Close×

This discussion contains extracts from the SACAA's accident report. It is compiled in the interest of promoting aviation safety and is not to establish legal liability.

CAA AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT AND SUMMARY

Aircraft registration: ZS-NTA

Date and time of accident: 9 June 2016. 1408Z

Type of aircraft: Cessna 172M

Type of operation: Training

PIC license type: CPL instructor

Licence valid: Yes

PIC age: 34

PIC total hours: 258

PIC hours on type: 22

Point of departure: Springs

Point of intended landing: Springs

Location of accident site: Springs

Meteorological information: Temperature 20°C, Wind 330/10, CAVOK

POB: 2

People injured: 2

People killed: 0

 

History of Flight

On Thursday 09 June 2016, the flight instructor and student pilot took off from Springs on a VFR training flight in the East Rand general flying area. The aircraft had 95 litres of avgas on board.

Fifteen minutes later the student headed back to Springs and joined overhead at 6800 feet (1460 AGL). The student, in preparation for landing, first checked the windsock and observed the wind direction at 330°, which favoured runway 32, which is 554 m long.

The student completed the pre-landing checks and started his approach from the south at 75 knots indicated airspeed, with the flaps selected to 20°. The instructor stated that the airspeed was still 75 knots on approach. The aircraft touched down in the middle of the runway at high speed.

After touchdown, the student applied back pressure on the control yoke with the intent to reduce the ground speed, but without success. The aircraft continued to roll. The student further applied the brakes, again without success.

After realising that the aircraft was about to overrun the end of the runway, the instructor took control and applied full left rudder following which the aircraft collided with a wall. The aircraft was substantially damaged. The instructor and the student sustained minor injuries.

The aircraft approached at high speed leading too deep. On touch down, the aircraft bounced before it lost directional control and collided with a wall.

The instructor did not intervene timeously to prevent the accident.

The cause of the accident was as a result of an unstable approach resulting in the aircraft being landing deep in the runway and at a high speed.

 

Probable cause

High speed landing leading to the aircraft landing deep in the runway, bouncing and losing directional control.

 

Jim’s analysis

This is one of the worst accident reports I have ever seen, and considering the horrendous quality of some of the others, this is indeed serious criticism.

It contains conflicting reports about who did what, and when. However, it’s obvious that they landed far too deep, and far too fast, and the instructor, who was comatose, reacted way too late.

When I say he reacted too late – I don’t mean when he took control on the ground. I mean he should have seen what was coming when they turned on to the final approach and called for more flap, less power or a go-around.

When I look at accidents like this it makes me wonder whether the magic 200 hours is enough for some instructors to be guardians of other people’s lives.

The 40-hour PPL and the 200-hour CPL rules were established in the days when these were reasonable targets.

I got my PPL in exactly 40 hours – to the minute. And the training comfortably included stuff like restarting the engine in flight (by diving the hell out of the aircraft until the prop started windmilling), solo spins overhead the airfield, so the instructor could watch you, three cross-countries, a hell of a lot of glide approaches, numerous go-arounds and the final flight test.

How was all this possible in the time that it takes some of today’s students to go solo? It’s not that we were smarter than today’s students, or that our instructors were better; they weren’t.

No, the secret is that we learned only the basics of flight. We were flying Cubs, and Tigers and Aeroncas, that had very few clocks to confuse us, or knobs to fiddle with.

And there was not much to do around the circuit, so we didn’t have to do any checks – we just enjoyed the ride.

Carb-heat was another matter – forget that in the glide and your prop would soon look like a pencil.

Cross countries were uncomplicated by beacons, frequencies and confusing lumps of airspace. You just had to keep away from the cooling towers, which were a warning that Jan Smuts [airport] was nearby. You also tried not to fly over Donottar–which was thick with Harvards–or Waterkloof or the Voortrekker Monument, both of which were verboten.

There were no magenta lines. Pencil lines on paper maps accurately reflected the nature of the territory over which we flew.

There was little, or no, ATC, and very little traffic.

But I am getting carried away by nostalgia when I should be explaining a couple of things.

  • tailwheel aeroplanes caused us to get plenty of practice in go-arounds.
  • 200 hours on basic aeroplanes, in empty skies, was enough for us to get a CPL and instruct on Cherokees and little Cessnas.

Today, technology has given us faster and more complicated aeroplanes, in cluttered airspace, with less time to think and more buttons and clocks to understand.

Now, 80 hours in a 172, in busy airspace, is barely enough to train a safe PPL.

And 200-hour CPL pilots, or instructors, are really floundering.

I asked a 250-hour CPL the other day when she had last done a go-around. Her answer was immediate: "never."

Horrifying? No – absolutely terrifying! Surprising? No, not at all.

Nowadays, with little nosewheel aeroplanes on long runways, it’s almost never necessary, especially when ATC are there to nursemaid other traffic out of your way.

So getting back to this accident – and a hundred more stuffed-up go-around accidents – the system is such that we are seldom taught to do go-arounds, and pretty much never practice them. We are not prepared for them, and are hugely surprised when faced with a real one. And when we have finished being surprised we have no idea what to do.

Most pilots have practiced EFATOs, and done a simulated one during their last flight test. A go-around? Nah – no idea what to do.

It’s very possible that this is the first real-life go-around this instructor had ever faced in his life. I think he was frozen with indecision.

If we could stop the action when they were at say 500 feet AGL and ask both the instructor and the student, what they felt about their airspeed, height, power setting and configuration, I’m sure they would both have said, “we are too high and too fast, and we need more flap.”

Correct. They were an unbelievable 15 to 20 knots too fast, and way too high, and why only 20° of flap?

And why didn’t they do anything about it?

The option of a go-around didn’t enter their heads – they had seldom done one before. Or if they had, it was long ago. It was just not part of their planning.

Remember the five dangerous characteristics? This one is resignation – let’s do nothing and see what happens.

What should happen is that on final approach we should brief ourselves that if we don’t like anything, at any stage we will do a go-around. It might be nothing to do with airspeed, height and power. Perhaps a dog runs onto the runway, or you spot an idiot landing on the cross runway, or you realise you still have the wheels up.

Your self-briefing should say, If anything looks wrong I will:

  • smoothly take full power, using rudder to keep straight
  • level the nose
  • retract the undercarriage
  • bleed off flap as airspeed increases
  • climb away.

Note: heavy aircraft sometimes call flaps to be retracted before the undercarriage. This is because inertia may cause the aircraft to touch down during the go-around. 

 

What Can We Learn?

Not sure how to do a go-around? Get some dual from a good instructor.

Use the correct approach speed.

On every approach, your throttle hand should be itching to go smoothly all the way forward for another few minutes of flying.

Be like an airline pilot and brief for the go-around every time.

Jim Davis is a natural teacher with a passion for flying training, believes in learning through enjoyment. His book is refreshingly un-textbookish yet thoroughly covers its subject clearly. With over 15,000 hours, including 10,000 in flying instruction for civilian and military pilots, Jim founded South Africa’s largest and most respected flying school, 43 Air School. He is also an author of multiple books on flying training and has contributed numerous articles to flying magazines across two continents. https://www.jimdavis.com.au

 

comments powered by Disqus