AEROPLANES
14 Nov
Just
Escapade: G-CGNV: Breighton Airfield, Nr. Selby, North Yorkshire
AAIB Summary: At an early stage
in the take-off G-CGNV’s pilot reported a problem with his seat. Eyewitnesses
saw the aircraft climbing in an unusual attitude. Shortly after the aircraft
lifted off it had significant left bank and was yawing and drifting to the
right. At approximately 180 ft agl, the aircraft rolled left and departed
from controlled flight, descended steeply, and struck the runway abeam the
control tower. The aircraft sustained major disruption and the pilot was
fatally injured.
The pilot flew with his seat
set fully forward but the seat was at its rearmost position when the aircraft
struck the ground. The evidence indicated that, due to misalignment, the seat
adjustment pin had not been correctly located in one of the holes in the
adjustment rail and therefore the seat had not been securely locked in the
fully forward position. The seat adjuster backup strap, intended to prevent
rearwards seat movement in case of pin failure, was not tightened. The exact
cause of the misalignment of the seat pin and adjuster rail is not known.
The investigation considered it most likely that the accident resulted from the
pilot’s seat sliding backward, thereby compromising his ability to maintain
effective control of the aircraft. Three Safety Recommendations were made
in AAIB Special Bulletin S3/2021, published on 14 December 2021. The 66
year old pilot held a PPL with a total of 945 hours and 4 on type. (AAIB
Bulletin 10/2022).
10
September
Cessna
172S: G-CFIO: Ruckinge,
Kent
At 09.58 hrs on 10 September
2021, without permission from the operator or clearance from the air traffic
radio operator, a student pilot took off from Rochester Airport in G-CFIO. The
aircraft was later observed to enter a steep descent to the left before it
struck the ground in a field adjacent to Tar Pot Lane near Ruckinge in Kent.
The pilot did not survive the accident. Immediately prior to taking off,
the pilot had reported over the aircraft radio that he had been diagnosed with
a terminal illness and indicated that he intended to deliberately crash the
aircraft. The pilot had not declared his diagnosis to the doctor who issued his
aviation medical certificate. The 67 year old Student pilot had flown a total of 74 hours, all on type. (AAIB Bulletin 4/2022)
12 August
Mudry Cap
10B: G-BXBU: Buckland St Mary, Somerset
AAIB Summary: The pilot found
himself stuck above cloud during a cross-country flight under Visual Flight
Rules. After contacting the Distress & Diversion Cell for assistance he was
transferred to the radar frequency of a nearby airport, at which the cloud base
was below the minimum required for the approach offered. The pilot, who was not
qualified to fly in cloud, lost control of the aircraft during the subsequent
descent and the aircraft was destroyed when it hit a tree. Both occupants were
fatally injured.
The investigation found that
air traffic service providers did not obtain or exchange sufficient information
about the aircraft and its pilot to enable adequate assistance to be provided.
There was an absence of active decision making by those providers, and
uncertainty between units about their respective roles and
responsibilities. Seven Safety Recommendations are made to address
shortcomings identified in the provision of air traffic services in an
emergency. The 69
year old pilot held a PPL had flown 1,411 hours with 648 on type. (AAIB
Bulletin 6/2023).
30 June
Rogers Sky Prince (Jodel150): G-CJZU: Goodwood Aerodrome, West SussexAAIB Summary: After takeoff the engine (Continental O-200-A) in G-CJZU suffered a partial power loss. This power loss became more significant as the aircraft reached 300 ft aal. The aircraft had little natural stall warning and was not fitted with an artificial stall warning device. A safe flying speed was not maintained, and the aircraft departed from controlled flight at a height from which it was not possible to recover. The aircraft descended steeply and struck the ground nose first. The accident was not survivable. Examination of the engine could not find any faults that could have caused or contributed to the loss of power. The aircraft had sufficient fuel for the flight. Insufficient supply of fuel to the engine from the tanks could have caused the power reduction but the damage to the aircraft meant that it was not possible to establish the condition of the fuel system or level of fuel supply. It is also possible that a fault in the ignition system could have contributed to the power reduction, but the damage from the post impact fire meant that the integrity of the electrical system could not be fully assessed. Weather conditions were also conducive to carburettor ice forming on the taxi out to the runway. It is possible that carburettor ice formation caused the engine to lose power after takeoff. The 65 year old pilot held a PPL and had flown 706 hrs with 16 on type).
Whilst the investigation of G-CJZU was in progress, a further event involving partial power occurred in which the three occupants of the aircraft were seriously injured. The aircraft suffered a partial loss of engine power shortly after takeoff and the pilot attempted a turnback to land on the reciprocal runway. The aircraft stalled during the turn and struck the ground west of the runway. Three Safety Recommendations were made in that report with respect to pilot training for partial power loss events. These Safety Recommendations, whilst not a part of this report, were formed on the basis of information from both accidents and are supported by the events described here. (AAIB Bulletin 6/2023).
9 May
Stampe
SV4C: G-AWEF: Nr Headcorn Airfield,
Ashford, Kent
AAIB Summary: The aircraft was
taking part in a formation display practice with three other similar aircraft.
Whilst practicing a new manoeuvre involving a synchronised line abreast stall
turn, G-AWEF was seen to enter a spin. The aircraft did not fully recover from
the spin before striking the ground fatally injuring the pilot. No
evidence was found of any pre-existing fault or damage to the aircraft which
could have caused the spin or prevented the aircraft from recovering from the
spin. Flight tests conducted during the investigation showed that the
most likely reason the aircraft entered a spin was that either too much aft
stick was applied before the yawing turn was complete or that the rudder was
not centralised when the pull-out was commenced. The investigation identified
several reasons why this may have occurred. The investigation highlighted
the importance of obtaining guidance and mentoring from an experienced display
authorisation evaluator when upgrading a display authorisation. Incipient
and developed spin recovery techniques vary between aircraft and may be
different to those discussed in this report. The 57 year old pilot held a PPL with 753 hours and 517 on type. (AAIB Bulletin 2/2022).
Back