Casualties unknown

2021-08-16: Piper PA-28-140 Cherokee (ZS-EVJ) — Runway 11 at East London Airport (FAEL), Eastern Cape, ZA

Runway 11 at East London Airport (FAEL), Eastern Cape, ZA

On August 16, 2021, a Piper PA-28-140 Cherokee (registration ZS-EVJ) was involved in an aviation accident near Runway 11 at East London Airport (FAEL), Eastern Cape, ZA. Investigators recorded the probable cause as: The serious incident was caused by the student pilot’s loss of directional control of the aircraft during the rejected take-off as a result of incorrect application of the rudder or incorrect application of the toe-brakes during an attempt to bring the… This summary draws on records from the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) Accident and Incident Investigations Division.

Sourcesthe South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) Accident and Incident Investigations DivisionPrimary reportUpdated 1785104676Data APIEditorial standards

On 16 August 2021, a Piper PA-28-140 (ZS-EVJ) on a training flight suffered a loss of directional control during a rejected take-off at East London Airport, resulting in substantial damage but no injuries.

Incident Overview

On Monday, 16 August 2021, at 1150Z, a Piper PA-28-140 Cherokee aircraft with registration ZS-EVJ operated by a student pilot on a training flight under Part 141 experienced a serious incident at East London Airport (FAEL), Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. The flight had departed from Port Alfred Aerodrome (FAPA) with the intention to conduct a touch-and-go landing at East London and then return to FAPA. The flight was conducted under Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) by day. The student pilot had filed a flight plan with Cape Town (FACT) briefing and obtained weather information indicating fine conditions. A pre-flight inspection revealed no anomalies, and the aircraft carried 40 gallons of Avgas LL100 fuel, free from contaminants. The aircraft took off from Runway 28L at Port Alfred without incident, climbing to flight level 075 at 104 knots indicated airspeed.

Sequence of Events

Approaching East London Airport, the student pilot broadcast intentions on 120.10 MHz and was instructed to land on asphalt Runway 11, which is approximately 1,939 meters in length. Weather conditions were reported as fine with no clouds, light turbulence, and wind approximately 090/20 knots. The approach was stable, and touchdown on the main wheels occurred smoothly about 370 meters from the threshold. After the nose wheel touched down, the student pilot opened the throttle to initiate a take-off for the return flight. During the take-off run, she felt a zig-zag movement and an imbalance in the main landing gear. She rejected the take-off, closed the throttle, and applied maximum brakes, but the aircraft continued to veer left, exited the runway, and came to a stop on the grass in a nose-down position approximately 900 meters from the Runway 11 threshold. The nose gear oleo bent, and the propeller blades struck the ground. The aircraft sustained substantial damage; the student pilot was not injured. The flight lasted approximately 1.6 hours.

Post-Incident Examination

The Aircraft Maintenance Organisation (AMO) chief engineer examined the main landing gear. Each main wheel assembly (6.00 x 6 Goodyear six-ply tyres and Cleveland hubs), bearings, caps, nuts, and split pins were fitted per the aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) chapter 32-40-00. Both main wheel assemblies rotated freely. Main landing gear oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers were inflated to 150 psi with about 4.50 inches of chrome showing. Main gear tyres were inflated to 26 psi with nitrogen. Nose wheel assembly showed nothing abnormal except the failure that occurred during the incident; the nose gear tyre was inflated to 26 psi. The hydraulic fluid reservoir was intact and properly installed, with adequate fluid level. Brake lines, pads, and callipers were correctly fitted with no evidence of leaks. The rudder responded correctly, and toe-brake pressure was satisfactory. No anomalies were found in the main landing gear, brakes, or rudder operation. The aircraft was serviceable before the flight, properly certificated, and maintained per South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) regulations. No open or deferred maintenance items were noted. No evidence indicated failure of structures, flight controls, or engine contributed to the incident. The student pilot held a valid Student Pilot Licence (SPL) with 59.3 total flying hours, all on type, and was 19 years old. Air traffic control reported the pilot seemed relaxed during communications.

Probable Cause

The investigation concluded that the serious incident was caused by the student pilot’s loss of directional control of the aircraft during the rejected take-off as a result of incorrect application of the rudder or incorrect application of the toe-brakes during an attempt to bring the aircraft to a stop on Runway 11.