CA 12-12a 13 JULY 2013 Page 1 of 11 Section/division Accident and Incident Investigation Division Form Number: CA 12-12a AIRCRAFT INCIDENT REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reference: CA18/3/2/1102 Aircraft Registration ZU-MEG Date of Incident 27 December 2014 Time of Incident 1630Z Type of Aircraft Jabiru 430 (aeroplane) Type of Operation Private Pilot-in-command Licence Type Private Pilot Age 71 Licence Valid Yes Pilot-in-command Flying Experience Total Flying Hours 2 669.6 Hours on Type 8.7 Last point of departure Brits Aerodrome (FABS), North West Province Next point of intended landing Eagle Creek private airfield, Muldersdrift, Gauteng Province) Location of the incident site with reference to easily defined geographical points (GPS readings if possible) Left-hand side of Runway 26 at Eagle Creek private airfield, Muldersdrift Meteorological Information Temperature: 27°C, surface wind: light, visibility: CAVOK, cloud cover: 1/8, cloud base: 10 000 feet Number of people on board 1 + 1 No. of people injured 1 No. of people killed 0 Synopsis The pilot and a passenger departed from Brits Aerodrome, destined for Eagle Creek private airfield. The flight was uneventful and the pilot joined the circuit at Eagle Creek private airfield for landing on Runway 26. His vision was obscured on final approach by sunlight, and during landing he could not see the runway centreline markings. The aircraft veered off to the left of Runway 26 during the landing roll. The aircraft sustained damage on the propeller blades, nose landing gear and front part of the fuselage, and the left main landing gear separated from the aircraft. The pilot was not injured; however the passenger was taken to hospital after complaining of back pain. The investigation established that the pilot vision was obscured by the sun and he could not align the aircraft with the airfield centre line which resulted in the aircraft veering off to the left hand side of Runway 26. The incident could have been avoided had the pilot used Runway 08 however due to the fill material on the runway threshold the pilot opted to use Runway 26. Probable Cause The pilot’s vision was obscured by sun during landing. Contributing factors: • Poor decision making. ASP Date Release Date
Transcript
CA 12-12a 13 JULY 2013 Page 1 of 11
Section/division Accident and Incident Investigation Division Form Number: CA 12-12a
AIRCRAFT INCIDENT REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Reference: CA18/3/2/1102
Aircraft Registration ZU-MEG Date of Incident 27 December 2014
Time of Incident 1630Z
Type of Aircraft Jabiru 430 (aeroplane) Type of Operation Private
Pilot-in-command Licence Type Private Pilot Age 71 Licence Valid Yes
Pilot-in-command Flying Experience Total Flying Hours 2 669.6
Hours on Type
8.7
Last point of departure Brits Aerodrome (FABS), North West Province
Next point of intended landing Eagle Creek private airfield, Muldersdrift, Gauteng Province)
Location of the incident site with reference to easily defined geographical points (GPS readings if possible)
Left-hand side of Runway 26 at Eagle Creek private airfield, Muldersdrift
Number of people on board 1 + 1 No. of people injured 1 No. of people killed 0
Synopsis
The pilot and a passenger departed from Brits Aerodrome, destined for Eagle Creek private airfield. The flight was uneventful and the pilot joined the circuit at Eagle Creek private airfield for landing on Runway 26. His vision was obscured on final approach by sunlight, and during landing he could not see the runway centreline markings. The aircraft veered off to the left of Runway 26 during the landing roll. The aircraft sustained damage on the propeller blades, nose landing gear and front part of the fuselage, and the left main landing gear separated from the aircraft. The pilot was not injured; however the passenger was taken to hospital after complaining of back pain. The investigation established that the pilot vision was obscured by the sun and he could not align the aircraft with the airfield centre line which resulted in the aircraft veering off to the left hand side of Runway 26. The incident could have been avoided had the pilot used Runway 08 however due to the fill material on the runway threshold the pilot opted to use Runway 26.
Probable Cause
The pilot’s vision was obscured by sun during landing. Contributing factors: • Poor decision making.
