Runway excursion

The pilot hired the aircraft, a type he had not flown for four years, for a trip to what he believed to be an authorised landing area (ALA). However, he did not check the strip condition prior to DEPARTURE for the ALA. During the takeoff run at the ALA, the aircraft entered thick grass located to the left of a ten metre cleared area along the strip centreline. The acceleration of the aircraft was retarded and the pilot, realising that the aircraft would not accelerate to takeoff speed in the distance remaining, abandoned the takeoff. The aircraft stopped 64 metres beyond the end of the strip after colliding with two fence lines and a road shoulder.

On the night prior to the accident heavy rain had fallen in the area. The pilot stated that he carried out an inspection of the centre section of the strip prior to DEPARTURE and found it to be suitable. This inspection did not include the last 150 metres of the strip, in the proposed direction of take-off. The area used for the take-off roll was to one side of the centre of the strip, where the grass cover varied substantially in length and density. Standing water along the strip inhibited acceleration with the result that the nosewheel was not raised off the ground. The aircraft entered large patches of water about 150 metres before the end of the strip, causing the airspeed to decay from 65 to 40 knots. The pilot elected to continue the take-off and the aircraft overran the strip. It then sank into thick vegetation below the strip.

The aircraft was making a landing approach with full flap extended. The pilot said the aircraft floated for some distance, after the landing flare, before touching down about midway along the 614 metre strip. Brakes were applied but the braking action was reduced due to a mechanical impairment known to the pilot. When he realised the aircraft would overrun the strip end, the pilot said he purposely turned the aircraft to the right to prevent it from infringing a main road located a short distance ahead. The aircraft passed through a low wire fence and rolled down a steep slope before finally stopping, partially submerged, in a small dam.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was being used to deliver newspapers. On arrival and during the landing roll, the pilot noted that the air strip surface was soft. A rain shower had passed over the air strip about an hour earlier. The initial part of the subsequent take-off roll appeared to be normal, but after using about half of the 950 metre strip the pilot became concerned that the aircraft had not reached flying speed. At an airspeed of about 60 knots the aircraft became airborne briefly, before settling back onto the strip. At that point, the pilot elected to abandon the take-off, closed the throttles and mixture controls, and applied full braking. The aircraft skidded for about 300 metres, coming to rest about 50 metres beyond the end of the strip. During the overrun the left main landing gear collapsed.

The aircraft had arrived at it's destination and was on final approach when it was subjected to the effects of a downdraught, followed by an updraught. The pilot elected not to overshoot from the approach but attempted to regain the normal glide path by using varying power applications. Wind considerations required that the approach be made into the setting sun and as the windscreen was covered with oil from a leaking oil cooler, the pilot's forward visibility was significantly reduced. This resulted in the aircraft touching down well into the strip. When the brakes were applied, there was no response from the right brake. The pilot was able to avoid some trees in his path but he was unable to avoid ruts on the road at the end of the strip. Had the aircraft touched down at the approach end of the strip it is likely that the pilot would have been able to stop the aircraft, within the confines of the strip, with the limited braking that was available. Had the brakes operated normally the pilot should have been able to stop, within the confines of the strip, even though the aircraft touched down well into the strip. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

The 700 metre long strip was covered with grass approximately 60 centrimetres long. Although the pilot had operated from the strip previously, on this occasion two passengers were carried. The pilot became concerned with the aircraft's rate of acceleration and decided to abort the takeoff. However, the aircraft overran the strip and the nose gear collapsed when it struck a log hidden in the long grass. This accident was not the subject of a formal on-scene investigation.

The pilot had taken part in a flour bombing and balloon bursting competition and was returning to land. The front seat passenger was a flying instructor and was acting as a safety pilot and judge for the competition. The approach to land was high and the pilot decided to go around, however, the safety pilot suggested that sufficient strip remained for completion of the landing. The aircraft touched down about 600 metres beyond the runway threshold and bounced. The pilot applied some power and continued with the landing attempt, but the stall warning sounded and the airspeed was noted to be below 40 knots. The front seat passenger retracted flap to the take-off setting and instructed the pilot to apply full power and to lower the nose of the aircraft. He then placed his hands on the controls to monitor the pilot's control inputs. The aircraft failed to accelerate as it flew along the strip about a metre above the ground. It subsequently struck the airfield boundary fence before coming to rest 160 metres beyond.

About 150 metres after touchdown, when the brakes were applied, the aircraft began to veer to the right. Despite the application of heavy braking the pilot was unable to stop the aircraft and it ran off the end of the strip, through a gully and collided with a tree. While the aircraft was being vacated, a fire was noticed around the right wheel area. This fire was controlled by use of the portable extinguisher. A subsequent examination of the strip revealed marks indicative of heavy, intermittent braking forces being applied to the right wheel during the landing roll. Inspection of the aircraft revealed that the left brake had failed due to fatigue cracking of the brake hydraulic line. The cause of this fatigue could not be determined.

Whilst sheep spotting the passenger became visibly agitated and the pilot elected to land. During the landing roll the aircraft entered scrub but was not damaged. After the passenger disembarked the pilot attempted a flapless take-off using a clearing approximately 140 metres in length. The aircraft failed to become airborne and hit several trees before coming to a halt in soft sand. Prior to the attempted take-off the pilot did not measure the available length or refer to the flight manual "p" charts. He subsequently indicated that the take-off had been attempted so that the sheep spotting would not be delayed.

The aircraft initially touched down about halfway along the strip, became airborne again, then touched down 50 metres before the end of the strip. The pilot applied power to go-around. However after reassessing the situation he closed the throttle and attempted to steer the aircraft through a gate. The nose wheel dug into the ground and the aircraft tilted forward onto the propeller and left wing. The propeller spinner struck the gate and the aircraft stopped. The approach had been conducted in conditions of reduced visibility as a result of cloud cover and impending last light. The pilot had misjudged the approach and had used a higher than normal airspeed. The lack of visual cues evidently caused the pilot to delay initiating a go-around while such a manoeuvre could still have been safely accomplished.