ELOM:2023:021 | Below minimum flight altitude during engine failure exercise | North Holland
Decision: 28 August 2023 PPS North Holland
Aviation case category: General aviation (single-engine aircraft)
Formal links: -/-
Content indication: Engine failure exercise during instruction flight at former Soesterberg airbase conducted differently than expected The instructor realised too late that the exercise led to flying below the minimum flight altitude. Partly because of self-reflection, the case was dismissed.
PPS Decision
in the case against an instructor, referred to below as the suspect.
Reason for the investigation
The investigation was launched following a telephone report from a Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (Kmar) officer. The report included the following: 'A few minutes ago, PH-[XXX] flew lower than the treetops over the old runway of former Soesterberg Air Base. At the time, people were walking there and drones also regularly fly there. This posed a danger to life.'
Suspected offence
Violation of SERA.5005(f), Regulation 923/2012.
Talks at the public prosector's office
After the aviation police report was received by the prosecutor's office on 11 July 2023, the suspect was invited for a hearing with the aviation prosecutor. This hearing took place on 28 August 2023.
Facts and circumstances
Based on the official report and talks, it was established that on [date in the year] 2023, the suspect flew below the minimum flying altitude of 500 feet as captain of a [single-engine propeller aircraft] (registration number PH-[XXX]) at the former Soesterberg air base. The suspect confessed this to the aviation police and during the interview and outlined the context of the offence.
It follows from the suspect's statements that the purpose of the flight was to have an engine failure practised by another pilot, who was piloting the aircraft. The suspect was the instructor and pilot-in-charge. During the hearing, the suspect explained that the intention was to perform a go-around at 500 feet, but that the pilot flying the aircraft carried out the exercise differently from what the suspect had expected and, as a result, the suspect himself did not realise in time that the aircraft was being flown below the minimum flight altitude. The suspect did not immediately intervene when the pilot performed the exercise differently because, in his estimation, safety was not compromised. He also outlined the dilemma that such a flight also provides an opportunity to see how a candidate deals with any mistakes.
Decision
The aviation prosecutor stressed that room for error is possible only within the limits of laws and regulations. It is a matter for the instructor to look not only at safety, but also at legal compliance.
If action is taken other than intended, extra attention should be paid to it. The offence had an impact, not least because a Kmar officer thought that the plane would crash. The suspect expressed that he could well imagine this in retrospect and would have felt the same way. This self-reflection informed the aviation prosecutor's decision on whether a criminal response to the offence should follow. It was also taken into account that the suspect reported the occurrence and was willing to learn from it with other instructors. In view of this, it was decided that no punishment would be given for the offence.