ASP Date Release Date
CA 12-12a 13 JULY 2013 Page 2 of 11
Section/division Accident and Incident Investigation Division Form Number: CA 12-12b Telephone number: 011-545-1000
AIRCRAFT INCIDENT REPORT
Name of Owner/Operator : Pameg Partnership Manufacturer : Shadow Lite CC Model : Jabiru J430 Nationality : South African Registration Marks : ZU-MEG Place : Eagle Creek airfield, Muldersdrift Date : 27 December 2014
Time : 1630Z All times given in this report are Co-ordinated Universal Time (UTC) and will be denoted by (Z). South African Standard Time is UTC plus 2 hours. Purpose of the Investigation In terms of Regulation 12.03.1 of the Civil Aviation Regulations (1997) this report was compiled in the interest of the promotion of aviation safety and the reduction of the risk of aviation accidents or incidents and not to establish legal liability. Disclaimer This report is produced without prejudice to the rights of the CAA, which are reserved.
1. FACTUAL INFORMATION 1.1 History of Flight:
1.1.1 The pilot and a passenger departed from Brits Aerodrome, destined for Eagle Creek
private airfield. The flight was uneventful and the pilot joined the circuit at Eagle Creek private airfield for landing on Runway 26. His vision was obscured on final approach by sunlight, and during landing he could not see the runway centreline markings.
1.1.2 During landing roll, the aircraft veered off to the left of Runway 26 and the left wheel fell into an erosion furrow that was on the runway edge. This resulted in the brake hydraulic pipe being sheared off and damaged. As a result, the brake system could not function.
1.1.3 The aircraft continued on the left runway edge shoulder and was further damaged
by erosion furrows and rubbish heaps. Both the left main landing gear and nose landing gear separated from the aircraft after colliding with a rubbish heap. The nose dropped to the ground and the aircraft continued skidding before coming to a standstill.
1.1.4 The aircraft sustained damage to the propeller blades, nose landing gear and front
part of the fuselage, and the left main landing gear separated from the aircraft. The pilot was not injured; however the passenger was taken to hospital after complaining of back pain.
CA 12-12a 13 JULY 2013 Page 3 of 11
1.1.5 The accident occurred during daylight conditions at a geographical position
determined to be S25°54’.270” E028°02’.100”, at an elevation of 4 855 ft above ground level (AGL).
1.2 Injuries to Persons:
Injuries Pilot Crew Pass. Other Fatal - - - - Serious - - 1 - Minor - - - - None 1 - - -
1.2 Damage to Aircraft: 1.3.1 The aircraft sustained extensive damage.
Figure 1: The wreckage after the incident 1.4 Other Damage: 1.4.1 None.
Total Hours 2 669.6 Total Past 90 Days 8.7 Total on Type Past 90 Days 3.7 Total on Type 8.7
1.6 Aircraft Information:
1.6.1 Airframe:
Type Jabiru J430 Serial Number 646 Manufacturer Shadow Lite CC Year of Manufacture 2009 Total Airframe Hours (At time of Incident) 398.9 Last Annual Inspection (Date & Hours) 18 April 2014 366.6 Hours since Last Maintenance Inspection 32.3 Authority to Fly (Expiry Date) 17 April 2015 C of R (Issue Date) (Present Owner) 21 October 2011 Operating Categories Part 91
Engine: Type Jabiru 3300 Serial Number 33A1959 Hours since New 398.9 Hours since Overhaul TBO not yet reached
1.6.3 Propeller: Type P Prop 60 x 53 Serial Number N3222 Hours since New 239.4 Hours since Overhaul TBO not yet reached
Nationality South African Gender Male Age 71 Licence Number 0272260555 Licence Type Private Licence valid Yes Type Endorsed Yes Ratings None Medical Expiry Date 30 September 2015 Restrictions Corrective lenses Previous Accidents None
CA 12-12a 13 JULY 2013 Page 5 of 11
1.6.4 Weight and Balance (lb):
Basic Empty Weight 389 kg Pilot and Passengers 80 + 70 = 150 kg Fuel on board 70 L = 50.4 kg Baggage 5 kg Take-off weight 594.4 kg
The maximum take-off weight for this aircraft is 760 kg. The aircraft was therefore
within the take-off weight limitation by 165.6 kg. The aircraft had 70 L of Avgas on board, which was sufficient for the flight. 1.7 Meteorological Information: 1.7.1 The following information was obtained from the pilot’s questionnaire:
Wind direction Light Wind speed Light Visibility 10 km Temperature 27°C Cloud cover 1/8 Cloud base 10 000 ft Dew point Unknown
1.8 Aids to Navigation: 1.8.1 The aircraft was equipped with the minimum visual flight rules (VFR) navigation
equipment required by regulations. There were no recorded defects with the equipment prior to the flight.
