combined with the unexpected requirement to execute a go-around, left insufficient runway distance to avoid the non-frangible fence located in the takeoff clearance area.
  • The soft condition of the runway, caused by recent rainfall, likely contributed to degraded aircraft performance during the maneuver.

Probable cause

The accident was caused by a lack of coordinated procedures between the instructor and pilot regarding the landing/go-around decision, compounded by the presence of a non-frangible obstacle within the takeoff clearance area.