ATSB Report on fatal Jabiru late go-around.
Thread Starter
ATSB Report on fatal Jabiru late go-around.
ATSB Report on Jabiru fatal crash after late go-around then stall in landing configuration.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577332...-112-final.pdf
I have only flown about ten hours on LSA and that was in a Texan Club from Penfield, Victoria during the last 4 years. .
When I flew the Texan Club I was caught by surprise that on touch and go landings, considerable rudder deflection was needed when full throttle was applied to keep the aircraft straight on the grass airstrip; and this was in nil wind. The lower the airspeed the more was corrective rudder required.
The ATSB report quoted an instructor as saying that when close to the runway, the Jabiru, like any high wing aircraft of a similar design, had a tendency to pitch-up when full flap and throttle were applied. Forward pressure on the control stick would have to be used to counteract this tendency. This applies to most types of aircraft including aircraft like the Cessna 152 and its ilk.
It is apparent that the Jabiru bounced several times before the pilot made an attempt to go-around. By then, the airspeed would be on the stall when he applied power to go-around. With full power, full flap down and airspeed bordering on the stall, the amount of rudder to keep wings level to counteract torque would be nearly full rudder. That is probably why the aircraft yawed into an angle of bank of 30 degrees because the pilot either had full rudder and was still unable to stop the yaw – or he had insufficient rudder in the first place. The result was predictable.
While in flying schools it is common practice to conduct go-arounds as part of circuit training, these are normally conducted on short final where ample airspeed is still available. From personal observation, few instructors teach students the correct recovery technique from a bounce at low airspeed - including how to cushion a bounce with a trickle of power and re-land straight ahead within the remaining airstrip length. Instead students are advised “when in doubt always go-around”
This sort of instructor exhortation, especially before a student does his first solo, has been thus so since flying first began. So students are drilled that go-arounds in the landing configuration regardless of airspeed is generally safer than recovery from a bounce or series of bounces by landing straight ahead. The short answer is that students should be competent at both sequences; certainly before first solo.
However, as this accident has proven, the result may have been different if the pilot had abandoned any thought of a go-around at such a late time, but instead applied sufficient power to cushion any bounce and re-landed ahead.
A late go-around after the flare or after touch down, brings with it the danger of student mis-handling due to the combination of full flap, high nose attitude, rapidly reducing airspeed, failure to prevent yaw at a high angle of attack and torque effect. All leading to the possibility of an incipient spin. It applies to a Jabiru more than (say) a C152 because of the amount of strong rudder pedal deflection needed to prevent yaw at high power in an LSA.
It could be argued that application of some power to cushion a bounce with the intention of re-landing further down the available landing length, introduces the added risk of an over-run if the student mis-judges the remaining landing length available. While that is true, it could also be argued it is safer that risking an incipient stall/spin which happened in the Jabiru fatal accident. In any case, the student should not be certified safe for solo until he has proved to be competent at not only low speed go-arounds but also bounced landing recovery by re-landing straight ahead.
During my time as a RAAF QFI teaching ab-initio students in the days of Tiger Moths and Wirraways, it was mandatory to teach bounce recovery or high hold-off situations, where a re-landing ahead could be safely attained. On graduation pilots could be posted to fly Mustangs or Sea Furies where a slow speed delayed go-around had the potential of being quite dangerous.. These aircraft with their powerful engines, could torque roll caused by an uncontrollable yaw with rapid application of power.
Flying school ab-initio training syllabus should require proven competency at the technique of re-landing straight ahead, where applicable. The potential dangers of very low airspeed go-arounds in the landing configuration should also be included in the syllabus, if it isn't already.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577332...-112-final.pdf
I have only flown about ten hours on LSA and that was in a Texan Club from Penfield, Victoria during the last 4 years. .
When I flew the Texan Club I was caught by surprise that on touch and go landings, considerable rudder deflection was needed when full throttle was applied to keep the aircraft straight on the grass airstrip; and this was in nil wind. The lower the airspeed the more was corrective rudder required.
The ATSB report quoted an instructor as saying that when close to the runway, the Jabiru, like any high wing aircraft of a similar design, had a tendency to pitch-up when full flap and throttle were applied. Forward pressure on the control stick would have to be used to counteract this tendency. This applies to most types of aircraft including aircraft like the Cessna 152 and its ilk.
It is apparent that the Jabiru bounced several times before the pilot made an attempt to go-around. By then, the airspeed would be on the stall when he applied power to go-around. With full power, full flap down and airspeed bordering on the stall, the amount of rudder to keep wings level to counteract torque would be nearly full rudder. That is probably why the aircraft yawed into an angle of bank of 30 degrees because the pilot either had full rudder and was still unable to stop the yaw – or he had insufficient rudder in the first place. The result was predictable.
