Examination of the control column etc would certainly be helpful though I don't think this is the root cause but maybe a subsequently contributing cause.
In a properly loaded aircraft that was trimmed correctly, No,
Sure a broken control column would have resulted in a crash landing but in properly loaded and trimmed aircraft, it shouldn't have have resulted in the attitude this aircraft was reported to have assumed just after take off thus resulting in the impact that happened.
Are you serious ? I must say I disagree. Assuming the aircraft was trimmed correctly and the control column broke off on rotation, I think you are pretty well screwed, regardless of nearly everything else (including loading). It's a single control aircraft with essentially no other options (such as an autopilot/servos etc) to have basic elevator and aileron control. You would be in big big trouble.
This was a very real possibility considering the control column in EUF was broken of and resting on the floor of an otherwise relatively intact cockpit section.
This option was not considered. The stick was chucked away soon after the accident, buried along with any other evidence, on site.
There's this AD on the same control column in EUF:
http://www.casa.gov.au/ADFiles/under...-CRESCO-18.pdf
There is no question the aircraft was being operated outside the C of G envelope. This might be OK when things are normal but when something out of the ordinary occurs then it could well be the straw that breaks the camels back. The flight testing proves nothing in my opinion.
All the flight testing proved was the aircraft could be operated adequately in an aft C of G situation under normal conditions nothing more nothing less. I think it's safe to assume that conditions for the accident flight weren't normal.
The flight testing proved what has always been known by many,- The aircraft performs perfectly fine with the loading at the time of the accident. It also proves that it even performs fine and is fully controllable in an abnormal condition such as a take off with that load and a fully rear set trim.
This is indisputable evidence. Remember, the TAIC concluded that the pitch up and loss of control was caused by the excessive rearward C of G. Not an incorrectly set trim, not control failure, not nothing but C of G.
This is rubbish but it is the official report.
Another thing that came out at the inquest was the fuel loading. When I read the TAIC report, they had fuel figures which didn't seem enough to even complete a flight considering (unusable and skydive flight attitudes) let alone reserves. Basically the impression I got, those numbers in the report were not standard practice and it would have had significantly more fuel, probably enough for two or more flights plus reserve plus unusable. Don't know where TAIC got those figures from. But what does this do to the C of G ?? It moves it forward.
The simple fact is, the Fletcher aircraft has operated successfully outside the C of G envelope for the past 50 years. Especially so in the last 13 years in the Walter powered variant with the larger hopper attempting to operate as a cheaper alternative to the Cresco. With the amounts routinely squeezed into the hopper, do an accurate W & B on those. The C of G is nowhere to be found. Its somewhere out the arse, up the strip by the bins. Yet, for an uncountable number of take-offs, the type has been fine. On top of that, they can have double + the payload of EUF on the accident flight.
Granted, not legally, but thats not the point.
I've watched these aircraft operating in the skydive role with 9 in the back, I've head of 10 stuffed in there regularly. I've heard of more than one occasion of a skydive Fletcher taking off inadvertently with a full aft trim and a huge load in the back. I've watched them taxi around with such an aft C of G that the nose wheel is spending the majority of the taxi clear of the ground. I've even heard a story of the aircraft operating in the standard passenger category in the pacific back in the day, filling the aircraft with Samoans and it actually resting on the tail, it would not come off the tail onto the nose until the engine was started.
Make no mistake, the FU24 is a highly capable aircraft in it's various forms. In my no-good opinion, the aircraft is not capable of producing such a terrible accident with these given conditions without influence from some major abnormal factor which has not yet been determined, and may never be.
It is the job of the TAIC to determine the cause of this accident. They said it was the C of G. Thats rubbish, and proven. In my opinion they have not done their job.