What happened
On March 30, 2003, a Reims Aviation Cessna F 172 H, registration I-VEPP, was performing a local recreational flight at the Vigarolo aerodrome in Lodi, Italy. The flight crew, consisting of a pilot and a passenger (who was also a licensed private pilot), decided to conduct a simulated engine failure training maneuver shortly before returning to the airfield.
During the final approach to runway 16, the aircraft was configured with the engine at idle and flaps retracted. Without prior coordination with the pilot, the passenger unilaterally extended the flaps to the full position and only notified the pilot after the action had been completed. This sudden change in configuration significantly increased drag and steepened the descent trajectory. Consequently, the aircraft struck the ground approximately 25 meters before the runway threshold, impacting an irrigation canal that runs perpendicular to the runway. The impact caused the aircraft to pitch forward onto its nose and then settle backward against the opposite bank of the canal, resulting in substantial damage to the airframe and engine. Both the pilot and the passenger sustained serious injuries.
The investigation
The ANSV investigation examined the flight sequence, the aircraft's technical condition, and the operational environment of the aero club. Investigators found that the aircraft was in good mechanical condition and had undergone regular maintenance, though it was noted that the airworthiness certificate had recently expired.
The investigation also scrutinized the airfield's characteristics, noting a discrepancy between the official ENAC records and the actual dimensions of the Vigar and airfield. Furthermore, the investigators reviewed the organizational practices of the Aero Club, identifying several safety culture concerns, including inadequate technical record-keeping and a lack of strict adherence to safety protocols within the hangar facilities.
Findings
- The primary cause of the accident was the unauthorized extension of the flaps by the passenger, which was communicated to the pilot too late to allow for a corrective power increase.
- The presence of an irrigation canal located only 25 meters from the runway threshold acted as a contributing factor that exacerbated the severity of the impact.
- A lack of clear communication and role definition between the pilot and the passenger during the simulated emergency maneuver led to the unplanned configuration change.
- The investigation also identified secondary issues, such as the expired airworthiness certificate and deficiencies in the aero club's technical management and safety oversight.