Aviation Safety

At about 1340 Pacific time, the airplane departed the runway during takeoff and sustained structural damage to the left wing. The pilot and a passenger were not injured. Visual conditions prevailed. The pilot was to ferry the airplane to Australia the following day, with a planned intermediate stop in Hawaii. He had performed two test flights the day before the accident, noting slightly higher right-engine oil temperature and a shudder in flight that lasted for no more than a second or two. The pilot decided to undertake one more test flight, with a mechanic.

The airplane cruised into the western face of Mount Si at about 0154 Pacific time. It fragmented upon impacting trees and upsloping mountainous terrain, which resulted in substantial structural damage. The commercial pilot held a flight instructor certificate; the pilot and two passengers were fatally injured. Dark night visual conditions prevailed. A pilot-rated witness observed the anticollision and navigation lights from a low-flying airplane cruising southeasterly.

At 1732 Eastern time, the airplane collided with a pole while landing, sustaining substantial damage. Visual conditions prevailed. The private pilot sustained serious injuries and a passenger sustained minor injuries. On arriving in the area, tower personnel instructed the pilot to enter a left downwind leg to Runway 4. These instructions were subsequently changed to a right downwind leg. A Gulfstream jet was cleared to land in front of him. He was then cleared to land and the airplane touched down on the main landing gear.

The airplane sustained substantial damage during a forced landing at approximately 0745 Mountain time following a loss of aircraft performance. The pilot and his two passengers were not injured. Visual conditions prevailed. According to the pilot, the takeoff appeared normal. Once in the air, the airplane’s climb rate was not what he expected. Shortly after takeoff, the pilot entered a right turn. Shortly, the airplane’s stall horn started to sound.

The pilot was conducting a series of practice accuracy landings in preparation for a checkride. He reported that he inadvertently forgot to extend the landing gear. He added that he did not remember hearing the landing gear warning horn just before touchdown because he had allowed himself to become fixated on maneuvering the aircraft to the precise landing point.

At 0628 Mountain time, the airplane collided with terrain after takeoff. The private pilot and one passenger were fatally injured; two passengers sustained serious injuries. The airplane sustained substantial damage during the accident sequence, and was partially consumed by post-impact fire. Night instrument conditions prevailed; no flight plan had been filed. A witness in her automobile observed an airplane to her right, which appeared to be descending steeply at high speed.

Failure of an airplane’s single engine shortly after takeoff is an event all pilots dread. When it happens, we’re low and slow. We lack the potential energy of speed and altitude, have little time to respond and few options. When such a failure happens, it’s natural—in some ways—for a pilot to want to be back on the runway he or she just used. It’s right there—behind us—and seemingly offers several solutions to our problems. One thing the runway has going for it is, well, it’s a runway. We know it’s a perfectly good runway because we just used it. Another attraction is resources: There’s usually a maintenance facility or at least a mechanic who can set things right. If only we can make it back to the runway we just departed, this pesky engine failure will be okay.

One sunny, spring day several years ago, I was out flying with a friend. He was a little rusty, so we picked a quiet, non-towered field for some pattern work. He was in the left seat of the borrowed Skyhawk; I was in the right. My friend was doing okay with the pattern work, although his landings needed work. We were attempting to polish them up when he dropped in the airplane from about 10 feet. It didn’t bounce, there were no “uh-oh” noises and we exited the runway normally, taxiing back for another one while I coached him.

During inspection, the forward upper l/h wing attach point was found to have corrosion on the wing attach fitting (p/n 08113507). After removing the upper wing-fuselage fairing, inspection revealed intergranular corrosion on the fitting, and severe rust on the mounting bolt heads. The fitting was replaced due to the severity of the corrosion. Probable cause of this corrosion is the fuselage-wing fairing not being sealed properly in the area above the fitting.

From my perch on the shop level, I see two types of airplanes and pilots: First, there’s the pilot who thinks nothing of flying the clag with a tired and vulnerable audio system and avionics suite left over from the Nixon administration. We’ve all heard him—the guy with the garbled and distorted audio that barely gets him taxi clearance to the runway. On the other end of the spectrum is the owner who’s invested twice the value of the aircraft in ultra-modern avionics including a high-end audio panel plus a generous set of $1200 Bose headsets for every seat in the cabin. What do these pilots and their aircraft have in common? Neither might be prepared to troubleshoot a failed audio system on the fly. Effectively dealing with audio failures and avoiding them in the first place takes some planning, a touch of system knowledge and in many cases a modest investment in the right kinds of backup gear.