Runway excursion

The pilot reported that he was carrying out an inspection of the area to be treated when the engine made an unusual noise and began to vibrate. The pilot immediately turned the aircraft for a return to the departure airstrip and when power was reduced the engine began to run roughly. The engine then began to loose power and the pilot had to pump the throttle to keep the engine going. The pilot said he reached the end of the strip and on touchdown the right wheel struck soft ground. The right wingtip then struck the ground, and the aircraft nosed over. The pilot was suspended upside down by the seat harness and was drenched by organophosphate leaking from the hopper. The pilot could not open the door due to the cockpit roof being buried in mud. He was then forced to kick the window out to evacuate, and lost portion of his ring finger and broke bones in his left hand during his egress.

The student pilot had been briefed and authorised to conduct solo circuit training. The runway in use was 36 and the wind was from 020 degrees at 10 to 15 kts. During the landing roll the aircraft encountered a gust of wind from the east. This caused the right wing to lift abruptly. Although the pilot applied full right aileron control, he was unable to arrest the aircraft's roll to the left. The aircraft then departed the runway before coming to rest inverted, on the western side of the runway.

The pilot exited the aircraft safely. The aircraft was not fitted with an emergency locator transmitter.

The crew were having problems with the survey equipment, so they decided to land at Bencubbin to investigate. The wind was from the west at 20 kts with gusts to 35 kts. The landing strip at Bencubbin is aligned 160/340 degrees. It slopes up to the north, is 970 m long with a gravel surface and power lines on both approaches. Field elevation is 1000 ft.

After conducting an airborne inspection of the strip, the pilot decided to land into the north. Because of the crosswind he decided to use 10 degrees of flap for the landing. The pilot reported that the first 100 m of strip was overflown due to its (unsuitable) surface condition. As the aircraft touched down, at approximately 80 kts, it was hit by a wind gust from behind, which resulted in a heavy touchdown and subsequent bounce.

The pilot immediately initiated a go-around but with the loss of airspeed associated with the initial bounce and an increasing tailwind component, the aircraft continued to run along the upsloping gravel surface. The go-around attempt was then abandoned in consideration of the powerlines off the end of the strip. The pilot was unable to stop the aircraft overrunning the end of the strip where it finally came to rest in adjoining scrub, substantially damaged.

It was reported that the solo student pilot made a normal approach to runway 36 but elected to start a go-around because the aircraft was not aligned with the runway centreline. As the pilot applied full power the nose yawed to the left. At this point, and contrary to training, the pilot selected the flaps to the take-off position. The aircraft descended, touching down to the left of the strip. It then ran off the runway and flight strip and into a rough area suffering extensive damage in the process.

The pilot reported that on arrival at Nebo the wind direction was variable at about 10 knots but favouring a landing towards the north. The pilot said that he joined crosswind and flew a left circuit for the northerly runway. After the aircraft was established on final approach at about 80 knots, full flap was selected and airspeed was reduced to between 55 and 60 knots. The pilot stated that as the aircraft reached flare height with the right wing slightly down to compensate for crosswind, power was reduced, and the aircraft contacted the runway heavily. This was followed by a further two impacts and the aircraft veered off the sealed runway. After control was regained, the aircraft was taxied back onto the runway and shut down. The landing impact caused permanent deformation of the rear fuselage and damaged to the nosewheel strut. The damage was not noticed until some time after the aircraft had been flown back to Cloncurry. The aircraft was fitted with a Narco 10 Emergency Locator Transmitter, but it was not activated by the heavy landing.

This was the pilots first flight in a Cessna 206, and although correctly endorsed under the group endorsement system, he had no previous training or experience on this particular aircraft type.

The accident was a direct result of the approach being made at an excessively low airspeed, and inappropriate flying technique.

The pilot was flying parachute operations from Bridgewater airstrip where there were two grass strips, an 1100 metre east west strip and a 700 metre north south strip. Occupants in a house to the west, off the end of the east west strip, were holding a function and had requested in writing that the parachute aircraft avoid overflying for the day to prevent the nuisance of noise. The pilot decided to comply with the fly neighbourly request and use the shorter north south strip.