1.9 Communications: 1.9.1 The aircraft was equipped with standard communication equipment as required by
the Regulator. No defects were recorded or reported with the equipment before the incident.
1.9.2 The pilot transmitted on frequency 124.4 MHz at the time of the incident. 1.10 Aerodrome Information:
1.10.1 Eagle Creek private Airfield, Muldersdrift is unmanned and not SACAA-licenced facility:
Aerodrome Location Eagle Creek airfield Aerodrome Co-ordinates S25°54’.270” E028°02’.100” Aerodrome Elevation 4 855 ft Runway Designations 08/26 16/34 Runway Dimensions 1 250 m x 20 m 500 m x 20 m Runway Used 26 Runway Surface Asphalt Approach Facilities Nil
CA 12-12a 13 JULY 2013 Page 6 of 11
1.11 Flight Recorders:
1.11.1 The aircraft was not fitted with a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or a flight data recorder (FDR), and neither was required by regulations to be fitted to this type of aircraft.
1.12 Wreckage and Impact Information: 1.12.1 During landing, the aircraft veered off to the left of Runway 26 and the left wheel fell
into an erosion furrow, which was on the runway edge. This resulted in the brake hydraulic pipe being sheared off and damaged. As a result, the brake system could not function.
Figures above shows the damages on the aircraft
1.12.2 The aircraft continued on the left runway edge shoulder and was further damaged
by erosion furrows and rubbish heaps on the shoulder edge of Runway 26. Both the left main landing gear and nose landing gear separated from the aircraft after colliding with a rubbish heap.
Figures above shows damage on the runway edges caused by rain
1.12.3 The nose dropped to the ground and the aircraft continued skidding before coming
to a standstill.
1.12.4 The aircraft sustained damage to the propeller blades, nose landing gear, front part of the fuselage and bottom left wing tip, and the left main landing gear separated from the aircraft. The engine propeller blade damage was consistent with the engine producing power on impact.
CA 12-12a 13 JULY 2013 Page 7 of 11
Figures above shows the wreckage after the accident
Figure above show fill material on Runway 08
1.12.5 The pilot reported that he could not use Runway 08 due to the fill material which
was on the runway threshold.
1.13 Medical and Pathological Information: 1.13.1 There was no evidence that physiological factors or incapacitation affected the
performance of the pilot.
1.14 Fire: 1.14.1 There was no evidence of a pre- or post-impact fire. 1.15 Survival Aspects: 1.15.1 The incident was considered survivable owing to the low kinetic energy associated
with the impact.
1.15.2 The pilot reported that both occupants were properly restrained by the aircraft-equipped safety harnesses.
1.16 Tests and Research:
CA 12-12a 13 JULY 2013 Page 8 of 11
1.16.1 None. 1.17 Organisational and Management Information: 1.17.1 This was a private flight and the aircraft was privately owned.
1.17.2 The last annual inspection carried out on the aircraft was done by an approved
aircraft maintenance organisation (AMO). The AMO was authorised to conduct maintenance on the aircraft type. The evidence shows that the AMO complied with the aircraft manufacturer’s maintenance requirements when maintaining the aircraft. The AMO also complied with applicable regulations ensuring that the aircraft was serviceable and airworthy. There was no anomaly identified with the management and organisation of the AMO.
1.17.3 The pilot reported that he did not file a flight plan nor did he request a weather
forecast from the South African Weather Service (SAWS). However, the pilot got his weather information from a weather website.
1.17.4 According to the pilot, there were obstacles at the airfield that pose hazard risks should there be an emergency. He reported the fill material at the threshold of Runway 26.
1.17.5 The centreline markings were only visible/painted for approximately 200 m and the runway edges had furrow erosion and rubbish heaps.
