Loss of control

While taking off for parachute dropping operation, directional control was lost and the aircraft ground looped. The left main landing gear collapsed, substantially damaging the aircraft. All six occupants evacuated the aircraft without injury.

The pilot subsequently reported that, as take-off power was applied, the aircraft started to swing to the left. He applied right rudder to correct the swing, but the aircraft then swung rapidly to the right. He was unable to counteract the swing and closed the throttle to stop the take-off. However, the left wheel ran into a culvert and was torn off before the aircraft could be stopped.

The pilot was conducting circuits to gain familiarization with the aircraft. Late in the landing roll he encountered a willy-willy, which caused the aircraft to swing. Using right brake, the pilot was unable to control the swing, and the right wheel assembly broke off. The right wing fell to the ground and the pilot exited the aircraft when it stopped.

The aircraft was not fitted with an electronic locator beacon.

The pilot reported that he departed Mareeba in company with another R22 helicopter at approximately 1645 EST. The flight was intended to proceed from Mareeba to Cairns via Stoney Creek. The pilot stated that approaching Stoney Creek (5NM west of Cairns aerodrome) they landed to assess the weather further. After consultation with Cairns approach they were advised that Stoney Creek was visible from the control tower. Both helicopters then took off to continue to Cairns. The pilot said that shortly afterwards, and before reaching Stoney Creek the weather ahead deteriorated suddenly, and the pilot decided that they would return to Mareeba. A turn to the right was commenced, and shortly afterwards the helicopter began to yaw uncontrollably to the right and descended into trees. The passenger was uninjured and was able assist the pilot from the aircraft. The pilot then used his mobile phone to call for assistance and guide the Queensland Emergency Services rescue helicopter to the crash site. The passenger and pilot were winched from the site and flown to the Cairns Base Hospital.

Subsequent examination of the helicopter revealed no technical defect which may have contributed to the accident. The pilot described the control loss as an uncommanded yaw to the right, indicating loss of tail rotor authority. The pilot said the last time he observed the indicated airspeed it was 40 knots and was unable to explain the uncontrolled yaw right. Although there was no discernible horizon at the time, the pilot said he was flying towards a clear area, was visual with the ground, and was clearly visible from the other helicopter which was slightly higher and to his right.

The recently rated agricultural pilot was conducting circuit and landing practice in a Cessna Ag wagon. Whilst landing on runway 04 the right brake lost effectiveness, resulting in the pilot losing directional control. The aircraft ground looped to the right, damaging the right landing gear and right wing, before coming to rest adjacent to the runway. The weather was CAVOK with light winds.

The Cessna 210 was engaged in flying tourists between Broome and Cape Leveque. The pilot had been with the company for one and half months and had flown eight hours in the Cessna 210. A substantial portion of his previous flying experience was in Cessna 172 and 182 aircraft. The pilot flew the aircraft to the Cape Leveque landing area at approximately 0930 WST. At around 1100, he loaded the aircraft and embarked his passengers; four adults and a five month old baby being held by his mother. The weather was fine with a light south easterly breeze. The pilot then attempted to start the engine but the starter would not energise. After consulting with the company's chief pilot, the pilot successfully started the engine.

The pilot completed his pre-take-off checks and began the take-off run. After approximately 200 metres, the pilot's side window opened. The pilot stated that the sudden noise surprised him and that he was concerned about dust entering the cabin and upsetting the passengers. He attempted to close the window whilst continuing the take-off run. The pilot stated that he managed to close the window but it immediately opened again. He recalled noticing in his peripheral vision that the aircraft was veering left. Evidence indicated that the aircraft veered approximately ten degrees left and continued in a straight path diverging from the runway centre.

The pilot returned his attention back to the take-off and believing the aircraft had sufficient airspeed, attempted to continue the take-off. He stated that just as he was pulling back on the control column to take off, the aircraft seemed to decelerate. Evidence indicated that the aircraft wheels struck freshly graded sand on the edge of the flight strip. Witness evidence and the wheel tracks in the sand indicated that the aircraft had pitched nose up and banked right with the right landing gear remaining in contact with the ground. With the throttle open, the aircraft continued for approximately 72 metres towards scrub adjacent to the runway.

The left wing struck a tree, slewing the aircraft left. The aircraft then continued sliding right before travelling forward into the scrub, impacting trees and stopping. The pilot and passengers evacuated through the right door. The aircraft's ELT operated correctly. It is probable that the pilot was distracted from controlling the take-off by the sudden and unexpected noise created by his window opening. There was sufficient available runway length for the pilot to discontinue the take-off and secure the window once stopped. The pilot could have also continued the take-off and attended to the window once safely airborne. He decided, however, to close the window while continuing the take-off. With his attention diverted in attempts to latch the window, he did not keep the aircraft tracking along centre of the runway. After the pilot realised that the aircraft had diverged left, he decided to continue the take-off without regaining the runway direction. The aircraft failed to become airborne, possibly slowed by the sand along the runway perimeter.

The pilot said that he loaded the aircraft at the north-western end of the 1,000 m strip oriented south-east/north-west. The strip was partially sheltered from the wind by bordering trees. There was a strong, gusting northerly wind blowing. The pilot assessed that there would be a slight tailwind component for a take-off on runway 12 but believed it was acceptable.

During the initial climb after take-off, the aircraft was subjected to a strong gust of wind which caused it to yaw to the left. It was then struck by another gust. The left wing dropped, and the pilot was unable to regain control before the wing struck the ground. The aircraft cartwheeled onto the right wing and came to rest upright.

An assessment of the weather conditions existing at the time of the accident was made by the Bureau of Meteorology. The wind was from the north at 12 kts with gusts to 19 kts. The temperature was 30 degrees C which meant that the density altitude for the take-off was about 1,800 ft.

The presence of trees which sheltered the strip indicated that turbulence and/or windshear was likely above the tree line. This could have caused the aircraft to lose performance as it climbed above the level of the trees to the extent that it stalled. The height the aircraft was at was probably insufficient to allow recovery before contact with the ground.

It was reported that the aircraft was being used to spread powered fertiliser. There had been light rain prior to the accident flight and the wing surfaces were wet. During loading the wind momentarily lifted the sock, used to fill the hopper, clear of the aircraft and some powder was blown onto the upper surface of the right wing. The rain was not heavy enough to wash the powder off. The aircraft's weight was reported to be at its maximum for take-off. The average wind was a westerly at 8 kts with significant shifts reported as occasional squalls passed through.

The pilot commenced a take-off, with 10 degrees of flap set, towards the west and into wind. The strip slopped down and then up. As the aircraft accelerated the pilot flew the tail off the ground. Shortly afterwards the left wing also lifted, pivoting the aircraft over the right wheel. The pilot introduced left aileron to keep the wings level until he reached take-off speed. The aileron control reached the left stop at the same time as the aircraft became airborne. It continued to roll to the right and began to yaw right. The pilot introduced rudder and then brake in an attempt to stop the roll and yaw. The rudder made little difference, and the brakes were completely ineffective as the wheels were off the ground.

The pilot closed the throttle and, as the aircraft settled back onto the ground in a left-wing-high attitude, it collided with a fence. The aircraft ripped 76 m of fence from the ground before it cartwheeled and overturned.

The aircraft's flight manual contains a caution which indicates that aileron effectiveness is reduced when flaps are used for take-off. The pilot reported that he used flaps as the aircraft was at maximum weight and the strip length was restricted. The aerofoil section of the wings on the AT502 is designed for maximum efficiency. The aircraft manual indicates that any ice must be removed from the wing prior to take-off because of its effect on wing-produced lift. It is probable that the powder-contamination on the right-wing surface adversely affected its aerodynamic characteristics resulting in the roll experienced by the pilot. The pilot's ability to control the roll with aileron was reduced by his use of flap for take-off. The result was a roll and yaw which the pilot was unable to correct before the aircraft collided with the fence. It is possible that a squall-induced wind shift also contributed to the loss of control.

The pilot advised that the weather was fine, water conditions calm, and the river running at 6 - 8kt. The aircraft was launched from the bank and taxied downstream for departure.

The pilot reported that the aircraft's acceleration, and climb onto the step appeared to be normal, but before the aircraft became established on the step it began to porpoise. He attempted to overcome the oscillations by applying forward elevator control pressure which only aggravated the situation. He then tried to find the optimum position on the step by raising and lowering the nose with the elevator control, resulting in him chasing the oscillations.

The aircraft eventually "wheelbarrowed" on its bow, preventing it from accelerating to its safe take-off speed. The pilot persisted with the take off, and while attempting to turn a bend in the river water pressure on the bow damaged the left nose gear door, creating an increase in water drag. This caused the aircraft to water loop to the left, damaging the left sponson and rear fuselage.

The pilot rejected the take off and taxied the aircraft to the shore.

The pilot reported that he commenced the take-off roll on the easterly runway with a quartering crosswind of 5 to 10 kts from the north-east. During the early part of the roll, the aircraft veered to the right before the tail wheel was off the ground. The pilot managed to correct the swing and continued with the take-off. The aircraft swung further right again when the tail wheel was raised. The pilot apparently overcorrected and headed towards the left side of the strip. During this change in direction the left wing lifted, and the right wing struck the ground. The right main gear collapsed during the subsequent slide.

Both occupants evacuated the aircraft from the left side.

The pilot later said that he thought the crosswind swung to a quartering tailwind during the take-off roll.

The helicopter was being ground run after two of the three rotor blades had been refitted. The aircraft apparently experienced ground resonance and the main rotor struck the ground. The aircraft rolled over and came to rest against a tree. The sole male occupant was admitted to hospital.

Enquiries revealed the person operating the helicopter did not hold a pilots or engineers licence. The helicopter had apparently been purchased on behalf of another person with the intention of shipping it out of the country.

Since the person who was running the helicopter was released from hospital he has been pursued by the CASA for questioning but has disappeared.

Ground running of helicopters must be performed by a licenced helicopter pilot, and if the helicopter is tied down, may be performed by a licenced engineer.