Control issues

What happened  

On 12 April 2026, a student pilot, the sole occupant of a Cessna 172R, was conducting solo circuits at Archerfield Airport, Queensland. Prior to this, dual training (with an instructor) was conducted for about half an hour. The flight was the third time the student had flown solo, and an instructor was responsible for supervising their flight. There was a quartering headwind at about 8 kt.

The solo circuits were initially conducted on runway 28L prior to the pilot requesting a ‘full-stop landing’¹ to complete the flight. At this point the air traffic controller (tower) changed the runway assignment to runway 28R.

The pilot then conducted three unsuccessful landing attempts to runway 28R. Each of these attempts resulting in the aircraft either ‘bouncing’² or ‘porpoising’³ followed by the student conducting a go-around. The student pilot reported that during one of the attempted landings a significant ‘bounce’ occurred.

The controller reported to the operator that the second landing attempt involved the aircraft porpoising, resulting in a tail strike and what appeared to be a possible propeller strike. 

The supervising instructor reported observing that the third landing was a hard landing. noting the nose wheel came into contact with the runway first. The earlier landing attempts were not fully visible by the instructor due to them not having a clear line of sight. 

After the third attempt to land, the supervising instructor contacted the air traffic control tower and communicated directly with the student, via the tower frequency, to provide the student verbal assistance, helping to facilitate a safe landing on the fourth attempt.

A post-flight inspection of the aircraft by the operator revealed the tail tie-down hook was missing, with evidence of a tail strike and firewall deformation (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Damage to aircraft

Source: Operator, annotated by the ATSB 

Safety message

While conducting training flights, students can experience a high workload, particularly during solo flights and landing. Maintaining a calm mindset is important in order to adjust the aircraft’s profile and airspeed accordingly and determine if a go‑around is necessary. 

All pilots, regardless of their experience levels, should be prepared to undertake a go‑around rather than continuing if they are not confident that a successful landing can be achieved. This occurrence also serves as a reminder that after any hard landing or other related incident where the integrity of the airframe or structure may be compromised, an engineering inspection can detect damage that may not be immediately apparent.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

1. ^    A ‘full-stop landing’ in pilot training means the pilot does not intend to take off again immediately.
2. ^    A bounced landing is a condition where the aircraft lands on the runway, but instead of rolling on the surface after touchdown, it rebounds/bounces off the ground. 
3. ^    ‘Porpoising’ refers to the manoeuvre that can occur after a bounced landing that is improperly recovered, in which the aeroplane comes in nose first setting off a series of cyclic vertical motions.

What happened

On 16 April 2026, a pilot and passenger on board a Van’s RV-7 departed Archerfield Airport on a private flight to Fig Tree Aircraft Landing Area (ALA), Queensland. The Fig Tree ALA had a 400 m unsealed grass runway at an elevation of 1,600 ft AMSL. The pilot noted that they were conscious of the increased risk of operating into an airstrip with a short runway and had conducted short field landing practice at Archerfield the day prior.

After arriving overhead Fig Tree airfield, a standard field inspection and a go-around was conducted to gain familiarity with the runway characteristics, as was required by the field operator. At 1110 local time, the aircraft commenced an approach and landing on runway 16. As the aircraft touched down midfield on the runway, the pilot determined that with the remaining landing distance available and the aircraft’s high speed, a go-around was required. During the go-around at approximately 20 ft AGL, the aircraft encountered sink and failed to climb as expected. The pilot made the decision to reduce the power to idle and attempted to conduct an off-field landing. The aircraft subsequently collided with thick shrubbery off the end of runway 16, resulting in substantial structural damage. (Figure 1). Both occupants were uninjured and extricated themselves from the aircraft. 

After the occurrence, the pilot recalled that the accident approach was faster than anticipated. The operator determined there were no technical faults with the engine that affected the reduced climbing performance.

Figure 1: Fig Tree ALA

Source: Operator, annotated by the ATSB

Safety message

The margin for error while operating at airfields with short runways is limited and requires pilots to conduct the appropriate short field take-off and landing technique. In the case when an approach becomes unsuitable for a safe landing to occur, it is vital that pilots conduct a go-around as soon as practical.

