What happened
On June 25, 2019, a pilot was conducting a planned flight from Osnabrück-Atterheide to Borkum in a Cessna F 182 Q. The flight was intended to transport a passenger for a seal monitoring mission. After departing from runway 09 with a strong headwind, the aircraft climbed well. However, upon reaching an altitude of 1,000 ft AMSL, the pilot attempted to transition from a climb to level flight and discovered that the elevator was blocked in the nose-down position.
In an attempt to manage the flight, the pilot moved the seat forward and shifted luggage to the rear to alter the center of gravity. While these measures allowed the pilot to maintain a very slow level flight and eventually a shallow descent, the pilot could not reach the runway at a safe altitude. To lose height, the pilot executed a right-hand banking maneuver without pulling back on the elevator. During the final approach, the pilot attempted to use flaps, but the aircraft began to climb due to the aerodynamic effects, forcing the pilot to maintain a high power setting to avoid a stall.
As the aircraft crossed the runway threshold, the heat from the asphalt caused the aircraft to rise. When the pilot reduced power to stop the climb, the aircraft entered a stall and struck the runway approximately 70 m past the threshold. The pilot sustained one injury (back injury), and the Cessna F 182 Q was heavily damaged.
The investigation
The BFU investigation focused on the cause of the elevator blockage. While the pilot's initial pre-flight inspection had not revealed any malfunctions, a maintenance employee at a local facility later identified the cause by looking into the cockpit. The investigation revealed that a mobile GPS unit had been mounted to the control yoke in a position that physically obstructed the elevator's nose-down travel.
Reconstruction of the mounting setup showed that the GPS display obscured the view of the control column from the pilot's seat, making the interference invisible during pre-flight checks. Furthermore, the investigation found that the mounting position had reduced the available nose-down travel of the control column by 7 cm. The installation had been performed by a maintenance staff member at the request of the aircraft owner, with the owner present and providing specific instructions on the mounting location.