Runway excursion

It was reported that the takeoff run was commenced after the pilot had run the engine to full power. The aircraft then travelled the full length of the 607 metre strip before entering light scrub. It became airborne for a distance of 48 metres before striking the ground in a nose down attitude. The landing gear was torn from the aircraft and a fire erupted in the front of the cabin before the aircraft came to rest. The pilot and passengers evacuated the aircraft before it was destroyed by fire. The strip length available for the proposed operation was inadequate. The load designated for carriage by the aircraft operator and accepted for carriage by the pilot, exceeded by approximately 345 kilograms the maximum allowable takeoff weight for the strip in the prevailing conditions. Also the takeoff performance of the aircraft was further inhibited by the takeoff being attempted with the flaps in the up position. Damage caused by the fire hampered the inspection of the wreckage. However, an examination of the fuel system found evidence of water contamination, and it is considered possible that the presence of water in the fuel system could have resulted in a reduction in engine performance during the takeoff run. No other faults that may have contributed to the accident were found. Perusal of the maintenance documentation for the aircraft found that water contamination was a problem with the aircraft, and that this pilot had recommended that a fuel drain be carried out prior to each takeoff. On this occasion no fuel drain was completed immediately prior to the attempted takeoff.

The surface of the particular ALA was covered with long grass and areas of low scrub and bushes. The pilot taxied along one of the strips until he came to an area of thicker scrub, and saw markers which he believed defined the end of the strip. During the take-off roll, the aircraft had reached a speed of about 50 knots when the pilot realised that he was approaching the upwind end of the strip. He abandoned the take-off, and attempted to steer the aircraft through a gate in the boundary fence. However, the left wing and mainwheel struck the gate post, the aircraft slewed rapidly and the nosegear collapsed. The pilot later advised that he had begun the take-off from the intersection of the two flight strips, and had confused markers on the other strip for those at the end of the strip selected. As a result, the length available had been about 425 metres, compared to the full strip length of 950 metres. The pilot had not previously operated from the particular ALA. Grass on the strips was between 30 and 45 centimetres high in places and this, together with a number of low bushes, made the strip markers difficult to see.

At the conclusion of a dual check flight, the student landed the aircraft into a light north-westerly wind. The landing roll was completed about half way along the 853 metre strip, and the pilot turned the aircraft around preparatory to taxying back to the upwind threshold. The instructor left the aircraft at this point, after briefing the student on the solo sequences he wished him to practice. Shortly afterwards, full power was applied as the student commenced a take-off downwind. The aircraft failed to become airborne, collided with a fence and overturned. The student was subsequently unable to give any reason for his decision to commence the take-off roll from other than the threshold of the strip.

The pilot reported that his approach to land towards the north-west was good, however the aircraft floated for some distance before touching down. As the aircraft landed the sun appeared from behind a cloud and the pilot lost all forward vision. Braking was applied but, as the pilot considered that the aircraft was not slowing down and he was aware that the strip end was near, he applied power to go around. The aircraft failed to become airborne and collided with a bush and a fence beyond the end of the strip. The investigation did not reveal any fault with the aircraft that could have contributed to the accident.

The aircraft touched down normally on the 760 metre long strip and the pilot commenced braking immediately. He was then distracted by the sudden appearance of two cyclists at the edge of the strip and was concerned that they might attempt to cross the strip in front of the aircraft. This did not occur and the pilot, returning his attention to the landing roll, realised that the rate of deceleration was less than expected. Despite pumping the brakes, he was unable to prevent the aircraft from over-running the end of the strip and colliding with a large rock. Heavy rain had fallen on the strip shortly before the aircraft arrived. The grass surface was slippery and resulted in reduced braking effectiveness. When the pilot realised that the rate of deceleration was abnormal there was insufficient strip length remaining to ensure a successful go around.

Circumstances:

Because the performance charts indicated that the strip length available could be marginal, for the take-off, the pilot carried out a physical check using the odometer of a car. This confirmed a usable length of seven hundred metres. The pilot reported that during the take-off roll the aircraft was accelerating normally until approximately mid-way down the strip, at which point the acceleration rate of appeared to slow considerably. He then elected to abandon the take-off, as the speed was still below that required to safely become airborne. He applied brakes and full flap but was unable to prevent the aircraft overrunning the end of the airstrip and colliding with a wire fence.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that as the aircraft decelerated through 60 knots on the landing roll, braking efficiency was reduced. His attempts to ground loop the aircraft were to no avail, and it overran the strip, while travelling at about 15 knots, and collided with a ditch. The strip is 750 metres in length with a dirt centre section and grassed outer sections. It was reported that rain had been falling all the previous night and had only ceased a short time before the attempted landing. The centre section had had puddles of water on it and the outer section was apparently covered in standing water. This report was compiled from information provided by the pilot of VH-DTV.

The pilot intended refuelling at the previous landing point but he found that fuel was not available. After re-checking his fuel requirements he was satisfied that the flight could be accomplished with almost full reserves. The weather deteriorated and groundspeed reduced during the flight, causing the pilot to become concerned about flight visibility and fuel endurance. He elected to make a precautionary landing near a homestead but during the landing roll the aircraft ran through a fence and collided with a ditch. Although the pilot had lost time on earlier legs of the flight he made no similar allowance for the subject leg, nor did he divert to a suitable refuelling point. Having decided to carry out a precautionary landing, the pilot did not make a low-level inspection of the area. The approach to land was made downwind and the aircraft did not touch down until it was less than 220 metres from the end of the 2000 metre paddock selected.

The pilot decided to land on the shorter of two strips, using a short field technique. Touchdown was made 75 metres into the 470 metre strip, but the pilot was undecided whether to apply maximum braking or to initiate a go-around. Full power was applied and the aircraft became airborne for a short time before touching down in rough terrain. It came to rest with both main gears collapsed, 282 metres beyond the end of the strip. The pilot had not obtained data on the strip and therefore had not checked the landing performance chart which would have indicated that the strip was too short for the aircraft weight and prevailing conditions.