Casualties unknown

2024-08-14: Piper PA-28-181 (G-EPYW) — Rochester Airport, Kent, GB

Rochester Airport, Kent, GB

On August 14, 2024, a Piper PA-28-181 (registration G-EPYW) was involved in an aviation accident near Rochester Airport, Kent, GB. Investigators recorded the probable cause as: The pilot experienced a period of high workload following a go-around and change of runway-in-use. The aircraft overran the runway due to landing long at a higher than recommended speed. This summary draws on records from the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB); 8 related events involving the same aircraft type or operator are linked below.

Sourcesthe UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB)Primary reportUpdated 1785053200Data APIEditorial standards

A Piper PA-28-181 (G-EPYW) overran Runway 20 at Rochester Airport on 14 August 2024 after a go-around and change of runway-in-use. The aircraft landed long at high speed, crossed the boundary fence and a road, and came to rest in a wooded embankment. The pilot was uninjured.

History of the Flight

The pilot was conducting a private cross-country flight from Lydd to Rochester Airport. He contacted Rochester AFIS 10 nm from the airfield and was initially informed that the runway in use would be confirmed nearer, as the wind was variable. Later, the FISO informed that the wind had settled for Runway 02. However, the pilot did not feel comfortable with the final approach and executed a go-around. The FISO then advised a change to Runway 20 due to a wind shift. The pilot acknowledged, repositioned with a climbing right-hand orbit, and set up for Runway 20. He selected two stages of flap, considered the approach stable, reduced throttle to idle, flared, and touched down on Runway 20. The aircraft bounced several times. The pilot applied brakes hard but felt the aircraft was skidding and not slowing. The aircraft approached the airfield boundary; the pilot pulled back hard on the yoke to aerodynamically stall and slow the aircraft. It became airborne again, cleared the boundary fence and a local road, and came to rest partway down a wooded embankment. The pilot exited the aircraft uninjured.

Accident Site

The wooded embankment was located south of the airfield boundary, sloping steeply downwards toward a motorway. Both wings struck trees and detached from the fuselage, resulting in a fuel leak.

Recorded Information

The pilot used a flight-planning application from which position data, altitude, and ground speed were downloaded. Due to low wind speed, ground speed approximated airspeed. After the go-around, the pilot repositioned through 180° for Runway 20, climbing to a maximum height of 1,978 ft amsl. Ground speed at the landing flare was 91 kt, with touchdown approximately 190 m from the runway threshold. CCTV showed ground speed decreasing from 75 to 60 kt during the latter part of the landing roll, and 45 kt at the airfield boundary.

Aircraft Landing Performance

The POH specifies an approach speed of 75 kt and final approach speed of 66 kt with 40° flap. Using an estimated mass of 934 kg, the calculated landing distance is 381 m. CAA Safety Sense Leaflet 09 provides safety factors for different surfaces. Applying dry grass and general safety factors to 381 m gives a landing distance of 627 m. The landing distance available on Runway 20 was 830 m. At a flare speed of 91 kt and touchdown 190 m from the threshold, stopping within the available distance was unlikely.

Meteorological and Aerodrome Information

Visibility exceeded 10,000 m with broken cloud at 2,500 ft and QFE 999 hPa. Wind was variable from 290° at 2 kt. During the morning, the runway in use changed from 20 to 02 at 1110 hrs and back to 20 at 1128 hrs. Rochester Airport has a main grass runway 02/20 with 830 m landing distance available. AFIS is provided by licensed FISOs.

Analysis

The AAIB analysis concluded that managing a go-around can result in high workload. The pilot's attention may have been near capacity when receiving runway change information, further increasing workload. This likely led to following the FISO's suggestion without considering further implications. The resulting circuit with shorter base and final legs and little headwind reduced time to decrease speed, which was not sufficiently reduced, resulting in landing long and an overrun. The pilot felt the approach was stable and chose to continue rather than go around. In hindsight, he recognized he had landed faster than normal. The landing distance available was sufficient if configured at 66 kt with 40° flap, but with a flare speed of 91 kt and touchdown at 190 m, stopping was unlikely.

Probable cause

The pilot experienced a period of high workload following a go-around and change of runway-in-use. The aircraft overran the runway due to landing long at a higher than recommended speed.