History of the Flight
On 16 June 2022 at 0850 UTC, a Robin DR400/140B, registration G-BDUY, departed Hatton as part of a group flight to East Kirkby Aviation Centre in Lincolnshire. The pilot, who held a Private Pilot's Licence with 787 hours total experience (646 on type), had not flown into East Kirkby before. During final approach, he observed a Lancaster aircraft parked on what he believed was Runway 24 and executed a go-around. He then joined a left downwind for Runway 26 at a circuit height of 500 ft, as specified on the airfield chart he was using.
During the subsequent approach, the pilot focused on overflying trees near his intended landing point. Upon touchdown, he realized the remaining landing distance was insufficient. With more trees ahead, he applied maximum braking instead of performing a go-around. The aircraft departed the designated landing area and came to rest on a grassy bank at the edge of the airfield, sustaining damage to the propeller, nose gear, left main landing gear, and lower fuselage. Neither the pilot nor the passenger was injured.
Aerodrome Information
The pilot relied on a chart that depicted a circuit height of 500 ft and did not reference a special telephone briefing required for Runway 24. The airfield's website published a different chart specifying an 800 ft circuit height and advising pilots to contact the airfield in advance. East Kirkby is an unlicensed aerodrome with two grass strips (24/06 and 26/08) that are not marked. The airfield layout resembled a triangular field of evenly mown grass, which differed from the pilot's expectations based on his chart. The low circuit height and absence of an overhead joining procedure hindered the pilot's ability to orient himself.
Additional Information
Other pilots in the group had previously flown to East Kirkby and used satellite imagery and navigation app information to identify the runways, noting the lack of markings. The airfield operator indicated that the circuit height is sometimes reduced to 500 ft when the Coningsby military aerodrome traffic zone is active. The operator stated it would contact relevant chart publishers to clarify discrepancies. The publisher of the chart used by the pilot expressed willingness to collaborate on resolving the inconsistencies.
Analysis
Significant differences existed between the airfield's own chart and the chart used by the pilot, particularly regarding circuit height and the absence of a reference to the telephone briefing for Runway 24. Unlicensed aerodromes are not required to mark runways or publish charts. The accident highlights the importance of pilots researching unfamiliar airfields using multiple sources, especially when an overhead join is not possible. For unlicensed aerodromes, pilots should consider making an initial approach and go-around to orient themselves. Telephone calls for prior permission also offer an opportunity to gather local knowledge; individual pilots should not rely solely on a group member's call.
Conclusion
The accident occurred because the aircraft landed outside the designated grass runway at an unlicensed aerodrome. The low circuit height and an airfield layout that the pilot had not expected contributed to his misidentifying the landing surface. The airfield and a chart publisher intend to resolve anomalies on relevant charts.