ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 244799
This information is added by users of ASN. Neither ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information.
If you feel this information is incomplete or incorrect, you can submit corrected information.
| Date: | Monday 3 November 2014 |
| Time: | 13:30 |
| Type: |  Cessna 510 Citation Mustang |
| Owner/operator: | Ouest Participations SARL |
| Registration: | F-GMTJ |
| MSN: | 510-0222 |
| Fatalities: | Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 2 |
| Aircraft damage: | None |
| Category: | Serious incident |
| Location: | Paris-Le Bourget Airport (LBG/LFPB) -
 France
|
| Phase: | Landing |
| Nature: | Private |
| Departure airport: | La Môle-Saint-Tropez Airport (LFTZ) |
| Paris-Le Bourget Airport (LBG/LFPB) | |
| Investigating agency: | BEA |
| Confidence Rating: |  Information verified through data from accident investigation authorities |
The pilot made a private flight between the La Môle-Saint-Tropez Airport and Paris-Le Bourget. At the end of a VOR approach for runway 25, he lined up on a disused runway located between runways 25 and 27, flew over obstacles and landed after crossing with runway 03/21.
On approach to a destination that he knew well and with good weather conditions, the pilot identified his end point without realizing that it was a disused runway, without indicators.
The favorable conditions of flight could have placed the pilot in a situation of hypovigilance which led him to pursue the end of the approach by sight, to the detriment of the monitoring of his instruments.
The offset of 26° between the axis of the approach and the axis of the runway in use imposes an alteration of heading while the pilot is close to short final. This configuration requires a particular monitoring of the approach while the pilot does not have the runway aligned in his field of vision.
The coexistence of several runways must be perceived by the pilots by implementing verification actions allowing a formal identification of the runway. These verifications are all the more important when the axis of the runways does not coincide with the approach axis and when recent experience on the type of approach is weak. The pilot was conducting an approach procedure to which he was not accustomed: he did not anticipate the difficulties that such a change in his habits could cause.
The visual cue created by the clear area at the end of the abandoned runway may have delayed awareness of the runway identification error. On the other hand, the closed taxiway markings present on the abandoned runway were not perceived by the pilot because of their small size on a 60-meter wide runway. Marks of closed area of runway, of white color and of larger dimensions, could have drawn the attention of the pilot.
By seeing that the pilot had not aligned on the good runway and was about to land, the controller estimated that an intervention on his part could destabilize the pilot. He did not consider that continuing the landing on an unsuitable and potentially obstacle-clogged surface could have serious consequences.
Accident investigation:
 |
|
Sources:
BEA
History of this aircraft
Other occurrences involving this aircraft
| 22 January 2019 | F-GMTJ | Ouest Participations SARL | 0 | Paris-Le Bourget Airport (LBG/LFPB) | |
min |
Revision history:
| Date/time | Contributor | Updates |
|---|---|---|
| 11-Nov-2020 12:31 | harro | Added |
Corrections or additions? ... Edit this accident description
The Aviation Safety Network is an exclusive service provided by:
Quick Links:
| ASN Home | Send Correction / Feedback |
| FSF Home | Disclaimer | Copyright |
| Contact Us | Privacy Policy |
| Press / Media |
CONNECT WITH US:
©2024 Flight Safety Foundation