What happened
On September 7, 2019, a Trike Icaros Adventure ultralight aircraft, registration PU-VVS, was performing a local flight departing from Atibaia Aerodrome (SDTB) in São Paulo, Brazil. During the landing roll on the unpaved runway, the aircraft encountered a strong right crosswind gust, causing it to drift to the left. Despite the pilot's efforts to maintain the centerline, the aircraft veered off course and collided with a runway edge marker. The impact caused substantial damage to the aircraft's left landing gear, though the pilot remained uninjured.
The investigation
CENIPA's investigation focused on the environmental conditions and the airfield infrastructure. Investigators noted that the pilot was fully qualified and the aircraft was in compliance with all regulatory and maintenance requirements. Meteorological data from a nearby station indicated that while wind speeds were relatively low (approximately 5 to 6 knots), the wind direction was highly variable, shifting by as much as 180 degrees.
Crucially, the investigation examined the runway edge marker involved in the collision. Under Brazilian Civil Aviation Regulation (RBAC) 154, objects in runway safety areas must be frangible to minimize damage during excursions. The investigation determined that the marker at Atibaia Aerodrome was not sufficiently frangible, which directly aggravated the consequences of the excursion.
Findings
- The primary contributing factor was the inadequate airport infrastructure, specifically the presence of a non-frangible runway marker.
- Significant wind direction variability at the aerodrome created a sudden lateral force that led to the loss of directional control.
- The lack of a dedicated meteorological service at the aerodrome meant the pilot had to rely solely on a windsock, making it difficult to accurately judge wind conditions.
- Discrepancies were noted in operational manuals: the manufacturer's manual contained an error regarding crosswind limits (which actually applied to taxiing), and the flight school's operational limits were more permissive than the manufacturer's stated limits.