Pilot in fatal plane crash at Truro Airfield in Cornwall

An accident report has now been published into the circumstances of the fatal plane crash at Truro Airfield on September 3, 2023, at just after 2pm.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) concluded that the pilot of the G-RVSH came into land on Runway 14 at the airfield, but touched down off the side of the runway.

The nose wheel was not held off, so the wheel dug in, and the landing gear strut deformed, resulting in the aircraft coming to rest inverted.

Safety action has since been taken by the airfield owner to provide more information on the Pooley’s plate [Pooley’s UK Flight Guide, which contains illustrated airfield plates and area charts].

A helicopter training mound has also been removed from the airfield, which was not noted on the plate.

What happened on the day

The accident report states that the pilot of the G-RVSH had decided to fly from White Waltham Airfield to Truro Airfield in Cornwall, which is a grass airstrip in an actively farmed field.

The pilot called the airfield owner at approximately 11.45am and asked for permission to land, informing him that the flight time would be about one hour and 15 minutes.

At about 1.55pm the airfield owner heard the aircraft in the vicinity and, shortly afterwards, saw it on the downwind leg for Runway 14, while at the same time noting the windsock indicated that the wind had shifted in favour of Runway 32.

The accident site, viewed from the Runway 14 direction (Image: AAIB)

Witnesses saw the aircraft approaching to land on Runway 14. As the aircraft touched down it appeared to “bounce twice” before tipping over its nose and then onto its back, adjacent to a mound.

The owner went to help the pilot while the other witness called the emergency services.

Accident site

The aircraft came to rest approximately 20 metres to the right side of Runway 14 after a ground roll of approximately 100 metres.

There were three tyre tracks in the grass, which started to the side of, and about halfway down, the runway length.

Truro Airfield viewed in direction of Runway 32 showing hay bales and the mound (Image: AAIB)

The owner stated to the AAIB that the approach seemed normal from his perspective and that the aircraft appeared over the runway. However, he thought it seemed faster than he would have expected for a tailwind and the aircraft appeared to land long.

Background

The AAIB found that the pilot had held a private pilot licence since 1997 and had flown a total of 261 hours.

He had owned the G-RVSH since 2015 and his total time on the Vans RV-6A type was 115 hours, with seven hours flown since February 2023.

Report findings

The report noted that the choice of runway seems to have been in contradiction to the recommendation given over the phone by the airfield owner. However, it had not been possible to determine why the pilot elected to land in the direction of Runway 14.

There may have been an expectation that the wind favoured a landing on Runway 14, due to an earlier phone call made by the pilot to the airfield owner, and it was also considered that while the pilot flew past the airfield to the left of Runway 14, his view of the runway and the windsock may have been limited since he was in the left seat.

It found that the hay bales to the left of the runway may have influenced the pilot to align to the right of the actual strip and for him to believe he was landing on the actual runway.

Although witness reported seeing the plane “bounce”, the report noted that the absence of ground marks prior to the touchdown point suggests the aircraft did not bounce, although “it could not be determined from the data whether the aircraft floated, ballooned or bounced.”

The G-RVSH at the accident site (Image: AAIB)

The report found there was “strong evidence” that all three wheels were in contact with the ground at the point of landing and throughout the ground roll. This would have increased the load on the nose gear and increased the risk of the aircraft becoming inverted.

At the point that the aircraft began to nose over, it would not have decelerated to the same extent as it would have if it landed on the runway.

The report notes: “Nose over events of this aircraft type have not typically resulted in a fatal outcome. Tight shoulder harnesses reduce movement of the occupant and possible contact with the canopy or other areas within the cockpit.

“The combination of the level of energy at the point that G-RVSH nosed over, and the deformation of the canopy’s steel hoop likely contributed to the fatal outcome.

“The degree to which the shoulder harnesses were fully tightened could not be determined [due to them being cut by emergency services].”

Outcome

Following the accident, the following safety actions have been taken:

• The airfield owner has instructed the farmers to remove the hay from the airfield as soon as it is baled and not to store it on the airfield.
• The airfield owner has provided additional guidance in the Pooley’s Plate on which runway to use depending upon the wind conditions.
• The airfield owner has removed the helicopter training mound.