What happened
On June 24, 2006, a student pilot was conducting a solo flight in a Robin DR 40 and 120, registration F-GJZE, at Brest Aerodrome. The flight, originally intended as a dual-instruction navigation, was modified by the instructor to a solo session due to favorable weather conditions.
During the flight, the student pilot performed several maneuvers, including a rejected landing (touch-and-go). During the final approach, the pilot was instructed to orbit to avoid interference with an approaching airliner. While integrating into the traffic pattern, the student pilot failed to notice another aircraft in the downwind leg.
During the landing, the pilot's main gear touched the runway, but the aircraft's trajectory suddenly veered to the left. The pilot, reacting with hesitation, reduced engine power and allowed the aircraft to roll until it came to a stop in the grass off the runway. There were no injuries and no damage to the aircraft.
The investigation
The investigation focused on the student pilot's handling of the aircraft and the instructional environment. It was established that the student pilot was experiencing significant professional stress during the weekend of the flight.
Technically, the investigation examined the pilot's control inputs during the crosswind landing. It was found that the pilot failed to sufficiently use the rudder to counteract the crab angle (de-crab) and neglected to coordinate rudder input with elevator movement. Furthermore, the investigation looked into the student's training habits, noting that during previous dual-instruction sessions, the instructor had frequently assisted with the control column, leading the student to focus almost exclusively on rudder inputs while neglecting pitch and roll management.
Findings
- The primary cause of the excursion was insufficient rudder coordination and failure to coordinate the rudder with the control column during a crosswind landing.
- The student pilot had become overly reliant on the instructor's manual inputs during dual training, leading to a lack of engagement with the aircraft's pitch and roll controls.
- There was insufficient supervision during the instructional process.
- Communication between the student and the instructor was inadequate, as the instructor was unaware of the student's specific anxieties regarding crosswind techniques or their mental state.
- The student pilot's performance was impacted by external professional stressors.