Swift S-1 stalls in low-level final turn during air-show display

Shoreham Airfield, West Sussex, United Kingdom Swift Aircraft S-1

The pilot of a Swift S-1 was seriously injured in a stall and departure from controlled flight in a low-level final turn during an air-show display at Shoreham; aircraft substantially damaged. After a roll-on-tow sequence the pilot released at ~157 km/h and turned 180° right to land downwind at the launch point. Realising he would overshoot, he extended airbrakes, then began a 180° left turn at ~12 m AGL with 50–60° bank. Airspeed went unscanned for the last 8 seconds and decayed below the in-turn stall margin; the left wing dropped and the glider struck the runway. Display pressure to land precisely had eroded normal safety margins.

  1. Air-show display, glider on tug: A Swift S-1 single-seat aerobatic glider was flown as part of an air-show display team consisting of a glider/tug combination and two Twister aircraft at Shoreham Airfield. The pilot held a Glider Pilot's Licence with ~473 h total experience (57 on type) and had displayed gliders since 2006, flying 27 displays. Weather around the time of the accident: surface wind ~210° at 6 kt, visibility 8 km, SCT 500 ft, BKN 700 ft. The cloud base limited the team to the low-level profile.
  2. Display pressure; abnormal as normal: The display sequence required landing precisely at the launch point near the threshold of grass RWY 20 to minimise turnaround delay. The pilot later reflected that there had been too much emphasis on landing at the launch point to the detriment of good airmanship, and that he had become used to flying with margins lower than those used normally within the gliding community — 'the abnormal had become normal'. The Swift's stall warning system was not switched on (Swift pilots often chose not to enable it).
  3. Release low, downwind of launch point: After three aileron rolls on tow, considerable slack developed in the aerotow rope. To avoid breaking the weak link the pilot disconnected at ~157 km/h, just below the 500 ft cloud base, and turned right through 180° to land downwind at the launch point. The release was not preceded by an assessment of the height, speed and position over the airfield required to enable a safe landing at the launch point.
  4. Stall in 180° final turn at ~12 m AGL: Realising he would overshoot the launch point, the pilot extended airbrakes; ~7 seconds later, with growing alarm at his lack of options, he decided to turn left through ~180° to land into wind on asphalt RWY 20. The turn began at ~12 m AGL with 50–60° bank and left rudder applied throughout. The pilot did not look at the ASI for the last 8 seconds; airspeed decayed below the in-turn stalling margin (~102 km/h) while target speed was ~120 km/h. With rudder applied and sideslip present, the left wing dropped.
  5. Wing-drop impact on runway: Two seconds after the wing-drop the left wingtip struck the runway surface, followed immediately by the nose, with the aircraft rolling left in a steep nose-down attitude. The nose section broke approximately half way along the canopy rail but remained connected to the fuselage; the canopy detached before the aircraft came to rest. The pilot extracted himself from the wreckage and was taken to hospital with back injuries; aircraft substantially damaged. Contributing factors were the tailwind landing without ASI scan (impression of groundspeed leading to inadvertent airspeed reduction), the high bank angle with rudder and intermittent airbrake increasing drag and stall speed, and display pressure eroding normal safety margins.
Loading incidents...
Select Incident
Select Report
Filter
0/0
Incident year
1997 2024
Sort By
Search
0/0
Preferences
Save preferences locally
Enable map view
Language
Theme
About

gliderincidents.com gathers and lists soaring incident reports from official sources. The sources are indicated and linked. These reports are amended by summaries, metadata and translations, some of which have been generated utilizing machine learning (AI). You shouldn't trust the information provided here blindly, and consider reading the official incident report as a fact-check.

OR AND
Flight Phase
Circumstance
Severity Levels
Countries

Please describe what information is incorrect or needs review:

Bookmarked