FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON INCIDENT REPORTS, VISIT
AAIB.GOV.UK
INCIDENT REPORTS
What brought an Auster down AUSTER AOP.9 SPANHOE AIRFIELD, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 18 JUNE, 2017
Shortly after take-off the Auster stalled, banked left into a steep descent and struck the ground. The pilot, who was making his second flight in the recently-restored ex-military aircraft, was fatally injured and the passenger was seriously hurt. A witness said the take-off initially seemed normal but soon after the aircraft rocked slightly, first right then left, then there was a short pause before it rolled left into a steep descent and struck the ground to the left of the runway. During its Permit to Fly flight test the Auster didn’t demonstrate any stall
warning, as is common to the type, and it also had a substantially higher stall speed and lower rate of climb compared with other AOP.9s and the Pilot’s Notes figures. The pilot was likely to have decided to climb at an airspeed he thought would provide an adequate margin from the stall, but without prompt and appropriate actions recovery at a low height was unlikely. Although the aircraft’s engine was running, the investigation identified a number of anomalies that could have contributed to less-than-ideal engine and aircraft performance which, while they
STOL misfortune
The aircraft was on a test flight prior to being issued with a Permit to Fly. Shortly after take-off the engine failed. During the subsequent forced landing the aircraft landed firmly, sustaining severe damage. One of the two pilots suffered serious injuries. It is believed that the engine failure was caused by fuel vaporisation as a result of high engine compartment temperatures. Having had an excessive EGT warning, followed by an engine failure at about 800ft, the pilots were left with little time to execute a forced landing in an area with limited options. The testing pilot took control at about 200ft for the forced landing. Given
he took control with little height available it’s likely he did not stabilise the aircraft’s airspeed, became slow and, with no height in which to lower the nose to correct the speed, the aircraft stalled and landed firmly.
GOOD DECISION PIPER PA-34-220T SENECA V OXFORD AIRPORT 2 NOVEMBER 2018
The Seneca was about to enter the runway for take-off when the instructor became concerned about the feel of the left rudder pedal. He aborted the flight and taxied the aircraft back to the hangar. A subsequent engineering inspection found the left rudder cable had parted, with evidence that it had melted through due to chafing against the standby battery cable. Safety actions have been taken by the Civil Aviation Authority and the manufacturer has issued a mandatory Service Bulletin (No 1337).
SUMMER 2019 CLUED UP 37
wouldn’t have accounted directly for the stall, might have distracted the pilot. The investigation also identified several issues relating to the aircraft and engine maintenance documentation, the Permit to Fly application process, and guidance for pilots preparing for their first flight on a new type. The Light Aircraft Association has taken a number of safety actions to reinforce its existing processes and published guidance relating to the Permit to Fly application process, documentation of aircraft maintenance and pilots making their first flights on type.
JUST SUPERSTOL XL Nr BARTON AERODROME, MANCHESTER 10 JUNE 2018
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40
