Loss of control

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.

The gyroglider was being towed in alternate directions along a strip. There was a 10 knot wind component along the strip direction and the temperature was 34 degrees Celsius. During one downwind towing sequence the wind speed increased. The pilot signalled for a higher towing speed, but as the vehicle driver had been instructed to observe a limit of 80 kph, he did not increase speed further. The gyroglider subsequently landed heavily and overturned. The high density altitude conditions, coupled with the gusting tailwind and aircraft weight approaching the maximum permissible, required a towing airspeed higher than normal. Towing speed was limited by fixed ground speed limits.

A low level aerobatic display was being conducted over the lake. Towards the end of the display the pilot performed four snap rolls followed by a steep climb and stall turn. Although the display was to be conducted not below 500 feet agl the aircraft was recovered from the last snap roll at an estimated 150 feet agl. Despite this low recovery height the pilot persisted with the climb and stall turn manoeuvre. While attempting to recover from the subsequent dive he stalled the aircraft at too low a height to avoid impacting the water.

During the landing roll the aircraft suddenly veered to the left. The pilot took corrective action but the nose gear collapsed and the nose section of the aircraft struck the strip surface. Although the strip was in regular use it was not being inspected. It was constructed on a dry lake-bed and the combination of no rain and regular use caused a soft patch to develop about 430 metres from the threshold. When the aircraft entered this area the nosewheel progressively turned left until it reached the stop. The sideload now imposed was too great and caused the noseleg bearing to fail.

The aircraft was attempting a take off from Northam Airfield at the time of the accident. The student pilot was flying the aircraft and another student was acting as wingtip walker. The wingtip walker inadvertently held the left wing up against aileron control input from the pilot. When the wingtip walker released the wing, the aircraft rolled rapidly to the left. The wingtip, which was fitted with a combination metal tie-down point and skid, collided with the ground, the skid dug in and the aircraft ground looped. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Because the external load could not be released electrically, the pilot landed on snow to allow an assistant to release the load manually. After the load was released, the assistant had moved to the pilot's window to discuss the next load when the rear of the left skid began to sink into the snow. The pilot attempted to correct the situation but the main rotor struck the ground and the aircraft rolled over. The helicopter was not fitted with any load spreading devices for operations in snow. Although the pilot had tested the load bearing capacity of the snow, the technique did not provide sufficient indication that the snow could not support the aircraft. An intermittent electrical malfunction is believed to have caused the cargo hook failure.