History of the flight
The pilot arrived at Kittyhawk Aerodrome intending to fly but initially decided against it due to weather conditions. After a conversation with an acquaintance, an experienced pilot and instructor, he reconsidered and took the acquaintance as a passenger. The takeoff and departure were normal, but the pilot reported a thermally active day with turbulence. He subsequently decided to return.
Unhappy with his first approach, the pilot initiated a go-around, a decision agreed to by the passenger. On the second approach, the passenger may have commented about the height, leading the pilot to aim for a longer landing. The aircraft touched down firmly and bounced, prompting another go-around. As the aircraft’s nose rose steeply, it appeared to sink and drift off the centre line toward the runway edge. The pilot believed the passenger suggested “push forward” on the control yoke. The pilot responded, and the aircraft touched down firmly, bounced, and contacted vegetation at the runway edge, cartwheeling over a fence before coming to rest upside down.
Pilot’s analysis
The pilot identified several factors he believed contributed to the accident: he had changed his mind about flying spontaneously and did not prepare methodically; he was unclear on the passenger’s role and may have overreacted to comments; he was still familiarising with G-BRUN, having flown only three hours on type under supervision; and all his previous pilot-in-command experience had been in aircraft with a stick rather than a yoke, and he felt the difference in control feedback led to over-control.
Passenger’s comments
The passenger stated he was not acting in an instructional role but did not preclude making comments from a flight safety perspective. He considered he was unlikely to have said “push forward” and would have said “nose down” in that situation, expecting a climb attitude adjustment rather than a “coarse” input from the pilot. He also acknowledged that the decision to fly rested with the pilot in command and believed he did not unduly influence him.
AAIB comment
The AAIB noted that it has previously reported on accidents where the role of an instructor flying as a passenger was unclear. In this case, the pilot may have had a heightened sense of security because his passenger was an instructor, leading him to proceed with a flight he was not confident to undertake in the conditions.