After all four parachutists had exited at 3,500 ft the pilot joined for a tight right circuit for a landing to the north. Although he was high and fast on final, he persisted with the approach in an effort to avoid wasting valuable flight time. At the time, the wind was estimated to be a southerly at about 5 knots, the grass was wet, and the aircraft was light. With full flap and airspeed about 10 knots higher than desirable, the aircraft touched down hard well into the strip. For a moment the pilot considered a go-around but quickly rejected the idea for fear of colliding with marked powerlines immediately north of the strip beside a road. He braked hard but there was little affect due to wet slippery grass. He attempted a ground loop but to no avail.

The aircraft overran the strip, crashed through a farm fence, passed under the powerline, crossed a sealed road, penetrated another fence and came to rest about 40 metres beyond the airfield boundary. During the overrun the nosewheel assembly collapsed and the propeller struck the ground. The operator advised that there was no pressure on the pilot to hurry. The pilot gave the impression that he was so keen to please that he inadvertently placed himself in a situation beyond his level of flying ability.

The aircraft was on approach for landing with a 10 - 15 kt crosswind from the left. The pilot stated that he was holding the left wing down to counteract the crosswind, but as he commenced to flare prior to touchdown a stronger gust of wind moved the aircraft to the right.

The aircraft touched down at the side of the airstrip on its left main wheel, possibly in soft sand, while still moving sideways. This imposed a side load to the landing gear leg which sheared the attachment bolts allowing the leg to separate from the wing.

The pilot reported that he had been concerned about the performance of the aircraft's brakes and, following the first flight for the day, he had checked the pads for wear. They appeared to be serviceable with as much as 10 mm of pad material remaining. During the landing roll following the second flight, the aircraft yawed to the left. Corrective action using rudder and brake had no affect and aircraft continued to yaw to the left until it departed the 15 m-wide flight strip and collided with a fence and tree.

A technical investigation disclosed that the brake system was fitted with spacing washers designed to prevent the brake pads being worn down to their backing plates. This prevented damage to the brake discs. The spacing washers were set so that around 10 mm of the pads remained when the brakes reached their maximum wear limit. The operator and pilot were not aware of this limitation and assumed from the amount of pad material remaining that the brakes were still serviceable. When the pilot applied the brakes to prevent the aircraft yaw, movement was restricted by the spacing washers, and he was unable to obtain effective braking.

Prior to departing Narrabri, the pilot obtained a weather forecast for his destination, which indicated the surface wind would be from the southwest at 15 kts. The flight was uneventful and on entering the circuit at Aeropelican the pilot noted that the windsock indicated a northerly wind and elected to land on runway 07.

The pilot later reported that the aircraft crossed the threshold at 80 kts, with full flap selected, and touched down about 250 metres into the 880 metre strip. About halfway along the runway, with the airspeed still indicating 55 kts, the pilot realised there was a tailwind component. He considered going round but elected to continue with the landing. Heavy pressure was applied to the rudder pedals, without operating the brakes effectively. As a result, the aircraft overran the runway end and collided with the airport fence. The four occupants managed to evacuate the aircraft, but the pilot suffered superficial injuries.

The pilot reported that when he landed, the nosewheel was cocked sideways, and collapsed when it contacted the runway. The pilot said the nosewheel steering link was probably broken before the aircraft departed Innisfail. He believes the nosewheel steering may have been inadvertently forced past the steering limit, while being towed.

The failed nosewheel fork was examined by a CASA airworthiness inspector, and in his opinion the nosewheel strut failure was caused by overload after the tyre and wheel failed. He said the possible causes of the tyre and wheel failure could be a heavy landing in crosswind, or the nosewheel impacting with something on the runway.

The strut failed rearwards and substantially damaged the fuselage structure back as far as the wing strut attachments. The cause of the tyre and wheel failure could not be positively determined.