Accident Details
A low-level navigation exercise was being conducted by a pilot and instructor. The aircraft was tracking along a ground feature at approximately 300 ft above ground level (AGL) and 80 knots. While executing a steep right turn to follow the ground feature, the aircraft's nose dropped. The pilot noted that the turn rate was insufficient to remain over the river.
Pilot's Response
In response to the nose drop, the pilot sharply increased aft control stick input rather than increasing the bank angle. This action almost certainly induced an aerodynamic stall, resulting in a rapid increase in the rate of descent and a further roll to the right. The pilot did not employ the recommended recovery technique for a nose drop at low altitude—application of power rather than increasing pitch—a technique that had been successfully demonstrated earlier during the flight.
Human Factors Influence
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) could not determine why the correct recovery technique was not applied. However, human factors research (Martin, Murray, Bates and Lee 2013) indicated that when pilots face a sudden unexpected aircraft condition, stress can rapidly increase, causing them to revert to instinctive behavior rather than trained responses.
Instructor Intervention
Upon recognizing that the pilot had made inappropriate control inputs, the instructor attempted to intervene. The verbal communication between the crew members during this period is uncertain; however, confusion arose over who was controlling the aircraft. It is likely that both individuals were making simultaneous control inputs, preventing the instructor from overriding the pilot's commands and delaying effective recovery actions.
Terrain Impact
Due to the aircraft's low altitude, it descended into terrain before the confusion could be resolved. Despite the outcome, the instructor's inputs to the throttle and rudder likely prevented the aircraft from striking the ground in a nose-down attitude and reduced the severity of the impact.