Runway excursion

A student pilot on his first solo flight lost control during the landing sequence. The aircraft departed the runway and came to rest on the adjoining grass, damaging the propeller and nose wheel strut.

The instructor reported that the approach appeared normal but the aircraft floated after the flare. The student applied some power but the aircraft landed heavily on the nosewheel, bending the nose strut. The instructor suggested that the student had probably not appreciated the aircraft would be significantly lighter without an instructor on board, and consequently be more likely to float after the landing flare, prior to touchdown.

The pilot of a Grob 115 aircraft was conducting a series of circuits after returning from a solo flight to the training area. During the second touch and go the pilot lost directional control. The aircraft veered left and departed the runway, incurring substantial damage as it passed through a ditch. The pilot was uninjured and vacated the aircraft without assistance.

The pilot was attempting the first take-off from a grass paddock on an agricultural operation. Take-off direction was towards the west with 700 m of ground roll available. The wind was variable, but mainly a gusting crosswind from the right at around 10 kt. The aircraft was below maximum weight with a full hopper load and about half fuel.

When it became evident that the aircraft would not lift off by the end of the available take-off area, the pilot rejected the take-off and attempted to stop in the paddock remaining.

The aircraft veered to the left, collided with a fence and ground-looped before coming to a stop.

The pilot reported that engine operation was normal, and he was unable to explain why the aircraft did not lift off in the distance available, which should have been adequate. He believed the changing wind strength and direction may have been a factor.

The Aerostar was being flown on a passenger charter flight from Maitland, NSW to Olympic Dam, SA. Arriving in the circuit area, the pilot reported that he observed the windsock indicating a surface wind of 240 degrees at 10 knots. However, because the runway length of 1591 m was more than adequate, he elected to land on runway 06 with a tailwind component. He said he flew a normal approach using 45 degrees of flap, touching down about 150 m beyond the landing threshold. 

Shortly after touching down the aircraft was struck by a strong wind gust and diverged to the left. The pilot was unable to prevent the aircraft from departing the sealed runway surface and entering an area of soft earth. The right main landing gear collapsed, and the right propeller struck the ground, stopping the engine. After the aircraft had stopped, the pilot shut down the left engine and evacuated the two passengers. Nobody was injured.

A local pilot who arrived at the site shortly after the accident estimated the wind as 240 degrees at 25 to 35 knots, but with regular gusts from the north. He also reported that the wind conditions had been similar all morning. The pilot of the Aerostar subsequently reported that local pilots said that the terrain around the landing area can produce a wind funnelling effect along and across the runway, which may not have been readily apparent.

A significant factor in this accident was the decision of the pilot to land on a runway affected by a marked downwind component.

After departing Albany for a private strip near Muradup, the pilot encountered deteriorating weather conditions including showers, cloud and failing light. With rain falling at the alternative strips, the pilot decided to continue to the private strip. During landing, the pilot rounded the aircraft out too high. It floated and the pilot applied full flap resulting in a landing 200 m down the 600 m strip. On the application of brakes, the aircraft skidded on wet grass on the slight downslope. As the aircraft came to the end of the strip, the pilot reported that the aircraft veered right, puncturing the right landing gear tyre on a log. It continued along a dam embankment before hitting a fence and coming to a stop. The pilot and passenger were not injured although the aircraft received damage to the right wing, left engine cowl and left elevator.

The aircraft was landing towards the south-east on a sealed runway, with a 10-knot southerly wind blowing. Toward the end of the landing roll the pilot experienced difficulty in keeping the aircraft centred on the runway, with the result that it veered off the runway and nosed down in the soft ground off the sealed area. The propeller and engine area were damaged. The pilot reported that the left main tyre had deflated, probably because of the tyre not rotating during the landing. He considered that he had held his heels too high on the rudder controls, inadvertently applying brake to the left wheel during the landing flare and initial roll.

At 0252 EST, the pilot of VH-UZQ informed the tower that he had aborted the take-off and that he was returning the aircraft to the hangar. He then requested cancellation of his flight plan. Approximately one hour later, the pilot telephoned the tower and indicated that a runway light may have been damaged. The safety officer inspected the runway and reported no apparent damage. At about 11 am EST that morning, personnel from the company which operate the aircraft telephoned the tower and reported damage to the aircraft indicative of it having run off the runway and impacted with ground equipment. A second inspection of the runway revealed significant impact damage to two sets of T- Vasis boxes.