The occurrence also highlights the importance for all pilots to have a personal minimums checklist that aligns with their individual flying experience. If at any time the conditions exceed these minimums or doubt is experienced, pilots should not continue to land and consider using alternative runways, alternative airfields or returning to the departure location if the available fuel permits.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

What happened

On 9 December 2025, an Ayres Thrush S2R-T34 was being used to conduct agricultural spraying, which involved multiple circuits and landings to pick up and disperse approximately 40 loads.

During landing, before picking up the final load for the day, the pilot observed a vehicle approaching the landing strip towards the loading area. The pilot applied additional braking to avoid a possible collision with the vehicle and the aircraft subsequently veered towards a drainage channel adjacent to the landing strip.

While the pilot monitored the approaching vehicle, the aircraft continued towards the end of the landing strip and the drainage channel. The pilot subsequently attempted to correct the aircraft to remain on the strip however there was insufficient distance and time, and the aircraft entered the channel. There were no injuries to the pilot, and the aircraft was substantially damaged.

Figure 1: Aircraft damage

Source: operator, edited by the ATSB

Safety message

In this occurrence the distraction of the vehicle approaching the landing strip diverted the pilot’s attention from monitoring the landing roll, resulting in a loss of situational awareness.

This type of distraction is more likely to impact performance due to the cognitive demands of one spatial visual scanning task (i.e. monitoring landing roll) being interrupted by another spatial task (i.e. a vehicle moving towards the aircraft’s projected path), particularly during a critical phase of flight where there is very little time to assess the situation.

Concurrent task management depends on the pilot’s ability to effectively prioritise tasks and appropriately time share tasks by rapid switching, whereby attention quickly shifts between tasks. This is essential when the pilot is dealing with multiple tasks, which are all critical to flight safety.

The ability to appropriately prioritise and use rapid switching may be affected by workload and fatigue, which can be a factor during operations involving large numbers of short, similar flights in quick succession. Effective use of rapid switching can also be improved through experience as well as specific task management training.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

What happened

On 22 December 2025 at 1640, a pilot was conducting circuit operations with one passenger on board a Cessna 150H at West Sale Airport, Victoria. 

In contrast to the recorded weather conditions, the pilot identified a left-hand crosswind via the aerodrome windsock for the one runway available. Alternate grass runways were unavailable due to rain in the preceding 24 hours.

During landing in the crosswind on runway 27, the pilot ‘crabbed’ by yawing[1] the nose of the aircraft into the wind to prevent the aircraft from drifting off the centreline. The pilot assessed that the approach was stable and proceeded to touch down. During rollout, after the flare, the aircraft encountered a gusting wind, resulting in the aircraft ballooning[2] and yawing to the right. In response, the pilot attempted to counteract with a left yaw. However, the conditions exceeded the aircraft’s capabilities and the aircraft was carried to the right, and the right wheel contacted the runway surface. The right main landing gear collapsed, and the right wing tip struck the ground before the aircraft veered off the runway. 

The pilot and passenger exited the aircraft without injuries, and the aircraft was substantially damaged (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Damage to the Cessna 150H right landing gear

Source: Aircraft owner

Safety message

Crosswind gusts during the later stages of landing can present challenges for pilots. Depending on the magnitude and direction of the gust, there may be insufficient time to apply corrective controls before the aircraft deviates from the intended path.

Once the aircraft wheels touch down, it's important to remain focused and use your rudder to keep the aircraft straight, even after you have touched down, to retain control and stability.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

What happened

On 8 November 2025, at approximately 1315 local time,[1] a Boeing A75N1 (Stearman), with one pilot on board, departed a privately-owned runway near Dochra, New South Wales. 

The pilot conducted a 30-minute private flight, before returning to the 500 m-long grass runway, orientated almost north-south. The pilot reported that the shorter runway required them to use a ‘short field’ landing technique and that the wind was westerly at less than 10 kt and variable near the ground. 

The pilot conducted 3 consecutive landings and take-offs on the southern facing runway. During their third approach, the pilot recognised that the aircraft was about 200 feet higher than normal on final approach, however continued the approach.

