Loss of control

The student was conducting a series of circuits with touch and go landings. Wind conditions were calm and during the fifth circuit the pilot decided to carry out a full-stop landing before using another runway. At a speed of about 30 knots during the landing roll the pilot applied braking, but the aircraft immediately veered sharply to the right and ran off the side of the runway. The nosegear was broken when the aircraft entered a ditch before coming to a halt. An excessively worn brake pad on the right wheel assembly probably caused the brake to grab. The pilot had been unable to correct the resulting sudden and unexpected swing in time to prevent the aircraft running off the side of the runway.

The aircraft had been flown from an adjoining property by the owner. Because of difficulties encountered in starting the engine, the owner left it running while the pilot for this flight took his seat. At the time, weather conditions were hot, with a shade temperature of 46 degrees Celsius, and with little wind. The pilot subsequently advised that during the take-off roll he looked for the airspeed indicator, but was unable to locate it on the instrument panel. After lift-off a steeper than normal nose-high attitude was adopted, and the aircraft stalled from a height of about 20 feet above the ground. The particular aircraft was an early model of the type, with a different instrument panel layout, instrument coaming shape and height to that which the pilot had been operating during the preceding month. The pilot believed that the attitude selected after lift-off was the appropriate one, but because of the difference in instrument coaming heights the actual attitude was too steep. The departure had been hurried and the pilot had not familiarised himself with the layout of the instrument panel. The extreme ambient temperature had probably caused a degradation in the pilot's performance.

The student lost directional control of the aircraft during a touch and go landing in moderate crosswind conditions. The aircraft ran off the runway and collided with the aerodrome boundary fence. The student had only limited experience in handling the aircraft in crosswind conditions. The accident occurred during the first landing of the practice session.

After the student pilot had completed 1.2 hours of dual instruction in the circuit, his instructor assessed the pilot was ready for his first solo flight. The aircraft was brought to a halt on the grass runway 09 where the instructor alighted. The subsequent takeoff roll appeared to be proceeding normally when the aircraft suddenly veered to the left, departed the runway and collided with a boundary fence. The student pilot advised that the right cabin door had opened and he lost directional control when he lent over and attempted to close the door. The instructor reported that the right hand door lock was operating normally at the time of the accident. The accident was not the subject of an on scene investigation. This report is based on information supplied by the pilot.

Circumstances:

Following a period of instruction in stalls and steep turns, the student pilot returned to the aerodrome for practice in crosswind landings. Several dual circuits and landings were carried out, and the student was authorised for solo practice. The wind was about 10 knots, and gusty. The pilot completed six circuits without experiencing any problems, making a touch and go landing each time. As the aircraft was rolling along the runway just prior to the pilot retracting the flaps and applying power for his next circuit, the aircraft was struck by a gust of wind which lifted the right wing. The aircraft then veered sharply to the right, and the pilot was unable to regain control. The aircraft came to rest in a shallow drainage ditch. The student was possibly feeling the effects of fatigue. He stated that after the touch down he had returned the ailerons to the neutral position, having forgotten to maintain aileron control into wind to counteract the gusty crosswind effect.

Circumstances:

During a period of solo circuit training using runway 11R, the pilot was advised by the tower of strengthening winds with a maximum crosswind component of 15 knots. He elected to fly another circuit to assess the conditions and on downwind decided to make a full-stop landing on runway 11C to terminate the flight. Upon touching down the aircraft commenced to bounce and veer into wind. After several bounces the nose landing gear collapsed.

The aircraft was stolen from the Elcom works compound. During the attempted takeoff the passenger jumped from the aircraft and was struck by the rotor blades as the helicopter fell onto its side. This accident was not the subject of a formal on scene investigation.

Circumstances:

Prior to landing the pilot intended to carry out an inspection of the flight strip for possible obstructions. The inspection was to be performed at 500 feet above ground level, with ten degrees of flap selected. During the inspection, the aircraft suddenly began to "sink" rapidly. Thinking the engine had suffered a loss of power, the pilot selected full throttle and lowered full flap in preparation for an emergency landing. Although the engine accelerated to full power, the aircraft did not respond to other control inputs, and it continued to descend until it was less than 30 feet above the ground. By the time the pilot had regained full control of the aircraft, it was on a collision course with the roof of a large building. The left main and nosewheel were torn off, and sheets of roofing iron were left hanging from the right mainwheel and left wing. The pilot was able to maintain control and manoeuvred the aircraft for a landing on the flight strip, using a windrow on the side of the strip to support the fuselage in place of the missing mainwheel. The pilot's description of the sequence of events and the lack of suitable terrain which could cause a significant down-draft, indicated that the aircraft probably stalled whilst the pilot was concentrating on the airstrip inspection. The pilot's inexperience caused him to mis-identify the cause of the "sink" and he used an incorrect stall recovery technique.

Significant Factors:

The following factors were considered relevant to the development of the accident:

1. Pilot relatively inexperienced.

2. Possible channelized attention as the pilot concentrated on the inspection.

3. The pilot probably failed to ensure that sufficient airspeed was maintained to prevent a stall.

4. Improper recovery actions.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that on joining the circuit, he checked the windsock and elected to land on runway 29 into an estimated wind of 330 degrees at five knots. He recalled that he made a steeper than normal approach and then he levelled off too high. The aircraft then bounced twice and swung to the left, skipped several times and was on the gravel edge of the strip by the time the pilot applied full power for an attempted go-around. The aircraft lifted off the ground and flew along the alignment of a drainage ditch before it hit the edge of the ditch. The nose gear folded back, and the aircraft stopped abruptly. It tipped up on its nose before falling back into the ditch on its tailplane. Subsequent discussions with the pilot revealed that the apparent width of the runway upon which he landed was greater than the runway with which he is most familiar - Camden. In these circumstances, a runway that is wider than expected will present the same visual cues as if the pilot was lower than he should be, that is, he will level off at a greater height to compensate. The usual result of levelling off too high without some corrective action is a bounced landing. This eventuated in this case and the pilot then failed to take the correct action for recovery from the bounced landing.

Significant Factors:

The following factors were considered relevant to the development of the accident:

1. Misleading visual cues. Wider runway than the pilot was used to gave perception of being too low.

2. Pilot levelled off too high.

3. Pilot did not take correct action to recover from a bounced landing.

Circumstances:

The student pilot was making a touch and go landing in a five knot crosswind during early solo circuits. After a normal landing, the flaps were retracted to 10 degrees and full power applied. The aircraft veered left, departed the runway, and became bogged, damaging the left wing.