What happened
On 8 November 2002, an Airbus A340-313, registration EC-GPB, was conducting a flight test following a heavy maintenance inspection. The flight originated from Madrid-Barajas Airport and included several crew members and maintenance technicians to verify various aircraft systems, including the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS).
During the testing phase at Salamanca Airport, the crew performed several maneuvers, including a touch-and-go and a go-around to test GPWS warnings. Following a takeoff from runway 21, the crew requested two additional fly-pasts. During the subsequent approach, the aircraft began to deviate significantly to the left of the runway axis at approximately 300 ft AGL. The pilot in command reported seeing birds, which prompted a voluntary deviation from the runway centerline.
As the aircraft continued to deviate, it maintained a height of less than 36 ft for approximately 20 seconds without an increase in engine thrust. The aircraft eventually touched down near the edge of the parking apron, where the right-hand flaps struck an abandoned 11-meter-tall sentry box located between the apron and the airport perimeter fence.
The investigation
The CIAIAC investigation examined the flight test plan, the crew' and maintenance personnel's actions, and the aircraft's flight data. The investigation focused on why the aircraft deviated from the runway axis and why the crew failed to correct the descent and lateral deviation. The investigators also reviewed the operator's procedures for appointing flight test crews and the adequacy of the test plan compared to manufacturer recommendations.
Findings
- The inadequate commanding of an approach maneuver caused the aircraft to deviate from the runway axis and lose altitude.
- The pilot in command intentionally deviated from the runway axis due to a reported bird sighting.
- The crew failed to react for 56 seconds while the aircraft was deviating from the runway and losing altitude.
- The decision was made to perform a "don't sink" GPWS warning test at an extremely low altitude.
- The flight test plan used by the operator had not been updated with the latest manufacturer recommendations regarding GPWS testing.
- The crew composition lacked an ideal experience gradient, as the pilot in command had recently served as an instructor to the copilot, potentially reducing the effectiveness of the cockpit hierarchy during the emergency.
Safety action
- The operator should update flight test plans following maintenance to align with the latest manufacturer documentation.
- The operator should establish formal procedures for appointing flight test crews to ensure a minimum level of experience and qualification.
- Clearer roles and responsibilities regarding specific test items should be established in maintenance flight test procedures.