Loss of control

The pilot decided to make an unscheduled landing at an aerodrome enroute to check a problem with the aircraft. On touchdown he noticed steel pickets on either side of the runway and reapplied power. During the go-around the left wing tip struck a picket, the aircraft yawed and then collided with other pickets, before the aircraft was brought to a stop. The aerodrome had been closed for reconstruction work. White crosses were placed on the runway and adjacent to the windsock. The pilot had not advised Flight Service of his intended landing. The aircraft nose attitude on approach reduces forward visibility and the pilot did not see the white crosses on the runway. The aircraft yawed as power was applied for the overshoot.

Circumstances:

While attempting to recover from a bounced landing, the pilot lost directional control of the aircraft, and it collided with a fence.

Whilst applying brake after landing the pilot's foot slipped off the left rudder pedal and the aircraft veered to the right. The pilot replaced his foot on the pedal and applied corrective rudder and brake but the aircraft subsequently ground looped to the left and the right main gear leg collapsed. The rudder pedal surfaces were found to be worn. The pedal design was such that foot restraining capabilities were reduced as the surface became smoother from normal wear and tear. It was also determined that the brake pads on the right gear were excessively worn and this probably aggravated the pilot's problem with directional control.

The helicopter was involved in cattle mustering operations. It was being flown at about 50 to 100 feet agl when a sudden yaw to the right developed. Attempts by the pilot to regain control of the aircraft were unsuccesful and it landed heavily while still rotating to the right. Both the occupants were thrown clear of the aircraft which caught fire immediately. The extensive fire damage to the aircraft inhibited the inspection of the wreckage. As a result, no reason for the apparent loss of control could be determined.

Circumstances:

After several touch and go circuits, the pilot noticed the right landing gear was broken and swinging free. A landing was made directly into wind on the remaining wheel but on touchdown the aircraft swerved to the right before coming to rest on its nose, breaking the propeller, and damaging the right wing. The pilot said the landing gear had suffered a fatigue failure at the upper weld area adjacent to the rubber bungee attachment and this was a known problem on the aircraft type. The manufacturer subsequently issued a service bulletin to install additional landing gear restraint cables to preclude fatigue failures of this type.

The pilot intended to carry out a touch and go landing at the strip, from which he had operated on numerous occasions. He reported that the aircraft floated for some distance before touchdown, whereupon he immediately selected flaps up and applied full power. The aircraft started to swing towards the left, and suspecting an engine failure, the pilot shut down both engines and applied maximum braking. He slewed the aircraft to the right to avoid a dam at the end of the strip. The aircraft was arrested by a wire fence beyond the end of the strip, with the left maingear leg torn off. It was found that the left flap had not retracted, although the right flap had retracted normally and the cockpit indication was that the flaps were up. The strip was narrower than required for an ALA, and was bordered on each side by a one metre high oat crop. As the aircraft swung to the left, it is likely that retardation of the crop on the left wing added to the drag on that side. The aircraft had landed with a tailwind component. During the investigation, it was reported by several persons that asymmetric flap retraction was a known problem on this aircraft type, and was caused by dirt or other contamination of the flap tracks. The symptoms of the malfunction are similar to those associated with a loss of engine power on the particular side. The pilot had not been aware of the problem.

The pilot made a normal approach to land on Runway 13 with two stages of flap but at a higher than normal airspeed of about 75 knots. He recalled that the flare for landing was good but the aircraft "didn't want to sit down" even with the power off. He reported that as soon as the aircraft touched down it veered to the right and he was unable to control it with the use of rudder but he did not use the brakes. The pilot had assessed the wind for landing as being a slight crosswind from the left. As the aircraft left the runway, the pilot re-applied the power and the aircraft apparently did not climb away as expected but drifted to the right. The pilot then closed the throttle and was aware of the aircraft going up on one wheel but he was not aware of the aircraft hitting both wingtips on the ground as it slewed around and sheared off the gear. Two Civil Aviation Authority Examiners of Airmen who witnessed the accident reported that the wind at the time of the accident was 110 degrees 10-15 knots gusting 20-25 knots. Consideration of the circumstances points to the pilot having induced a wheelbarrow effect in an attempt to pin the aircraft on the runway for landing followed by the effect of a strong crosswind as the pilot attempted to go around from a loss of control situation. This accident was not the subject of a formal on scene investigation.

