don't read the menu options and go directly to the page content 

Occurrences

A selection of recent occurrences is shown strictly for the purpose of maintaining or improving aviation safety and should not be used to attribute blame or liability.

Smoke and fumes in cabin on landing approach.

At 3 nm final on an ILS approach the passengers alerted me to smoke and fumes in the cabin. As I turned to look at the cabin I could see and smell smoke and assessed that it smelled like burning electrical insulation. I immediately transmitted an emergency call and informed ATC that I intended to continue with the landing and vacate the runway, stop, shutdown and carry out an emergency evacuation. I also informed them that I may lose communication if I had to switch off all electrical power. I simultaneously switched off the cabin lighting and the ECS bleed air supplies as well as dumping the residual cabin pressure. The passengers informed me that the smoke was reducing. I made a normal landing, rapid deceleration and immediately vacated the runway, brought the aircraft to a halt, shutdown and led a rapid evacuation onto the taxiway. The passengers were escorted to a safe location by the fire crews who medically assessed them; they were met by transport within 5 mins and driven to the FBO. There were no further signs of fire and after 30 mins the aircraft was assessed as safe by the fire crews and towed to the stand by the FBO tow team. The cabin retained a strong smell of burnt electrical insulation and the aircraft was secured to await an engineering investigation.  

Aircraft damage caused by prop wash.

Aircraft 1 had taxied at high speed to a refuelling area and applied a high power setting while stationary with the resulting prop wash aimed directly at a maintenance area outside a hangar, aircraft 2 was clearly being worked on outside of the hangar with cowls partially removed. the high power setting in the direction of aircraft 2 caused a unsecured cowl section to be blown away from the aircraft causing substantial cosmetic and minor structural damage. The incident was reported to the airfield CFI who informed the Pilot/Owner of aircraft 2 that the pilot in command of aircraft 1 had just been involved with another incident immediately before when he had taxied and made aircraft contact with another parked aircraft resulting in minor wing and rudder damage. The pilot was allowed to continue with his refuelling activities and flight after becoming abusive to the pilot of aircraft 2. 

PAN declared due flaps stuck in down position.

Whilst on the upwind leg of the circuit following a touch and go, the student pilot declared a PAN stating that the flaps were stuck down and could not be retracted. I acknowledged the PAN and asked whether the pilot anticipated making a normal landing, which he confirmed he did. A Local Standby was called with the RFFS. The aircraft flew a left hand circuit and landed normally. The fire service then escorted the aircraft back to its parking position and declared the incident closed. A flying instructor later reported that the problem may have been related to a "micro switch" in the cockpit. 

Go around due to light aircraft near final approach track.


During our initial approach, through ATC radio transmissions, we where made aware of a light aircraft transiting at 1000ft, following a railway line North of the approach track. As our final approach on the ILS commenced the light aircraft was advised to orbit in its current position because of its proximity to the approach track and our impending approach. We continued to monitor the light aircraft on TCAS and noted that it started to close toward the approach track. At 1800ft the decision was made to Go Around very shortly after which we received a “Traffic Advisory” on the TCAS. Separation from the TCAS was assessed as 600ft vertically and between 1.5 and 2 miles horizontally, but would have reduced if our approach had continued. Our approach was made in IMC conditions throughout. 

PAN declared and aircraft returned due to engine vibration. 

The aircraft accelerated normally during the take off run with no abnormal parameters present. After rotation and a positive rate of climb was established, the undercarriage was retracted and it was during the retraction of the undercarriage that the aircraft commander detected a vibration which he felt was coming from the right side of the aircraft. The vibration continued therefore the commander decided that a precautionary landing was required. Power on both engines was reduced from 100% to 80% and a Pan call was made to ATC. After making an assessment of local weather conditions (reported visibility of 2500m with tempo 1000m visibility on ATIS), the commander decided that a low level circuit to land was appropriate. 

After the Pan call was made to ATC, a company aircraft was cleared to backtrack the active runway. ATC had either not heard or not understood the Pan call that was made. The crew of the company aircraft had heard the Pan call and held position whilst also relaying to ATC, that the aircraft was returning to land following a technical issue. The pilot noted that there were some communication issues as he attempted to communicate his intentions to ATC and was asked to report when on the ground. At no point were the engine indications abnormal.

The aircraft returned to land without further incident. After the aircraft had been shut-down back on stand, the commander was told that a noise similar to misfiring had been heard on the ground. An engine data download was carried out which was assessed by a licensed aircraft engineer with no faults or warnings found. The data download was sent to engine manufacturer for assessment and no faults were found. Physical inspection of engine and engine mount carried out and no faults found. Inspection of rest of aircraft carried out to attempt to locate any possible faults and none were found. Engine ground run carried out followed by an air test and no re-occurrence was noted. Unable to replicate fault and coupled with the findings from the engine data, the conclusion is that this is a one-time event and no evidence can be found which supports a fault in the system or aircraft. The records of the aircraft have been reviewed to assess whether this has happened previously and no previous similar reports have been recorded.  

Engine and rotor over speed. 

During a lesson on climbs and descents, the student gripped the throttle too tightly in a climb, overriding the governor and as the collective lever was raised, engine and rotor RPM increased beyond upper limits.

website by Hudson Berkley Reinhart Ltd