What happened
On November 3, 2014, a Cessna 510 Citation Mustang, registration F-GMTJ, was conducting a private flight from La Môle to Paris Le Bourget. During the arrival, the pilot requested a VOR approach to runway 25 because they were not qualified for the GNSS approach and the ILS was unavailable due to maintenance.
The VOR 25 approach involves a 26-degree offset from the actual runway centerline. While following the approach, the pilot identified a landing area that they believed to be runway 2/5. Relying on visual cues rather than instrument monitoring, the pilot aligned the aircraft with a disused runway located between runways 25 and 27. As the aircraft reached short final, the pilot noticed the absence of runway markings and the presence of barriers on the surface, prompting a momentary level flight to avoid obstacles before touching down on the closed surface.
The investigation
The BEA examined the pilot's experience, the approach procedures, and the airfield configuration. The investigation noted that the pilot had extensive experience but had rarely performed the VOR 25 approach, having only done so a few times years prior. The controller at the tower observed the aircraft's position and realized the pilot was aligning with the disused runway; however, the controller hesitated to issue a go-around command, fearing it might destabilize the pilot during a critical phase of flight.
Investigators also analyzed the markings on the disused runway. The area was marked with small yellow crosses indicating a closed taxiway. The investigation found that the visual appearance of the concrete at the end of the disused runway, which was lighter than the surrounding area, likely contributed to the misidentification.
Findings
- The pilot's reliance on visual identification at the expense of instrument monitoring led to the misidentification of the landing surface.
- A state of hypovigilance caused by favorable weather conditions and familiarity with the destination airport reduced the pilot's situational awareness.
- The 26-degree offset of the VOR approach axis required heightened monitoring, which was not maintained.
- The small size of the yellow taxiway closure markings made them difficult to perceive on the wide 60-meter surface.
- The controller's decision not to intervene or command a go-around allowed the landing to proceed on the incorrect surface.