Circumstances:

The pilot of the Cessna was operating in conjunction with an agricultural aircraft. As the latter aircraft was making an approach to land, the Cessna pilot indicated that he would make an inspection of a nearby strip. The agricultural pilot observed the Cessna making a low pass over the second strip, with the wing flaps selected up. He lost sight of the Cessna as he concentrated on his own landing. The Cessna was subsequently found to have collided with the ground in a left hand turn with 45 degrees of bank, with almost no forward speed and a higher-than-normal rate of descent. The flaps were retracted, and the engine was rotating at high rpm at the time of impact. The wreckage was located 50 metres to the left of the centreline and in line with the DEPARTURE end of the strip that the pilot was inspecting. The investigation did not disclose any defects with the aircraft that may have contributed to the accident. The investigation found that the aircraft was in a fully stalled condition at the time of collision with the ground. It appeared that the pilot made a low flapless inspection pass along the wet flight stip. At the end of the pass with full power he pulled up and entered a left hand turn. During the entry to the turn the aircraft stalled and there was insufficient height to complete a recovery. The factors which caused the pilot to lose control of the aircraft could not be positively determined. However, investigations of accidents that have occurred under similar circumstances, indicate that overconcentration on some aspect of the flight, e.g. the flight strip inspection or distraction by something outside the aircraft can result in a pilot paying insufficient attention to the operation of the aircraft. This in turn can lead to a loss of control at low level, often with insufficient time and height available for the pilot to recover before the aircraft collides with the ground.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot probably allowed his attention to be diverted from the operation of his aircraft.

2. The pilot did not maintain sufficient airspeed for safe flight.

3. There was insufficient height available to complete a recovery from a stalled condition.

Circumstances:

The pilot was preparing to depart with a crosswind of about 15 knots from the right. At the time, the aircraft left wing fuel tank was about two thirds full, while the right tank was empty. The pilot performed a flapless take-off, rotating the aircraft at 50 knots, then climbed using a higher-than-normal nose attitude. Shortly afterwards the aircraft commenced to roll to the left, probably because of the low airspeed, and the lateral weight imbalance. The pilot attempted to raise the left wing by use of the aileron, but the aircraft stalled and struck the ground in a left wing low, 20 degree nose down attitude. The aircraft was still undergoing flight testing for type certification and its Certificate of Airworthiness. Data obtained from the test flight schedule indicated that the normal lift-off speed for this aircraft is 63 - 65 knots, with a 48-knot stalling speed in the zero-flap configuration. The pilot indicated that he had lifted the aircraft into the air at 50 knots on previous occasions, but this would have been done under more ideal conditions. The reason he attempted to take off below the recommended airspeed was on this occasion not determined. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot rotated the aircraft at a speed below the optimum take-off speed.

2. The pilot failed to maintain flying speed.

3. Loss of control with insufficient height available to effect a recovery.

The pilot had only just taken delivery of the helicopter. After attending a party he invited an acquaintance to inspect the aircraft and listen to a compact disc player which was installed. The pilot stated that the helicopter battery did not seem to have much charge and since he knew the aircraft was to be used in the morning, he decided to start the engine. He believed that there was a note in the Flight Manual stating not to leave the engine running too long without engaging the main rotors. He therefore engaged the rotor and the next thing he could recall was that the helicopter was on its right side. The pilot, although the owner of the helicopter, was not qualified or authorised for night flying. He had consumed some alcohol at the party, and there is some doubt as to whether a takeoff had been intended. Nevertheless, by starting the engine and engaging the main rotor, the pilot should have been aware that an inadvertent takeoff was possible.