Casualties unknown

2008-06-10: Cirrus SR20 (G-TAAA) — Denham Airfield, Buckinghamshire, GB

Denham Airfield, Buckinghamshire, GB

On June 10, 2008, a Cirrus SR20 (registration G-TAAA) was involved in an aviation accident near Denham Airfield, Buckinghamshire, GB. 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

During a private flight, a Cirrus SR20 bounced three times on landing at Denham Airfield. The propeller struck the runway on the second and third bounces. A go-around was initiated, but the aircraft crashed into a wood. Both occupants sustained minor injuries.

History of the Flight

The aircraft, a Cirrus SR20 registration G-TAAA, departed Denham Airfield at 1610 UTC on 10 June 2008 for a navigation exercise. The flight was uneventful, and the aircraft returned approximately 1 hour 50 minutes later. At the time of approach, the wind was 360°/10 kt, giving a crosswind of approximately 9 kt from the left. The airfield reported CAVOK, temperature +20°C, and QNH 1024 mb.

Approach and Landing

The pilot flew the approach to Runway 06 with flaps at 100% in accordance with the pilot's operating handbook (POH). The pilot recalled that the approach was "good" except that he believed the threshold speed was between 80 and 85 kt rather than 75 kt as specified in the POH. The aircraft touched down and immediately bounced back into the air. The next contact with the ground was nosewheel first, and the propeller struck the runway before the aircraft bounced again. The final contact with the runway was also nosewheel first, and once again the propeller struck the runway before the aircraft bounced. After the third bounce, the pilot initiated a go-around.

Go-Around and Accident

The pilot applied full throttle, leaving the flaps at 100%. He was not aware that the propeller had struck the runway and did not notice any lack of thrust. At the point the go-around was initiated, the aircraft was seen to be "close to the numbers on the Runway 24 threshold." The pilot reported that the aircraft climbed on a heading slightly left of the runway centreline. When he decided there was a positive rate of climb, he raised the flaps from 100% to 0%, but the aircraft began to sink with its wings level. He did not remember the exact height or speed at flap retraction and did not report any indications of approaching the stall. The aircraft crashed into a wood that began approximately 100 m beyond the runway and slightly to the north of the extended centreline. Just prior to impact, the pilot assessed that the nosewheel would clear the trees but not the main landing gear, and the aircraft entered the trees "belly first." A witness saw the aircraft attempt to get airborne and also saw it "belly land" into the trees. It came to rest approximately 150 m beyond the end of the runway and 35 m to the left of the extended runway centreline.

Injuries and Damage

Both occupants were wearing full harnesses and were able to vacate the aircraft unassisted. They sustained minor injuries. The aircraft was damaged beyond economic repair. There was no evidence of fire, fuel spillage, or electrical burning at the accident site.

Performance Information

Following the accident, the Chief Flying Instructor (CFI) of the operator concerned carried out a trial at a safe altitude and achieved a rate of climb of 800 ft/min with 50% flap following a simulated go-around. The rate of climb reduced to 200 ft/min when flaps were raised to 0%.

Analysis

Discussion with the pilot and CFI suggested that the slightly high approach speed caused the aircraft to float when the pilot checked the rate of descent prior to landing. Concerned that the aircraft was using up available landing distance, the pilot probably lowered the nose in an attempt to land, setting up a rate of descent sufficient to cause the aircraft to bounce. A similar sequence followed, with nosewheel contact and propeller strikes. The go-around was initiated with limited runway remaining and flaps at 100%, meaning the aircraft was climbing in a configuration unfamiliar to the pilot. No reduction in thrust was noticed, but a marginal loss would have reduced climb performance. The sink noticed when flaps were raised indicates the decrease in climb performance caused by raising flaps. In the accident event, the rate of climb achieved following flap retraction was not sufficient for the aircraft to clear the trees.