Runway excursion

Prior to the flight the pilot ascertained that the strip was serviceable although rain had fallen in the area. The previous aircraft had landed without difficulty. However, as the pilot of VH-ENU applied braking after touchdown the aircraft began to slide. The pilot considered carrying out a go-around but elected to continue with the landing. The aircraft overran the strip and travelled 67 metres before stopping. Touchdown was made over halfway along the 820 metre-long strip and mainwheel skid marks were evident over the last 120 metrs of the strip. The pilot's decision not to carry out a go-around after landing was influenced by the length of strip remaining after touch down.

The pilot had not flown the aircraft for more than two months. The destination was a private strip where he had arranged to undertake aerobatics practice. The owner of the strip, who was on-site for the pilot's arrival, advised him by radio to land into the north-east as the surface wind was down the strip at 10 - 15 knots. The pilot flew one circuit with a touch-and-go landing and assessed the strip condition as satisfactory. On the second approach the strip owner observed the aircraft not to be on the ground until about two thirds to three quarters of the strip length. The pilot reported that, because of the reduced forward view in the three point attitude, he was unsure of how far he was from the end when he touched down. However, shortly after touchdown he noticed that the aircraft was running through a waterlogged area and he then saw an electric fence ahead, marking the end of the strip. He applied full power in an attempt to go around but the aircraft swung left, striking a fencepost with the lower left wing tip. The aircraft travelled a further 81 metres before coming to rest near the top of a one metre high embankment. Although the total strip length was some 600 metres, rising ground, trees, a power line at the approach end, and a wet area at the other end, reduced the effective length such that that it was not suitable for the operation of the aircraft.

The pilot reported that the aircraft brakes were serviceable prior to DEPARTURE. However, when braking was attempted during the landing roll there was no reaction, and no pressure was felt through the brake handle. The aircraft overran the end of the strip and collided with a fence. The brake master cylinder valve seal had failed, allowing the piston to extend further into the cylinder than normal. The piston had in turn become jammed by corrosion products.

Enroute to his planned destination the pilot flew around the Mt. Beauty area for several minutes. He had not previously landed at the strip and had not intended to on this occasion, however after watching other aircraft operating a decision to land was made. A go-around was made from the first approach as the aircraft was high on late final. Touchdown from the subsequent approach was made well into the strip and the aircraft bounced. A go-around was initiated but while turning to avoid trees the left wing struck the ground and the aircraft cartwheeled, coming to rest inverted. Witnesses reported that during the go-around the aircraft adopted a steep nose high attitude but did not climb. The turn left was initiated whilst the aircraft was in this attitude. No fault was subsequently found with the engine or associated systems. The pilot had probably established the aircraft in a steeper than normal attitude because of the presence of a hill adjacent to the strip.

The pilot had been advised of a displaced threshold, and assessed that the available length was adequate. The displaced threshold was forgotten until the markers were sighted during final approach. Power was applied to land beyond them but the aircraft was allowed to balloon and float before touching down, and overran the end of the strip where the landing gear collided with a low windrow. The pilot inspected the landing gear for damage, and believing the aircraft was airworthy, continued with the flight schedule. Subsequent examination revealed that the airframe had suffered substantial damage. This accident was not the subject of an on scene investigation.

On completion of superphosphate spreading operations, the pilot had flown the aircraft to a new strip located 4 kms south of Michelago. The aircraft touched down 290 metres beyond the threshold and despite heavy application of brakes late in the landing roll, the pilot was unable to bring the aircraft to a full stop before it overturned at the end of the strip. Investigation revealed that the tailwind at the time of the landing was considerably stronger than estimated by the pilot, and the approach speed was higher than optimum for the weight. No defect was found with the aircraft which may have contributed to the accident. It is considered that the combined effects of the strong tailwind; the aircraft not being flown at optimum approach speed; the long landing; and the late application of braking, together contributed to the accident.

Before departing from his home base for his first operation from the particular agricultural strip, the pilot had been briefed not to land down the slope unless there was a strong headwind component favouring that direction. A normal landing was made, and the pilot was then given details of the task to be performed. He departed for an aerial inspection of the area, and on return noted that there appeared to be a headwind of about 25 knots for landing down the slope. However, on late final approach to land in this direction, the pilot realised that the wind strength had decreased to about 10 knots. He continued with the landing, but was unable to avoid over-running the end of the strip. A groundloop was initiated, during which the left gear assembly collapsed. The strip was only 340 metres in length, and had a downslope of about 6 degrees. The over-run area was about 100 metres long, with a downslope of 9 degrees. While the pilot was conducting the inspection of the area to be treated, a shower of rain made the strip surface wet and slippery. The strip appearance was deceptive from the air, and probably influenced the pilot to continue with the approach after the headwind component reduced.

Circumstances:

The pilot was attempting the first landing of the day on an airstrip which was about 800 metres in length. It had appreciable longitudinal slope, and the surface was covered in long wet grass. The landing direction was up hill with a quartering tail wind from the left. The pilot reported that the aircraft touched down about halfway along the strip and that he anticipated the slope would provide the necessary retardation. As the roll progressed, it became apparent the aircraft could not be stopped on the remaining strip so a ground loop to the left was initiated. The aircraft slid sideways into a Superphosphate dump at the end of the strip and damaged the right aileron, right fuselage, and tailplane.

The aircraft touched down 385 metres into the 675 metre long paddock. The pilot reported that he applied the brakes but that they were ineffective. He decided that insufficient area remained for a successful go-around to be carried out and attempted to steer the aircraft through a gate. The right wing struck the gate and the aircraft turned through 190 degrees before coming to rest. The brakes were checked and found to be serviceable. The pilot stated that after touchdown he held the nosewheel on the ground and did not retract the flap. This would have had the effect of reducing the weight on the mainwheels and could have contributed to the reported brake ineffectiveness. The landing technique used by the pilot on this occasion was contrary to the technique recommended in the Pilot's/Owner's Handbook.

The pilot was making a take-off in 15 knot crosswind conditions. Initial acceleration appeared to be normal, and the aircraft lifted off at 60 knots. However, about 30 metres further on the aircraft settled back onto the ground, became airborne again but then failed to perform as expected. It cleared a fence at the end of the strip, before touching down again in the adjacent paddock and subsequently striking an electrified fence. The wooden propeller shattered and the right landing gear was torn off before the aircraft came to rest some 880 metres from the start of the take-off run. Although the pilot observed no engine abnormality during the takeoff, subsequent tests found that both magnetoes were not operating normally. It is possible, therefore, that the engine suffered a partial loss of power during the takeoff run. It is also possible that the prevailing wind conditions caused a loss of performance shortly after liftoff, and that the high nose attitude adopted by the pilot further added to this performance loss.