Crash of a Cessna 340A in Pernand-Vergelesses
Date & Time:
Dec 2, 2024 at 1457 LT
Registration:
N340GJ
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Beaune - Beaune
MSN:
340A-0637
YOM:
1978
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total hours on type:
0.00
Copilot / Total hours on type:
11
Circumstances:
The crew (one TRE pilot and one student pilot) departed Beaune-Challenges Airport at 1326LT on a local training flight. The purpose of the flight was a MEP Class qualification. After takeoff, the crew was unable to raise the landing gear so the decision was taken to return to the airport. A visual check of the landing gear did not reveal any anomalies so the crew decided to take off again at 1405LT to continue the training program. A series of exercises was completed then some touch-and-go manoeuvres at Dijon-Darois Airport. At 1447LT, the crew decided to return to Beaune and the descent was initiated in poor weather conditions with low ceiling and rain. The examiner informed the pilot they were two minutes from the airport and asked him to start the approach. While descending the the airport, the pilot lost visual reference with the ground due to clouds. When he saw 'green' in front of him, he elected to correct the path but the airplane impacted trees and crashed in a vineyard, bursting into flames. Both occupants were seriously injured and the airplane was destroyed by a post crash fire.
Probable cause:
The following findings were identified:
- May have contributed to undertaking and completing a practical examination for a class rating, despite weather conditions likely incompatible with visual flight and an inadequate aircraft condition: the time pressure felt for the MEP examination presentation, resulting from the pilot's training deadline, as well as the limited availability of the aircraft and examiner.
- May have contributed to the loss of visual reference in flight and the collision with the ground: the pilot's repeated passage through layers during previous flights with this examiner may have led the pilot and examiner to consider this type of situation acceptable.
- Furthermore, the choice of an aircraft very different from the one used by the pilot during his training (Tecnam 2006) and the lack of training on the difference resulted in a lack of comfort and an increased workload for both the pilot and the examiner.
- The long trip by car the same morning (five hours between Angoulême and Beaune) may have caused fatigue for both the pilot and the examiner.
- May have contributed to undertaking and completing a practical examination for a class rating, despite weather conditions likely incompatible with visual flight and an inadequate aircraft condition: the time pressure felt for the MEP examination presentation, resulting from the pilot's training deadline, as well as the limited availability of the aircraft and examiner.
- May have contributed to the loss of visual reference in flight and the collision with the ground: the pilot's repeated passage through layers during previous flights with this examiner may have led the pilot and examiner to consider this type of situation acceptable.
- Furthermore, the choice of an aircraft very different from the one used by the pilot during his training (Tecnam 2006) and the lack of training on the difference resulted in a lack of comfort and an increased workload for both the pilot and the examiner.
- The long trip by car the same morning (five hours between Angoulême and Beaune) may have caused fatigue for both the pilot and the examiner.
Final Report:
