Loss of control

During the sortie the student overcontrolled the aircraft during the landings. Conditions were hot and humid with slight turbulence. On the fourth landing the aircraft bounced, the right wing dropped and the aircraft veered to the right. The instructor took over the controls and applied full power. She was able to regain straight and level flight but did not correct the veer because the airspeed was low and because she was confident that the aircraft would safely clear a fence ahead. The aircraft failed to gain sufficient height and the gear collided with the fence. The aircraft settled into an isolated pile of rubble a short distance beyond the fence. This accident was not the subject of a formal on-site investigation.

The student pilot was returning from his first solo trip to the training area where he had been practicing steep turns. He made a straight in approach for Runway 11 Left. The current Terminal Information (ATIS) reported the wind as 060 degrees 10 to 15 knots, crosswind mean 8 maximum 13 knots. As the aircraft touched down it started to drift to the right. The pilot attempted to correct this with rudder and started to apply power. The aircraft ground looped to the left through 45 degrees. The nose leg failed and the propeller contacted the runway. The aircraft came to rest on the grass to the left of Runway 11 Left. This accident was not the subject of a formal on-scene investigation.

During the landing approach the pilot became preoccupied with his proximity to the preceding aircraft approaching the same runway. On touchdown the aircraft bounced slightly and then the pilot lost directional control. He tried to regain control but was not successful in doing so. The aircraft ran off the runway, entered soft ground and overturned. The accident occurred on the pilot's first solo flight in the aircraft type and the landing was his first solo landing. He said that having done further training in the type since the accident, it had become evident to him that the aircraft felt quite different to land with one on board instead of two. He also felt that he should have done more circuits and landings prior to going solo.

The pilot also believed that his preoccupation with the preceding aircraft resulted in insufficient attention being paid to airspeed. With hindsight he should have made a go-around rather than persevere with the landing attempt. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation and this report is based on information supplied by the pilot.

The pilot was making a landing on a dirt strip 822 metres in length. The conditions were calm and the temperature was 37 degrees Celsius. The aircraft floated for some distance before touchdown. Although heavy braking was commenced the pilot reported it was apparent the aircraft would not stop before the end of the strip. A ground loop was initiated during which the aircraft entered soft ground. The nose leg was bent as the aircraft tipped onto a wing tip.

The pilot stated that when he returned to land after a spreading operation he noticed a dust devil about half way along the strip. The chief pilot, who was on the ground near the southern end of the strip, also noticed the dust devil, and warned the pilot on the company radio. The pilot circled near the northern end of the strip until the dust devil moved off the strip to the west and into the trees. A normal approach and landing was then made from the north. During the landing roll the pilot noticed that the dust devil had reappeared from the trees, and was moving directly into his landing path. Maximum braking was applied, but the aircraft encountered the dust devil and became uncontrollable in the turbulence. The propeller struck the ground and the aircraft slid sideways to the left for forty metres. During the slide, the left wheel axle bolts sheared and the left wing struck the ground.

On 24 October 1989, the student pilot damaged the nose gear of a similar aircraft when he ground looped during a crosswind landing after returning from his first solo flight to the training area. Subsequently he did two dual training flights with different instructors, each flight involving upper air work in the training area and a single landing on return to Bankstown. The student was not given any specific crosswind circuit training, but was authorised for another solo training area flight. During the takeoff run, with an eight knot left crosswind component, the aircraft started to drift to the left of the runway centreline. The pilot applied back pressure to the control column and at this point the aircraft veered further left. As the aircraft ran off the side of the runway, the pilot closed the mixture and throttle and applied brakes. Before coming to a complete stop, the aircraft struck a taxiway sign post damaging the leading edge at the wing root.

The pilot was attempting to land on a 500 metre one-way agricultural strip affected by a gusting downwind component of about 10 knots. The strip was bordered by tall trees and had an uphill gradient of about 5 percent in the landing direction. The strip surface was covered by short wet grass. On short final approach the pilot realised the downwind component was excessive for the strip length available but was unable to go around due to tall trees. He landed the aircraft but was forced to initiate a ground loop to avoid overruning the strip end.

The aircraft was being flown by the owner who had obtained a restricted private pilot licence several hours prior to the accident, and had just completed an endorsement on the type. The front seat passenger was a licenced pilot with slightly more flying experience than the owner. During the landing, the aircraft touched down on one wheel, bounced and yawed to the left. The pilot commenced a go-around but the passenger took control of the aircraft from him. During the attempted go-around, the aircraft was observed to touch the ground again, before flying in a steeply nose high attitude over a parked aircraft and a building. As the aircraft passed over the building a wing dropped and the aircraft subsequently struck a fence post damaging the right stabilator. It became airborne again in a steeply nose high attitude before stall- mushing into the ground, impacting heavily approximately 600 metres from the initial point of touchdown.

The pilot had flown the aircraft to Cockburn Sound to practice circuits. However, after the first landing he found the water conditions too rough to complete a takeoff. The pilot waited for a period in the hope that conditions would improve. Three quarters of an hour later he taxied along Cockburn Sound looking for an area that was suitable for takeoff, but this search was unsuccessful. After beaching the aircraft a second time the pilot observed that the aircraft was taking water. When the pilot attempted to drain the excess water from the bilges he found that the rear bilge pump was unserviceable, and the water had to be drained manually by removing two bungs. The bungs were replaced when the water flow reduced to a trickle after five to ten minutes. The sea state abated after four hours and the pilot decided to carry out a high-speed taxy run during which, if he assessed the conditions were suitable, he could convert the run to a takeoff. The pilot was able to get the aircraft up on to the hull step, however, before he could continue with the takeoff the aircraft suddenly pitched nose-up and then down before nosing over inverted approximately 50 metres from the shore line. Neither occupant was wearing a life jacket although they were carried in the aircraft. Both occupants received injuries which may have required the jackets for survival had assistance not been given from the shore. A screw was found to be missing from a normally watertight panel on the rear fuselage. The screw had been missing since the aircraft was last painted. Tests indicated that water was able to leak into the aircraft via the missing screw hole. Water in the rear fuselage would normally be pumped out by the rear bilge pump, however, it was unserviceable. The pump's impeller had become detached from the drive shaft sometime prior to the accident flight. Tests on the manual draining system used by the pilot indicated that a minimum of 31 litres of water remained in the aft fuselage after draining was apparently complete, when the flow of water had slowed to a trickle. Although the sea state appeared to improve there was still a significant swell running at the time of the accident. The pilot attempted his high- speed run in the direction of the swell instead of parallel to it. It is probable that the combination of an aft centre of gravity, movement of weight associated with the water in the fuselage and the uplift provided by the swell caused the loss of control.

The pilot was conducting a freight charter flight, and witness evidence confirmed that on DEPARTURE he was occupying the left-hand seat. The pilot was accompanied by a friend who was also a commercial pilot, but not endorsed on this type of aircraft. Approximately 18 minutes prior to the estimated time of arrival at the destination, the pilot reported leaving the cruising altitude of 6500 feet on descent. Several minutes after the descent report had been made, a witness about 50 kilometres from the destination reported seeing the aircraft pull-up into a very steep climb from an extremely low height with its wings level, and then become inverted. It then entered what was described by the witness as a spin or spiral dive, before impacting the ground in a near vertical descent. The pilot was found in the right-hand seat, and the passenger had been thrown clear of the wreckage. It was established that neither seat belt had been fastened at the time of the impact. Although it could not be determined which pilot was flying the aircraft at the time of the pull-up, medical evidence suggested that the pilot occupying the right-hand seat position was handling the controls at the time of ground impact. The weather at the time of the accident was fine and clear, with 10-15 knot winds. A thorough examination of the aircraft wreckage did not reveal any malfunction or mechanical failure which may have caused a sudden and severe loss of control. Investigation showed that at the moment of impact the aircraft was in a near vertical descent, without any rotation about the vertical axis, and the wings were in a stalled condition. No reason was found which could have explained either the low flying, or the steep pull-up. During the investigation it was established that with this aircraft type, a considerable degree of sustained elevator force would need to be applied by a pilot in order to achieve the type of flight path reported by the witness. It is considered that such a control input would need to be deliberately executed.