While in flying schools it is common practice to conduct go-arounds as part of circuit training, these are normally conducted on short final where ample airspeed is still available. From personal observation, few instructors teach students the correct recovery technique from a bounce at low airspeed - including how to cushion a bounce with a trickle of power and re-land straight ahead within the remaining airstrip length. Instead students are advised “when in doubt always go-around”
This sort of instructor exhortation, especially before a student does his first solo, has been thus so since flying first began. So students are drilled that go-arounds in the landing configuration regardless of airspeed is generally safer than recovery from a bounce or series of bounces by landing straight ahead. The short answer is that students should be competent at both sequences; certainly before first solo.
However, as this accident has proven, the result may have been different if the pilot had abandoned any thought of a go-around at such a late time, but instead applied sufficient power to cushion any bounce and re-landed ahead.
A late go-around after the flare or after touch down, brings with it the danger of student mis-handling due to the combination of full flap, high nose attitude, rapidly reducing airspeed, failure to prevent yaw at a high angle of attack and torque effect. All leading to the possibility of an incipient spin. It applies to a Jabiru more than (say) a C152 because of the amount of strong rudder pedal deflection needed to prevent yaw at high power in an LSA.
It could be argued that application of some power to cushion a bounce with the intention of re-landing further down the available landing length, introduces the added risk of an over-run if the student mis-judges the remaining landing length available. While that is true, it could also be argued it is safer that risking an incipient stall/spin which happened in the Jabiru fatal accident. In any case, the student should not be certified safe for solo until he has proved to be competent at not only low speed go-arounds but also bounced landing recovery by re-landing straight ahead.
During my time as a RAAF QFI teaching ab-initio students in the days of Tiger Moths and Wirraways, it was mandatory to teach bounce recovery or high hold-off situations, where a re-landing ahead could be safely attained. On graduation pilots could be posted to fly Mustangs or Sea Furies where a slow speed delayed go-around had the potential of being quite dangerous.. These aircraft with their powerful engines, could torque roll caused by an uncontrollable yaw with rapid application of power.
Flying school ab-initio training syllabus should require proven competency at the technique of re-landing straight ahead, where applicable. The potential dangers of very low airspeed go-arounds in the landing configuration should also be included in the syllabus, if it isn't already.
Last edited by Centaurus; 31st Jul 2017 at 13:56.
There should be a mandatory 20 to 25 hours dual logged before anyone can be released for solo, even if the instructor thinks the student is ready before then. That way, there's none of this race for the quickest time to solo to gauge how good a pilot you are.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It could be argued that application of some power to cushion a bounce with the intention of re-landing further down the available landing length, introduces the added risk of an over-run if the student mis-judges the remaining landing length available. While that is true, it could also be argued it is safer that risking an incipient stall/spin which happened in the Jabiru fatal accident.
What I see around the ridges is this ridiculous notion that you should firewall the thing instantly, which is never the case. Add power, regain control (which may mean just trimming in a normal GA) and then progressively add more and fly away.
YMMV as they say!
Interesting. In the jab LSA55 I've often practiced full-flap go arounds, never had any pitch-up. But I don't firewall the throttle, I feed it in progressively. I've never flown a 170. Maybe I'm lucky: controlling a bounce with a trickle of power and re-landing down the strip was part of my training.
Last edited by cooperplace; 1st Aug 2017 at 00:14.
I have been half way through such a scenario but am alive to tell the tale. I attempted to land a C172 from an approach about ten knots too fast on my first C172 solo after endorsement.
I had never encountered such bad bouncing behaviour before and it was a surprise to me. I reacted by pushing the wheel forward which was exactly the wrong thing to do. A series of pilot induced bounces followed before I went around, however that was the one thing I had been properly trained for. Power up, expect the pitching moment and push, positive rate of climb, flaps milked up etc. I bent the firewall.
The go around HAS to be taught and practiced perfectly because without that in your armoury, there is not going to be a second chance.
While I cannot remember flying into Yarram, the combination of a strange airstrip, grass surface, perhaps a disconcerting visual perception compared to "big" runways resulting in being too fast and too high at the rapidly approaching threshold, followed by turbulence at the worst moment and the resulting unstable bounce is going to really load the pilot up.
Well anyway it loads me up. My response FWIW, is to tell myself and passenger (if any) that I am probably going around on the first landing attempt and quite often I do.
I had never encountered such bad bouncing behaviour before and it was a surprise to me. I reacted by pushing the wheel forward which was exactly the wrong thing to do. A series of pilot induced bounces followed before I went around, however that was the one thing I had been properly trained for. Power up, expect the pitching moment and push, positive rate of climb, flaps milked up etc. I bent the firewall.
The go around HAS to be taught and practiced perfectly because without that in your armoury, there is not going to be a second chance.
