Runway excursion

Circumstances:

The pilot, who was conducting a VFR charter flight, advised that the destination conditions were fine with a north westerly wind of 15 to 20 knots. Runway 26, the runway in use, is 983 metres long with 0.5 percent downhill slope at the western end and has a loose gravel surface. During the approach, the pilot selected 10 degrees of flap, but further flap selections were unsuccessful. The approach was then continued using the 10 degree flap configuration crossing the runway threshold, 80-100 feet above ground level, at 80 knots. While flaring for the landing the pilot believed that the wind veered, to a tailwind component and caused the aircraft to float further than anticipated. The aircraft touched down well into the runway and the pilot applied maximum braking, but traction was poor. The pilot then pushed forward on the control column in the belief that this would prevent the aircraft from becoming airborne and improve the nosewheel steering. With the subsequent reduction of weight on the mainwheels, and assisted by a flap setting producing lift, the aircraft would have "wheelbarrowed" along the remainder of the airstrip, which was now downhill. With approximately 100-150 metres of runway remaining, the pilot realised that there was now insufficient runway length available in which to stop or attempt a go-around. The aircraft crossed the end of the runway at about 30 knots and entered a ditch, located approximately 50 metres further on, causing the nose leg to collapse. The aircraft came to rest 70 metres from the end of the runway on its propeller and left hand wingtip. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

Before landing the pilot reported that brake pressure was available on both brakes. He stated that the aircraft touched down 400 metres after the threshold of the 1000 metre strip and when the brakes were applied no pedal pressure could be obtained. The aircraft overran the strip and collided with a ditch. A small hole had developed in the left brake line due to chaffing action against loosely clamped mounting bracket. No defect could be found with the right hand brake system. By the time the pilot realised that a problem existed with the braking system, he considered that there was insufficient strip remaining to carry out a go around.

During cruising flight the pilot noticed an indication of a high battery discharge rate, and saw that the alternator and landing gear pump circuit breakers had popped. Both breakers were reset, but a short time later the gear pump breaker popped again. The pilot reset the device and shortly afterwards smoke was observed coming from the centre console area. The pilot elected to make an immediate landing on a short, disused strip. The aircraft overran the strip and the pilot steered the aircraft into a tree to avoid running into a gully. An internal fault in the landing gear hydraulic pump resulted in damage to the pump motor, which then ran continuously, overloading the circuit. The resetting of the circuit breaker allowed the overload condition to continue until the over-heated powerpack venting system failed and hydraulic oil was sprayed over the unit, producing the smoke in the cockpit. The pilot subsequently misjudged his approach and touched down half way along the selected strip.

The pilot reported that he made an approach to land on the 675 metre long level grass strip in calm wind conditions. Approach speed was 70 knots and the aircraft passed over the approach end fence at about 20 to 30 feet above the ground at an airspeed of 65 knots. The aircraft touched down about a quarter of the way down the strip. The pilot said that he allowed the aircraft to settle, raised the flaps and applied the brakes. The aircraft started to slow down but then the brakes seemed to lose effectiveness. The pilot decided not to go around because of considerations of aircraft weight, speed and strip remaining. Instead, he attempted to turn off the strip to the right where there was plenty of room to stop but he got no response from the nosewheel steering or right brake application. The aircraft finally ran into the fence at the end of the strip which resulted in the nosewheel breaking off. The pilot said the strip surface at the time was short grass which was still very damp due to a frost the previous night. After the accident he inspected the nosewheel assembly and reported that there may have been a broken part on the steering assembly which could have resulted in no steering to the right. However, he did not report any problem with the nosewheel steering prior to this landing. This accident was not the subject of a formal on scene investigation.

The pilot was in the process of purchasing the "Cygnet" and had flown to Forest Hill to fly the aircraft before the purchase was finalised. On the day before the accident, he completed several flights in the "Cygnet", the last of which resulted in a forced landing after the engine failed. On the day of the accident the pilot planned to return to his home, but the aircraft he had flown to Forest Hill was unserviceable and departure was delayed until the following day. That afternoon when the "Cygnet" had been repaired he made another successful flight in the aircraft, which was also subsequently flown by another pilot. At 1505 hours, the pilot again took-off in the "Cygnet", for a ten minute flight. During this flight several flypasts were made along the strip before an approach to land was made. Witnesses report that the approach was misjudged and after touchdown the aircraft bounced several times before the pilot applied power and carried out a go-around. The aircraft then climbed straight ahead with full power set before making a steeply banked turn onto the crosswind leg of the circuit. A flat tight turn through 180 degrees was then made and the aircraft appeared to witnesses to be flying very slowly. During the turn one witness reported that the pilot's left foot came off the rudder pedal and control was partially lost. After control was regained, the aircraft continued flying slowly, it was seen to oscillate in pitch several times before the left wing dropped and it entered a spin. No change in engine noise was noticed during the spin and the engine continued to operate until the aircraft impacted the ground. Inspection of the aircraft did not reveal any pre-existing fault that would have contributed to the accident. It was subsequently found that the pilot was a diabetic and at the time of the accident he was markedly hypoglycaemic. The erratic way in which the aircraft was flown prior to impact indicates that the pilot lost control of the aircraft due to his being incapacitated as a result of hypoglycaemia.

