What happened
On October 11, 2021, a TECNAM P2006T, registration EC-NKF, operated by Fly Bai, S.L., was conducting a local instructional flight at Burgos Airport (LEBG). The crew consisted of an instructor and a student pilot. After performing various maneuvers, including simulated engine failures, the crew returned to the airport for landing training.
During the approach to runway 04, the instructor took control of the aircraft from the student without explanation. The instructor intended to perform a short landing and, following a habit of leaving the gear down during short circuits to prevent system overheating, did not verify the gear position. The student, feeling confused and disconnected from the flight due to the instructor's sudden takeover and lack of communication, also failed to monitor the landing gear lights. Consequently, the aircraft touched down on its fuselage, sliding approximately 130 meters along the runway. Both occupants were uninjured.
The investigation
The CIAIAC investigation examined the aircraft's mechanical systems, the instructor's flight logs, and the training organization's operational procedures. The investigation confirmed that the landing gear and the acoustic warning system were fully functional.
Investigators analyzed the instructor's workload, finding that his flight schedule was extremely tight, with consecutive flights scheduled without sufficient time for pre-flight or post-flight briefings. The investigation also noted that the instructor had experienced significant personal distractions on the day of the event and had previously exceeded legal flight duty limits. Furthermore, the student's inability to understand the instructor's radio communications, which were conducted in Spanish, was identified as a factor in the lack of situational awareness.
Findings
- The primary cause of the incident was the failure to extend the landing gear due to the instructor's failure to adhere to both the aircraft manufacturer's procedures and the flight school's standard operating procedures.
- The instructor's sudden takeover of the controls without communicating his intentions caused the student to become disengaged from the flight monitoring process.
- The instructor's high workload and lack of adequate rest/briefing periods between flights contributed to a state of potential incapacitation.
- The instructor failed to recognize his own diminished capacity to conduct the flight safely due to accumulated fatigue and personal stressors.
- The flight school's lack of oversight regarding flight scheduling allowed for a pattern of back-to-back flights that compromised the quality of instruction and safety margins.
Safety action
- The ATO (Approved Training Organization) implemented new procedures requiring students to verbally confirm "gear down and locked" during final approach.
- The operator transitioned from using freelance instructors to using only permanent staff to ensure better oversight and stability in flight scheduling.