The pilot later reported that soon after he had advanced the power levers for take-off, he realised that one propeller was probably still on the start locks. He immediately brought the power levers back and while the aircraft was still rolling, he pulled the left power lever into reverse in an attempt to remove that propeller off the locks. The aircraft then departed the runway to the left. The aircraft sustained minor damage to one engine and propeller.

The on-site investigation confirmed that the aircraft departed the runway to the left approximately 150 metres into the take-off roll. The wheel tracks indicate the right propeller struck the first T- Vasis box soon after the aircraft entered the flight strip. The aircraft then passed over a taxiway before re-entering the main runway. The second T- Vasis was struck either by the main landing gear or right propeller as the aircraft was turning right to re-enter the runway. The pilot who was the sole occupant, was not injured and the aircraft was taxied to the company facilities without further incident.

Weather at the time of departure from Emerald was reported to be 6 to 7 OKTAS of low cloud with patches of rain in the area. Light rain was falling at the time the aircraft taxied. The wind was light with a slight crosswind from the right. Visibility was in excess of 10 KM. The runway was damp and there were several patches of water on the runway.

The pilot reported that the take-off proceeded normally until approximately 50 knots when he disengaged the nose-wheel steering. At this point, the aircraft started to diverge to the right of the centreline. In an attempt to return the aircraft to the centreline the pilot used rudder, but this was ineffective. The pilot then rejected the take-off by moving the power levers to idle, but the aircraft continued to diverge to the right and departed the sealed surface of the runway.

The pilot used reverse thrust in an attempt to slow the aircraft, but this appeared ineffective, and the aircraft continued to turn to the right and slide on the wet grass surface. The aircraft by this time was heading for a small levee bank beside a drainage ditch. The pilot assessed that the aircraft would probably climb over the levee bank, so he elected to introduce power on the left engine in an attempt to turn the aircraft before the levee bank. However, this was only partially successful, and the aircraft came to rest adjacent to the levee bank facing approximately 180 degrees from the take-off heading. The left propeller contacted the bank as the aircraft stopped.

The aircraft had travelled 121 M after leaving the runway. The distance at which the aircraft left the centreline of the runway could not be accurately determined due to the runway surface. The nose-wheel track was approximately 1 metre to the left of the right-hand wheel track and continued at this distance until approximately 5 metres from the end of the tracks, at which point it crossed over the top of the right wheel track.

The aircraft suffered damage to the left propeller and engine. Examination of the engine when removed from the aircraft confirmed that it had suffered considerable internal damage consistent with a propeller strike at high power.

The operator reported that there had been several minor problems with the nose-wheel steering system in the 5 weeks prior to the accident. These problems, however, caused the system to fail in the off mode.

The nose-wheel steering system was examined and a series of tests conducted. It was found that with the nose-wheel steering armed, any movement of the speed levers caused an uncommanded movement of the nose-wheel to maximum right deflection. The fault was traced to the steering amplifier and this was subsequently removed for further testing. Once the amplifier was removed from the aircraft and replaced with a serviceable unit, the fault did not re-occur. Extensive testing of the amplifier has been unable to reproduce the fault.

The patches of water on the runway were not considered to be a factor in this accident.

The pilot had planned the flight for an early morning departure from a private airstrip. He had calculated the take-off weight, with four passengers, to be below the maximum allowable for the take-off length available. The weather was fine and clear, with a light crosswind on the gently down sloping grass strip selected for take-off. The grass had been mown short but was wet from a heavy dew.

During the take-off run the pilot became concerned that the aircraft was not accelerating normally, so he closed the throttles and applied maximum braking. However, he was unable to stop the aircraft before it overran the strip end and collided with a fence, rupturing a fuel tank and causing minor damage to the engine cowlings and landing gear doors.

No defects were found with the aircraft that may have affected its performance. It is likely that the wet grass would have increased the take-off distance required and also decreased the aircraft's braking efficiency when the take-off was rejected.

The pilot reported that during the take-off run the aircraft was not accelerating very well due to the soft wet surface.

At about 70 knots the pilot raised the nose in an attempt to get the main wheels off the runway to allow the aircraft to accelerate in ground effect. The pilot said that as soon as the aircraft lifted off it veered slightly left and was about to settle onto the ground again, so he closed the throttles and tried to maintain directional control on the ground. The aircraft entered mud and grass to the left of the runway for about 200 metres. The nosewheel then broke off, the propellers struck the ground, and the aircraft came to rest in about 8 metres.

The passenger who was an engineer, had previously run the left engine as it was suspected to not be producing full power. No fault was found with the engine. During the accident take-off the engineer had noted that the left engine was performing normally.