Runway excursion

The pilot reported that the approach and landing were normal with touchdown at 70 kts. Shortly after touchdown the aircraft began to yaw to the right. The pilot used full left rudder and some differential braking in an attempt to stop the yaw but was unsuccessful.

As the aircraft approached a runway marker (car tyre) the pilot applied full braking, raised the nose to clear the tyre and shut the engine down. The aircraft cleared the tyre but the nosewheel subsequently collided with a dip in the ground and collapsed. The left tyre blew out at the same time.

Subsequent inspection failed to disclose the reason for the yaw. The wind was light at the time of the landing.

The pilot reported that during the take-off run he became apprehensive about the runway distance remaining. The take-off was abandoned but the aircraft collided with a fence.

The pilot said that the runway surface was covered with small pebbles which appeared to reduce the braking efficiency. He steered the aircraft to the right to avoid a fence. The aircraft was almost stationary when it struck the fence.

The pilot reported hearing several unusual noises from the right side of the aircraft while backtracking in preparation for take-off from runway 08. The aircraft then veered sharply to the right and ran off the sealed surface before the pilot was able to bring it to a halt. The right mainwheel had collapsed.

The investigation found that several bolts had came loose from the inner and outer flanges of the three piece wheel assembly. The right main tyre had recently been replaced and only the outer wheel flange was removed to facilitate the tyre change. The torque on the inner flange bolts was not re-checked after the new tyre was fitted.

The pilot was a student with limited experience. He was attempting a flapless approach and landing.

The pilot reported that the airspeed was higher than required as the aircraft crossed the threshold and when he attempted to land the aircraft it touched down nosewheel first. Following a number of bounces the pilot opened the throttle and attempted to go around for another circuit. As he did so the stall warning sounded. The pilot closed the throttle and attempted a final landing. A combination of low airspeed and inexperience caused the pilot to loose directional control and the aircraft turned approximately 30 degrees off runway heading. The aircraft touched down on the grass flight strip, to the left of the runway, and ran across the grass for approximately 80 metres before turning through 180 degrees and stopping.

The pilot reported that during the take-off roll the aircraft accelerated to rotation speed. It was then that the pilot felt that the aircraft performance was not normal and rejected the take-off. The aircraft overran the end of the 1100 m strip and struck a log hidden in grass. The left main gear collapsed.

The pilot noted the windsock was indicating nil wind and he elected to land on strip 36. The strip is 800 metres long from fence to fence but there is a powerline across the northern end. At the landing flare the aircraft floated and touched down about 200 metres after the threshold. The pilot noted the aircraft did not seem to slow down as expected, but due to concern over the powerlines at the far end he elected not to go around. The aircraft continued on the ground roll and the pilot was unable to prevent it from running into the fence, at low speed, at the northern end.

Significant Factors

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

1. The pilot did not make a timely decision to go around.

The pilot made a short local flight and in very light wind conditions returned to land on runway 23. During the landing roll the aircraft slowed and as the tail was lowered a swing to the right commenced. The pilot applied maximum left brake but was unable to prevent the aircraft leaving the runway at an angle of about 30 degrees and then ground looping right. The left main gear leg collapsed.

The pilot reported that he believed that the right brake locked on initial application. Ground marks indicate that both brakes were locked when the aircraft ran off the sealed runway. The aircraft is not equipped with a steerable tailwheel and with the flaps lowered for landing, as on this approach, the rudder is ineffective once the tail is lowered.

Information supplied by the pilot and the operator indicated that the pilot landed at the strip, without problems, on the day prior to the occurrence. On the day of the occurrence, she decided to fly the aircraft to a longer strip so that she could refuel and depart, with the planned load, for Bunbury. The pilot decided to carry a passenger for the short flight.

Although the strip was 730 metres long the pilot decided to use only the last 600 metres. The strip was partially covered with bush, in places, up to 1.8 metres in height. The density altitude at the time of take-off was approximately 4,000 feet.

In order to avoid rough parts of the strip the pilot elected to fly the aircraft off the ground at 55 knots and allow it to accelerate in ground effect before climbing away. Shortly after lift-off the airspeed reduced to 40 knots and the aircraft did not accelerate.

The pilot decided to reject the take-off, and the aircraft touched down with 150 metres to run to the end of the strip. Although the pilot applied heavy braking the aircraft overran the strip and collided with a fence and trees. Skid marks extended from the touchdown point to where the aircraft stopped (250 m).

There were no indications that engine power was a factor in the occurrence.

The Pilots Operating Handbook indicated that between 800 (short dry grass) and 1050 metres (long wet grass) of runway was required to reach a height of 50 feet above ground level in the prevailing conditions and using a take-off safety speed of 56 knots.

The pilot reported that he made a normal approach and landing to the wet runway, touching down at around 60 knots. During the landing roll the aircraft began to veer to the right. Attempts to stop the yaw using both rudder and brake were unsuccessful. The aircraft left the sealed runway and the nosewheel was damaged when it entered a soft area.

The wind was blowing at 30 knots with gusts of up to 15 knots and a crosswind of 8 knots from the right.

The precise reason for the loss of control could not be determined but it is possible that it was the result of the combination of the wet runway and the strong and gusting crosswind.

On 24 August 2014, the pilot of a Gippsland Aeronautics Airvan aircraft, registered VH-XHV had just completed a parachute drop and was on descent to land at the Pinjarra Skydiving Airstrip, Western Australia.

At about 1,000 ft above the ground, the aircraft was configured for landing with full flap selected. The pilot reported that the airspeed was about 80 kt on base and that day, and during the landing roll noticed the wing of a Classic Aircraft Corporation WACO aircraft was over the runway.

The pilot applied some braking but could not stop the aircraft in the 836 metres available. In an effort to avoid a collision, the pilot manoeuvred the aircraft to the left of the runway. Shortly after, the wing of the Airvan struck the WACO causing the Airvan to spin rapidly. The propeller struck a parked trailer and then an unoccupied 4WD.

The pilot was not injured, however two people on the ground sustained minor injuries and both the Airvan and Waco sustained substantial damage.

This accident serves as an important reminder of the need to initiate a go-around as soon as there is doubt about the suitability of the approach and landing. In this instance, the pilot had assumed that the full length of the runway was available and had left the option of a safe go-around too late.

Aviaiton Short Investigations Bulletin - Issue 37