Runway excursion

When the aircraft became low on approach, the pilot applied power to correct the approach angle. However this resulted in a higher than recommended airspeed and the aircraft touched down and bounced. Witness reports indicate that the final touchdown occurred between 155 and 180 metres after the threshold, however, positive wheel marks were not evident until 340 metres after the threshold. When the pilot realised that insufficient strip remained for the aircraft to be brought to a stop, she attempted to carry out a groundloop. The aircraft skidded sideways off the end of the strip and down a steep incline before coming to rest against a tree. The pilot had encountered several problems prior to the accident. The aircraft battery had gone flat twice causing delays to the passengers. The passengers had become irritated by the delays and vented their anger on the pilot. The pilot stated that she was concerned about starting the engine after the landing and about the time available to complete the schedule before returning the aircraft to the base that night. She also stated that because of her preoccupation with the above matters she had not planned the approach and landing.

The pilot was familiar with the destination aerodrome, having landed there on several previous occasions. On arrival, rain showers were in the area and the pilot held until the showers had cleared. After an apparently normal approach, the aircraft floated beyond the target touchdown point. The short grass surface was firm but wet, and the pilot was unable to stop the aircraft in the remaining strip length.

The pilot had completed spraying operations for the day. He decided to proceed via a friend's property at Sprent to pick up some mail. There is an agricultural strip located on the property but it is some distance from the house. Instead of using that strip he decided to land in a paddock close to the house to save himself a walk. He had used this paddock previously and considered it suitable. The distance from fence to fence in the landing direction that the pilot chose was approximately 250 metres. The first 200 metres had a steep upslope and the last 50 metres was approximately level. Late in the final approach the pilot realised that the speed was high and that he had misjudged the approach. He forced the aircraft onto the ground some 95 metres beyond the approach end fence. The aircraft bounced and touched down again 40 metres further on. From this point heavy braking marks were evident. When the aircraft came to the top of the steep slope the pilot realised that he was not going to be able to stop before the fence at the end of the paddock. There was insufficient room to groundloop and the pilot decided against attempting a go-around as there was a power line beyond the end of the paddock. The aircraft ran through the fence at the end of the paddock, across a driveway and came to rest straddling a fence on the other side of the driveway. When the pilot vacated the aircraft he noted that there was a 10 knot tailwind. The pilot believed that he had a crosswind for landing but there was no windsock at the paddock. It was established that he had been spraying very small paddocks in hilly country, requiring a high degree of concentration. With the day's spraying operations over he had relaxed and did not give his full attention to flying an accurate approach and landing.

On a flight from Coolangatta to Bonshaw, the pilot identified the Authorised Landing Area (ALA) by spotting a white utility vehicle which he had been assured would be waiting for him. After he landed he found this was not the ALA he had been looking for. After obtaining new directions from the driver of the utility, he inspected the paddock by driving the vehicle the full 1000m length available. During the subsequent takeoff the aircraft had accelerated to about 45 knots, when it encountered some undulations. This retarded its progress, but the pilot forced it into the air in ground effect. The aircraft did not accelerate further in the nose high attitude and sank back onto the ground. It overran the takeoff area and struck a boundary fence. Apparently the pilot had used two stages of flap for the takeoff attempt and had not availed himself of options to use a more suitable takeoff direction or off-load his passengers. His original destination was only a short distance away to the south-west.

Circumstances:

The trainee pilot was undergoing initial endorsement training on the type. After landing on runway 29 with a slight tailwind component, the aircraft continued across the runway 36 complex at a relatively fast taxi speed. The pilot commenced a left turn and the aircraft nosewheel entered an area of soft dirt and collapsed. The instructor advised that the aircraft was not fitted with dual brakes.

Circumstances:

The pilot was landing at a property prior to conducting crop spraying. During the landing roll, the aircraft veered off the strip and overturned in a wheat crop. A subsequent investigation established the left mainwheel hub had failed due to a fatigue crack, allowing the wheel to travel up the landing gear leg. A partial collapse of the left leg then resulted when the axle dug into the ground. The crack had originated from corrosion pitting on the inner wheel half interior surface, which was not visible with the wheel in situ.

The pilot reported that on returning from a local flight he made an approach to land in light wind conditions. He was not satisfied with this or the subsequent approach, and go arounds were carried out. The third approach was normal, although the aircraft floated for some distance before touching down. The pilot was unable to bring the aircraft to a halt within the confines of the strip, and it came to rest in a gully. He then observed that the wind had changed from a headwind to a tailwind of about 10 knots, and this had evidently affected the landing performance of the aircraft.

The pilot was taking off to the west from a 620 metre agricultural airstrip with a load of 420 kilograms of urea. The strip was level and the grass was short. The wind was from the west-north-west at about 5 knots. The pilot used 15 degrees of flap for the takeoff. The engine produced full power. During the takeoff roll initial acceleration seemed normal but then it stagnated. The pilot began dumping the load at about two thirds of the way down the strip. At about 55 to 60 knots indicated airspeed the aircraft became airborne and was about one foot off the ground when it struck a fence. After the accident it was discovered that there was about 200 kilograms of urea still in the hopper despite the dump valve being open. Soon after the accident the company chief pilot inspected the airstrip and discovered that the surface was deceptive. It looked reasonably firm but had been affected by recent very heavy rains. In his opinion the surface would have retarded the takeoff performance about the same as long wet grass. He also believed that the pilot was slow in dumping the load. The Class 2 agricultural pilot was operating under indirect supervision at the time of the accident. This accident was not the subject of a formal on scene investigation.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that on arrival in the circuit area he noticed that the wind was from the north-east at 20 to 25 knots. As the wind was mostly crosswind he elected to land uphill on strip 28, which is 920 metres long. Shortly after landing the pilot became aware that the aircraft was not slowing down normally. Heavy braking was used to little effect. The engines were shut down, and the aircraft ran off the end of the runway. Some fallen logs caused the nose gear leg to collapse. The Cairns meteorological office estimated that the wind would have been 10 to 12 knots from the east to the south-east.

Significant Factors:

The following factor was considered relevant to the development of the accident:

The pilot landed with an excessive tailwind component.

The pilot departed on a mail run to his first port of call at Yalcowinna. He was unable to land, as the strip was covered with water from recent heavy rains. He diverted to the next strip at Mawarra, and recalled overflying the strip which he assessed as being wet but suitable for landing. The strip owner usually contacted the aircraft by radio to advise on the surface conditions, but on this occasion the pilot was unable to make contact before landing. The aircraft became bogged after turning off the strip following landing. After being extricated and the turnaround completed, the aircraft again became bogged while taxiing for takeoff. After once again freeing the aircraft, the pilot positioned it at one end of the strip ready for takeoff. He then shut the engine down, left the aircraft and inspected the strip from a vehicle. Having assessed the surface as suitable, the pilot attempted a takeoff with two stages of flap extended. At a previously selected decision point, the pilot elected to continue the takeoff and attempted to lift off at an indicated airspeed of 50 knots. The aircraft settled back onto the strip on the main wheels, and remained in this nose high attitude until the pilot decided to abandon the takeoff. The aircraft came to rest about 1400 metres beyond the end of the 700 metre long strip, after passing beneath telephone wires which stood some 200 metres past the strip end. The nosegear collapsed towards the end of the ground roll. The pilot did not recall being briefed by his employer that he should not land at Mawarra if Yalcowinna was unserviceable due to surface conditions.