What happened
On 5 July 2011, a Piper PA-34-220T, registration N6920B, was conducting a training flight at Shipdham Airfield in Norfolk. The flight was being conducted by an instructor in the right seat, training a student pilot who was preparing for an Airline Transport Pilot’s Licence practical test. The weather was good, with winds from 230 degrees at less than 10 knots.
During the flight, the aircraft experienced a heavy landing that caused the left propeller tips to strike the runway surface. Following this initial incident, a go-around was performed. During subsequent approaches, the aircraft touched down in a standing crop located short of the runway threshold on two separate occasions. On the second instance, the aircraft proceeded through the crop for a distance before the instructor ordered a go-around. The instructor subsequently took control of the aircraft during the climb.
During the following approach, the aircraft again landed in the crop short of the runway. After a further circuit, the aircraft completed an uneventful final landing. Post-flight inspections of the Piper PA-34-220T revealed damage to the left propeller blade tips and the left wing structure.
The investigation
The AAIB examined the flight sequence and the aircraft's condition. Investigators measured tracks in the crop, which were consistent with the aircraft's landing gear dimensions. While the propeller strike was clearly linked to the second touch-and-go, it could not be definitively determined if the wing structural damage occurred during the initial strike or during the subsequent ground rolls through the crop.
Findings
- The instructor admitted to not paying sufficient attention to the indicated airspeed during the approaches.
- The student pilot, while experienced in large multi-engine jet and turboprop aircraft, had not flown piston-engined aircraft for several years and lacked an understanding of the relationship between throttle, propeller controls, and power delivery.
- The instructor noted that her confidence in the student's ability, based on his airliner experience, may have influenced her lack of intervention.
- The approaches were flown with reduced flap settings (10 to 20 degrees) rather than the full flap recommended by the flight manual, which would have required a higher approach speed to maintain a safety margin above the stall.
- The primary cause was the failure to maintain appropriate approach speeds and monitor the student's flight parameters.