What happened
On 27 August 2003, an Antonov AN-2, registration LY-KAE, was performing a local flight at the Målöga private grass airfield in Sweden. The aircraft, operated under private ownership, was carrying a pilot and one passenger. During the landing phase on runway 240, the aircraft encountered a tailwind component of approximately 2.5 m/s.
Upon touchdown, which occurred roughly 125 meters into the runway, the pilot applied the brakes. The main wheels locked almost immediately upon contact with the ground. This intense braking caused the aircraft to pitch forward, resulting in a nose-over accident. The aircraft sustained extensive damage, specifically to the propeller, the tailplane, the rudder, and the lower right wing. No injuries were reported among the two occupants, and no fire occurred.
The investigation
The Swedish Accident Investigation Board (SHK) examined the airfield configuration, the aircraft's technical specifications, and the pilot's actions. The investigation noted that the Målöga airfield features a runway that rises toward the end of runway 24, and the landing was performed with a tailwind.
Investigators analyzed the aircraft's center of gravity (CG) and found it was at approximately 20% MAC, which is within the acceptable range but toward the forward limit. Furthermore, the investigation reviewed the aircraft's flight manual, noting that it lacked specific data regarding landing distances from a height of 15 meters, which may have impacted the pilot's ability to assess the landing performance accurately.
Findings
- The primary cause of the accident was that braking after touchdown was initiated too early and with excessive force.
- The pilot's decision to brake heavily was likely driven by the fact that the touchdown point was further down the runway than anticipated.
- A forward center of gravity position contributed to the aircraft's tendency to pitch forward during the braking event.
- The lack of specific landing distance information in the flight manual regarding a 15-meter threshold hindered the pilot's ability to plan the approach effectively.
- Although the aircraft did not meet the minimum crew requirements for VFR flight, this was not determined to be a factor in the accident.