They reported touching down in a 3-point attitude, too far down the runway and applied hard braking which caused the tail to lift once elevator effectiveness reduced. This resulted in the aircraft slowly tipping forward, striking the propeller and then flipping over onto its back and rudder (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Aircraft post-occurrence

Source: Operator

The aircraft sustained damage to its rudder, propeller, wing and strut. The pilot was uninjured. 

Safety message

Good landings are made from stable approaches and conducting a go-around is normally the safest course of action if a pilot is not entirely comfortable with the approach. 

Pilots should also consider the required approach performance for short field landings of their aircraft when assessing their approach to land with limited runway length. Heavy braking in high centre-of-gravity, tailwheel aircraft increases the risk of loss of control on landing, which places greater importance on ensuring the approach is conducted appropriately.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.
 

What happened

On 17 October 2025, at 1413 local time, an American Champion Aircraft Corp 8GCBC (Scout), with 2 pilots on board, had conducted aerial observation operations before landing at Busselton Airport, Western Australia. 

The pilot reported that during the crosswind landing, after touching down with the tailwheel still clear of the ground, the aircraft left wing lifted due to a gust and the right wing struck the runway. 

The pilot also believed that whilst they were recovering using the rudder controls, the toe brakes may have been inadvertently applied. This likely caused the aircraft to pitch forward, resulting in propellor impact with the ground and the aircraft coming to rest in a nose-over position (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Aircraft post-occurrence

Source: Photo supplied by operator

Inspection of the aircraft post_‑event noted damage to the aircraft, that included the right wing and the propeller (Figure 2). One of the pilots incurred minor injuries.

Figure 2: Aircraft damage

Source: Photo supplied by operator, annotated by the ATSB

The landing was on runway 03 (Figure 3). The recorded weather conditions at the time was wind at 332° at 12 kt, gusting to 15 kt. 

Figure 3: Approach orientation Busselton Airport

Note: aircraft not to scale. Source: Google Earth, annotated by the ATSB

The pilot operating manual for the Scout notes a crosswind limit of 17 kts. The variable wind strength of the gusting crosswind may have been close to the maximum demonstrated limit for the aircraft. 

The operator reported that the pilot flying had previously demonstrated competency in crosswinds during landing. Furthermore, in this instance, the senior pilot in the back seat did not attempt to take over control during the landing, as they felt the conditions well within both the aircraft and the pilot flying’s capabilities.

The manual describes that the technique is to place the control stick into the wind (up‑wind aileron up) and assume a tail high attitude with the elevator to prevent drift.

Safety message

This occurrence highlights the importance of exercising caution when operating in conditions that have the potential to exceed the maximum demonstrated crosswind speed of an aircraft. 

It also illustrates the need for pilots to establish a personal minimums checklist that is commensurate with the flying experience of the individual. If the conditions do not meet these criteria, or if there is any doubt, pilots should not attempt the landing, consider conducting a go-around, change runways or hand control to a more experienced pilot.

Tailwheel aircraft can be susceptible to crosswind gusts during the later stages of landing. Depending on the magnitude and direction of the gust, there may be insufficient time to apply corrective controls before the aircraft deviates from the intended path. 

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

What happened

On 3 July 2025 at 1147 local time, a student pilot, the sole occupant of a Cessna 172S, was conducting circuit operations at Parafield Airport, South Australia.

During the seventh touch-and-go of the circuit training, the aircraft encountered a gust of wind as it crossed the runway threshold, resulting in a yaw to the right. In response, the pilot advised that they pushed forward on the control column and overcorrected, resulting in the aircraft landing hard, ballooning[1] and striking the runway a second time. A propellor strike occurred during the second impact with the runway. The aircraft sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and landing gear. 

Figure 1: Damage to Aircraft 

Source: Operator

Safety message 

Wind gusts can be unpredictable. Gusty wind conditions present a challenge for all pilots, but in particular, less experienced student pilots. Maintaining a calm mindset is important in order to adjust the aircraft’s profile and airspeed accordingly and determine that a go‑around is necessary.

The ATSB reminds pilots that as soon as landing conditions become unfavourable, or the approach unstable, initiating a go-around will allow time to reconfigure the aircraft and conduct a safe landing.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.