You can contribute by submitting additional or updated information.
| Date: | Saturday 2 November 2024 |
| Time: | 12:21 |
| Type: |  GippsAero GA8-TC-320 Airvan |
| Owner/operator: | Whitsunday Tiger Moth Adventures Pty Ltd |
| Registration: | VH-IDM |
| MSN: | GA8-TC 320-08-137 |
| Year of manufacture: | 2009 |
| Engine model: | Lycoming TIO-540-AH1A |
| Fatalities: | Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 8 |
| Other fatalities: | 0 |
| Aircraft damage: | Substantial |
| Category: | Accident |
| Location: | Shute Harbour Airport, QLD (JHQ/YSHR) -
 Australia
|
| Phase: | Landing |
| Nature: | Passenger - Non-Scheduled/charter/Air Taxi |
| Departure airport: | Shute Harbour Airport, QLD (JHQ/YSHR) |
| Shute Harbour Airport, QLD (JHQ/YSHR) | |
| Investigating agency: | ATSB |
| Confidence Rating: |  Accident investigation report completed and information captured |
During landing, the aircraft overran the runway and came to rest in a ditch resulting in substantial damage.
The GippsAero GA8-TC Airvan was being used to conduct a scenic flight with a pilot and 7 passengers on board. At 11:20 local time, the aircraft departed from Whitsunday Airport (Shute Harbour), Queensland in‑company with another of the operator’s aircraft as part of the same tour. Approximately one hour after departure, the 2 aircraft returned to the airport, joining the base leg of the circuit for a landing on runway 32. VH‑IDM was leading the company and the pilot made positional broadcasts on behalf of both aircraft on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF).
The airport did not have a dedicated Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) weather station, however the pilot recalled a cloud base at about 2,500 ft above ground level (AGL) and a 3–5 kt wind. Footage of the windsock at the time showed a light headwind on runway 32.
The pilot advised that, as the aircraft proceeded on the final approach to landing, they intended to maintain an airspeed of 80 kt and a flight path to arrive at the runway past the displaced threshold due to trees in the runway undershoot. However, the pilot reported that the aircraft did not descend as expected, resulting in it being above the intended approach path. In response, the pilot lowered the nose to increase the descent rate and regain the approach path, but as a result the airspeed increased from 80 to 90 kt.
At about this time, the trailing company aircraft contacted the pilot on the company frequency to request that they roll through to the end of the runway to exit after landing rather than backtracking. This was to avoid obstructing their landing. Because VH‑IDM could only broadcast on one of its 2 radios, the pilot selected the standby frequency (that was selected to the company frequency) on that radio, replied that they would roll through, and then reselected the CTAF frequency.
The aircraft continued the approach, remaining above the desired approach path while the airspeed varied between 85–95 kt. The aircraft passed over the displaced threshold of the runway at approximately 100 ft AGL. The pilot commenced the flare about 300 m beyond the displaced threshold, at an airspeed of approximately 90 kt. The aircraft then floated for about 640 m before touching down at a groundspeed of 65 kt with 370 m of runway remaining. The pilot recalled that throughout the approach and landing they did not consider conducting a go‑around and were focused on landing the aircraft.
After touching down, the pilot retracted the flaps and recalled attempting to apply full braking pressure. They further recalled that the brakes did not perform as expected and they were unable to bring the aircraft to a stop. Subsequently, veering slightly right, the aircraft departed the end of the runway at a groundspeed of 24 kt. The aircraft travelled briefly across grass before entering marshy ground and coming to rest in a ditch, as the propellor struck the ground. Neither the pilot nor any of the passengers were injured and the aircraft received damage to the propellor and firewall.
Contributing factors
- The aircraft's approach was above profile with a high airspeed and the pilot had an incorrect understanding of the required approach speed. Subsequently, the pilot did not initiate a go-around, resulting in a landing beyond the planned touchdown point.
- Despite having adequate landing distance remaining, the pilot did not apply sufficient braking to prevent the aircraft departing the runway.
- The training, supervision and checking flights conducted by Wave Air did not identify that an excessive approach speed was routinely being used by the pilot during the final approach to land. (Safety issue)
Accident investigation:
 |
|
Sources:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2024/report/ao-2024-056
Location
Revision history:
| Date/time | Contributor | Updates |
|---|---|---|
| 07-Nov-2024 16:47 | ASN | Added |
| 07-Nov-2024 16:50 | ASN | Updated [Aircraft type, Operator, Location, Departure airport, Destination airport, Source, Category, ] |
Corrections or additions? ... Edit this accident description
The Aviation Safety Network is an exclusive service provided by:
Quick Links:
| ASN Home | Send Correction / Feedback |
| FSF Home | Disclaimer | Copyright |
| Contact Us | Privacy Policy |
| Press / Media |
CONNECT WITH US:
©2025 Flight Safety Foundation