While I cannot remember flying into Yarram, the combination of a strange airstrip, grass surface, perhaps a disconcerting visual perception compared to "big" runways resulting in being too fast and too high at the rapidly approaching threshold, followed by turbulence at the worst moment and the resulting unstable bounce is going to really load the pilot up.
Well anyway it loads me up. My response FWIW, is to tell myself and passenger (if any) that I am probably going around on the first landing attempt and quite often I do.
My response FWIW, is to tell myself and passenger (if any) that I am probably going around on the first landing attempt and quite often I do.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There should be a mandatory 20 to 25 hours dual logged before anyone can be released for solo, even if the instructor thinks the student is ready before then. That way, there's none of this race for the quickest time to solo to gauge how good a pilot you are.
At one of the flying schools I worked, a student arrived with over 40 hours of dual from a previous school. Her log book revealed over 30 hours of circuits and landings with numerous instructors - mostly grade 3. No sign of the CFI flying with her to check on quality assurance of his instructors. They flew virtually unsupervised it seems. On her first trip with us and after one hour of upper air work and circuits including three practice EFATO and low level go-arounds to ensure she knew what she was doing, our CFI sent her solo. From the deck we watched her do a perfect circuit and a greaser landing. She later told us that at the other flying school she came from, some of the newer instructors were constantly on the controls with her as she could see and feel their input and she never quite knew who was flying at any one time - the instructor or her.
Interestingly, when our flying school requested her progress reports from the CFI of her previous flying school, prior to her starting with us, the request was ignored despite repeated requests. It was only when CASA stepped in and directed we be given the progress reports that we finally got them. They consisted of a two page list of the dates and how many hours flown and nothing else. No instructor comments - no nothing, which was useless.
Agreed Sheppey, time to solo has increased over time anyway and anecdotally the first solo flight is not a major contributor to bent aircraft, that seems to come later on when newfound "skills" are being stretched with less ideal wind conditions and other unfamiliar hazards as training progresses.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be in interested in the CG of the aircraft.
From the report, the nosewheel never touched down, but the tail struck the ground twice.
Also, I'm not sure these were "bounces" as we typically think of them - the aircraft reportedly bounced 8 times in 95 m, so the bounces can't have been very high. It sounds more like skipping along, not quite in full contact with the runway. If the runway has undulations, and you have the nose in the air and some airspeed that might be hard to avoid.
From the report, the nosewheel never touched down, but the tail struck the ground twice.
Also, I'm not sure these were "bounces" as we typically think of them - the aircraft reportedly bounced 8 times in 95 m, so the bounces can't have been very high. It sounds more like skipping along, not quite in full contact with the runway. If the runway has undulations, and you have the nose in the air and some airspeed that might be hard to avoid.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree totally that the go around needs to be taught better. The bounce recovery toma landing should be a priority but can be increased to a go around if needed for any reason.
Doing the first 20-25 hours in gliders would do more good than restricting first solos.
No go around possible in a glider, but plenty of training done in recovering problem landings.
Doing the first 20-25 hours in gliders would do more good than restricting first solos.
No go around possible in a glider, but plenty of training done in recovering problem landings.
I reckon that any "elderly" 72 year old Jabiru pilots, with only 191 hours solo over five years, should be immediately grounded.
(That's whether or not they purportedly had a decent night's sleep, the night before.)
(That's whether or not they purportedly had a decent night's sleep, the night before.)
Gerry "191 hrs solo over five years" is close to one hour a week for forty weeks per year. In my opinion that is not a bad average for a PPL of any age who isn't a millionaire.
I can't match it as I am too busy building. I find a few hours and ($$$) every three months to drive for Two hours, find an instructor and an aircraft to keep my hand in. Then of course there is the two yearly flight review. The comprehensive reskilling, rust removal and long touring flights have to wait until the chariot is complete.
I can't match it as I am too busy building. I find a few hours and ($$$) every three months to drive for Two hours, find an instructor and an aircraft to keep my hand in. Then of course there is the two yearly flight review. The comprehensive reskilling, rust removal and long touring flights have to wait until the chariot is complete.
Tad harsh perhaps. No idea the circumstances. He may have not flown for awhile then started again with an instructor. And not sure why this should apply specifically to the 'elderly'.
I often find it difficult to take the ATSB seriously anymore.
YMMV as they say!
Sorry, Sunfish and Egipps. I was being sarcastic because my reading of the ATSB report is that of ageism. (I don't regard 72 year olds to be elderly.) I particularly refer to the paragraph: "What the ATSB found". I mentioned his 191 hours solo over five years as I agree that's not a bad amount of flying.
I often find it difficult to take the ATSB seriously anymore.
I often find it difficult to take the ATSB seriously anymore.