This was to be the first time the pilot had flown an aircraft for the purpose of dropping parachutists. The right cabin door and all seats except the pilot's seat had been removed and a windblast deflector baffle had been fitted at the open doorway in preparation for the day's parachute drops. The aircraft was loaded with four parachutists. After the engine was started, the pilot completed an engine check and the pre-takeoff checks. However, the flap was inadvertently left in the fully retracted position. The pilot considered the strip fairly rough and raised the nosewheel early in the takeoff run, to save it from unnecessary stress. The aircraft became airborne at about 50 knots in an exaggerated nose high attitude. Almost immediately, the left wing dropped and the aircraft veered off the centre section of the strip. Several ground strikes occurred off the strip and the left aileron struck a post in the boundary fence. The aircraft continued at full power, occasionally flying in ground effect at low airspeed, until it struck a log in high grass well beyond the marked end of the strip. The takeoff attempt was continued until the aircraft struck another log and uprooted a large sapling before coming to rest, embedded in a large felled gum tree, 370 metres beyond the end of the strip. The investigation determined that the aircraft became airborne prematurely because the pilot overrotated on takeoff. An aft centre of gravity and lack of takeoff flap combined to make the elevator control very light and prone to overcontrol. Once airborne, the induced drag caused by the exaggerated nose high attitude, and the continual ground strikes prevented acceleration.

Circumstances:

The pilot was relatively inexperienced on the aircraft type and bush flying. She had flown into Lamboo Homestead airstrip during the morning to drop off her employer. She had then flown over to the newly graded strip at Old Lamboo where her employer's mustering team was camped. After approximately one hour on the ground, the pilot decided to do a circuit of the airfield with one of the mustering team as a passenger. She had not landed at this airfield before and did not consult the aircraft performance charts. The performance charts indicated that twenty degrees of flap was required and that the available take-off distance required to clear the obstacles at the threshold was marginal. The pilot elected to make a flapless take-off. When approximately 2/3 along the 700 metre strip, and the aircraft did not appear to be accelerating normally, the take-off was abandoned. The pilot expected that the aircraft would stop within the remaining distance, however, the aircraft did not stop as expected and continued beyond the end of the strip. The aircraft was substantially damaged before coming to rest approximately 110 metres past the prepared threshold. Subsequent investigation indicated that the pitot tube was partially blocked, and this had caused the airspeed indicator to under read.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot attempted operation beyond experience/ability level.

2. The pilot did not use the aircraft performance charts to determine if runway length was adequate.

3. The pilot did not use the correct flap setting.

4. The pilot misjudged speed and obstacle clearance required and ran off runway.

5. The pitot tube was partially blocked causing the Air Speed Indicator to under read.

Before commencing a fishing expedition, the pilot had determined that a particular section of beach was frequently used by light aircraft. An uneventful landing was made on the beach, and later the pilot made a take-off and circuit of the area before landing on another section of the same beach. The group had no success with their fishing, and the pilot decided to fly to another beach on the opposite side of the bight. During the landing roll, the pilot discovered that the left brake was not operating. The aircraft subsequently ran through a shallow water run, entered an area of soft sand, and overturned. The pilot had no previous experience in operations from beaches, and the operator of the aircraft was not aware that a beach landing was intended. The section selected was not used by other pilots who operated in the area. The reason for the brake failure was not determined, however the left brake unit had a recent history of malfunctions, possibly related to defective seals. This accident was not the subject of an on scene investigation.

The pilot was making a landing approach at the conclusion of a scenic flight. There were horses on the strip and the pilot elected to land long. The aircraft bounced on touchdown and recovery action was not effective before further bounces occurred. The pilot in the right hand seat took control and applied full power, however the aircraft settled into trees adjacent to the strip, and overturned. The strip surface was undulating and the landing was attempted in gusting crosswind conditions. The pilot occupying the right front seat had boarded the aircraft as a passenger. He had taken control of the aircraft because the actions of the pilot in command, following the bounced landing, were ineffective and the aircraft was heading for a building beside the strip. He had no instructional experience.

On arrival at the destination, the pilot discovered that the wind direction indicator was missing. He assumed the wind would be the same as at the DEPARTURE strip, only 17 kilometres away. Because of concern about turbulence and windshear, the pilot elected to fly a faster than normal approach. The aircraft touched down about 150 metres into the 510 metre strip. The grass surface was wet, and the pilot was unable to stop the aircraft running off the end of the strip, where it collided with bushes. The pilot was probably fatigued after a 5 1/2 hour hike earlier in the day. His judgement of distance to run, during the landing roll, was impaired by rain on the windshield. Also, with the imminent approach of poor weather, the pilot elected not to go around when he realized that he might run off the strip. It is likely that the landing attempt was made in light downwind conditions. The strip was not approved for use by the aircraft operator, and the pilot had not requested approval to use it. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.