Piper PA-28 accident at Salon (24) on 24 July 2012

Overview and flight details On Tuesday, 24 July 2012, at 13:40 local time, a Piper Aircraft PA-28 registered F-GEBA was destroyed in an accident at Salon (24). The aircraft was operated by a club. The pilot and passenger were flying from Blois (41) to the private airfield at Rebeyrotte (24). The pilot had previously made three landings at Rebeyrotte with the same passenger. ## Navigation and approach The pilot had entered the destination coordinates into a portable GPS. South of Périgueux, the passenger reported seeing the Rebeyrotte airfield. The pilot was surprised because the GPS still indicated more than four minutes of flight time. He overflew the location identified by the passenger. The orientation of the grass strip appeared to match the expected 01-19 runway, and the profile of the grass strip (rising then flat) and observed landmarks (road, buildings, body of water) seemed consistent with the configuration of the Rebeyrotte airfield. ## Go-around and collision The pilot joined the right-hand downwind leg to land on runway 19 and reported his position on radio (123.5 MHz). As the aircraft approached the ground, the arrangement of some trees did not match his memory, and the condition of the ground on the right side seemed doubtful. He expressed his doubts to the passenger, who replied that he should aim for the top of the rising part of the runway. The aircraft touched down and bounced. The pilot decided to go around. After passing the change in slope of the runway, he saw power lines ahead of the aircraft and judged that he could not pass over them. He decided to pass underneath. The aircraft struck a fence and then a tree, and came to rest on its back in a field. The occupants evacuated the aircraft and alerted the emergency services. ## Contributing factors and context The elements provided by the pilot appear to indicate that entering the airfield coordinates in a format different from that expected by the GPS contributed to the position error. Position formats (for example xxx° mm.mmm or xxx°mm’ss.s’’) are often configurable. It is necessary to choose the format that matches the format of the coordinates to be inserted. The pilot added that during a flight the previous week, when arriving at another private airfield, he had noticed that his GPS still indicated a flight time of about two minutes to reach that airfield, whose coordinates he had programmed. It was the first time he had programmed destination coordinates. He believes that this event led him to consider the GPS indications unreliable during the flight in question. The weather conditions were CAVOK. The pilot was 36 years old and had a total of about 980 flight hours, including 87 in the last twelve months. The passenger was 55 years old, was a student pilot, and had 30 flight hours. The pilot and passenger had flown together on several occasions. ## Conclusion The accident was due to a late decision to go around after an airfield identification error. Identification errors at small, isolated grass airfields are possible. To minimize the risk of error, good practice is to identify, during flight preparation, the appropriate means for locating the desired airfield (radio-electrical means, GPS, routing from easily identifiable landmarks, systematic error method, estimated time of arrival). GPS provides great precision for navigation provided that the programming of points is correct. Its use requires certain precautions (see for example AIC 08/10 “Utilisation du GPS en VFR” on the SIA website). The presence of a passenger, whatever his aeronautical experience, can influence a pilot’s decisions. REC Info 6/2008 (“Passagers”) gives several examples.