1.17.6 The pilot reported that the aircraft was hangared at the airfield and he was familiar with the airfield. Damage caused on the airfield was due to heavy December rains and there was no maintenance carried out since then.
2. ANALYSIS 2.1 The pilot and passenger departed from Brits Aerodrome for Eagle Creek private
airfield on a private leisure flight. The flight was uneventful and the pilot joined the circuit at Eagle Creek private airfield for landing on Runway 26. His vision was obscured on final approach by sunlight, and during landing he could not see the runway centreline markings. The aircraft veered off to the left of Runway 26 during the landing roll.
2.2 The aircraft was serviceable for the flight and had been maintained in accordance
with existing regulations. The aircraft sustained damage to the propeller blades, nose landing gear, brake hydraulic pipe and front part of the fuselage, and the left main landing gear separated from the aircraft. The pilot was not injured; however the passenger was taken to hospital after complaining of back pain.
2.3 The investigation established that the pilot’s vision was obscured by sunlight, and
he could not align the aircraft with the airfield centreline. This resulted in the aircraft veering off the left-hand side of Runway 26. Due to the damage caused on the brake hydraulic pipe, the brake system could not function which resulted in it being ineffective and therefore the aircraft could not be stopped to minimise the damage caused to the aircraft.
2.4 The incident could have been avoided had the pilot used Runway 08 however due
to the fill material on the runway threshold the pilot opted to use Runway 26. The pilot mentioned that his decision was based on the fact that there was runway fill material on the threshold of Runway 08. The investigation established that made a poor decision by landing on Runway 26 for the simple fact that the runway length is 1250 meters. The pilot could still have landed safe had he opted to land deep on Runway 08.
2.5 The weather conditions at the airfield at the time did not contribute to the incident. 3. CONCLUSION 3.1 Findings:
3.1.1 The aircraft had a valid Authority to Fly, a valid Certificate of Registration and had
been maintained in compliance with existing regulations and procedures.
3.1.2 The maintenance records indicated that the aircraft was maintained in accordance with existing Civil Aviation Regulations.
3.1.3 Prevailing weather conditions at the time of the accident did not have an effect on
this accident. The pilot reported light surface wind and that he did not request an official report from SAWS, nor did he file a flight plan.
3.1.4 The pilot was properly licensed, medically fit and had had adequate rest to operate
the flight. 3.1.5 There was no evidence that incapacitation or physiological factors affected the flight
CA 12-12a 13 JULY 2013 Page 10 of 11
crew performance. 3.1.6 The passenger sustained minor injuries during the accident and was taken to
hospital. 3.1.7 The pilot’s actions and statement indicated that his knowledge and understanding of
the aircraft systems and operations was adequate. 3.1.8 The aircraft was not equipped with a flight data recorder (FDR) or a cockpit voice
recorder (CVR), and neither was required by regulations. 3.1.9 The pilot reported that his vision was obscured on final approach by sunlight, and during landing he could not see the runway centreline markings. 3.1.10 During landing roll, the aircraft veered off the left of Runway 26 and the left wheel
fell into an erosion furrow along on the runway edge. This resulted in the brake hydraulic pipe being sheared off and damaged. As a result, the brake system could not function.
3.1.11 The aircraft continued on the left runway edge shoulder and was further damaged
by erosion furrows and rubbish heaps. Both the left main landing gear and nose landing gear separated from the aircraft after colliding with a rubbish heap.
3.1.12 The nose dropped to the ground and the aircraft continued skidding before coming
to a standstill. 3.1.13 The mass and balance of the aircraft was found to be within the prescribed limits. 3.1.14 The aircraft was airworthy when dispatched for the flight. 3.1.15 There was no evidence of any defect or malfunction in the aircraft that could have
contributed to the accident. 3.1.16 There was no reported evidence of airframe failure, engine failure or systems
malfunction prior to the accident. 3.1.17 All control surfaces were accounted for, and all damage to the aircraft was
attributed to the severe impact forces with the ground during the accident sequence.
3.1.18 The engine propeller blade damage was consistent with the engine producing
power on impact. 3.2 Probable cause:
The pilot’s vision was obscured by sun during landing.
