Loss of aircraft control.

Attributes
ACN	299750
Time
Date	199503
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : rzt
State Reference	OH
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : grr
Operator	common carrier : air taxi
Make Model Name	King Air 100 A/B
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff other
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : first officer instruction : trainee
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : atp pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 125 flight time total : 10800 flight time type : 3500
ASRS Report	299750
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 6300 flight time type : 2000
ASRS Report	299746
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other anomaly other other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

On an initial training flight in preparation for becoming a king air check airman for my company, a takeoff incident occurred. The PIC instructor check airman was flying from the left seat. I was the PNF in the right. The initial takeoff was to terminate (to a full stop) with an abort. This was briefed and understood by both pilots. The abort was initiated by myself at 80 KIAS by stating, 'there is a tractor on the runway, abort.' normal abort procedures were initiated by the instructor PIC. The aircraft began a slow drift to the right and the pilot selected beta/reverse with the propeller levers. The aircraft turned even more sharply toward the right and, although recovery had begun, it left the runway at a shallow angle, traveling parallel for a distance before being brought back onto the hard surface. Aircraft was taxied back to the ramp and shut-down for inspection. 1 blade on each side was damaged (runway lights) and the left outboard tire was flat-spotted. Aircraft was secured. I believe this incident is valuable as it highlights the need/advantages of simulator based training when doing more advanced (check airman or instructor) training in heavier or higher performance aircraft. It would not only be safer - it may be more economical considering possible damage such as in this case. It also may remind us of the dangers of role understanding (should I have taken control, could I have - in time) in advanced training sits. Supplemental information from acn 299746:I did not respond to the drift immediately for the purpose of evaluating the other pilot and his reaction to the situation. We did not determine who the instructor would be. Each of us thinking it was ourselves. It was poor judgement on my part, not responding immediately to the drift to the right when it first began. I believe instructors and check airman should go to simulator training at least once a year and be trained on how to properly give training in a particular airplane. I went to a 3 day recurrent class about 3 years ago on this airplane, and haven't been back since.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LOSS OF ACFT CTL.

Narrative: ON AN INITIAL TRAINING FLT IN PREPARATION FOR BECOMING A KING AIR CHK AIRMAN FOR MY COMPANY, A TKOF INCIDENT OCCURRED. THE PIC INSTRUCTOR CHK AIRMAN WAS FLYING FROM THE L SEAT. I WAS THE PNF IN THE R. THE INITIAL TKOF WAS TO TERMINATE (TO A FULL STOP) WITH AN ABORT. THIS WAS BRIEFED AND UNDERSTOOD BY BOTH PLTS. THE ABORT WAS INITIATED BY MYSELF AT 80 KIAS BY STATING, 'THERE IS A TRACTOR ON THE RWY, ABORT.' NORMAL ABORT PROCS WERE INITIATED BY THE INSTRUCTOR PIC. THE ACFT BEGAN A SLOW DRIFT TO THE R AND THE PLT SELECTED BETA/REVERSE WITH THE PROP LEVERS. THE ACFT TURNED EVEN MORE SHARPLY TOWARD THE R AND, ALTHOUGH RECOVERY HAD BEGUN, IT LEFT THE RWY AT A SHALLOW ANGLE, TRAVELING PARALLEL FOR A DISTANCE BEFORE BEING BROUGHT BACK ONTO THE HARD SURFACE. ACFT WAS TAXIED BACK TO THE RAMP AND SHUT-DOWN FOR INSPECTION. 1 BLADE ON EACH SIDE WAS DAMAGED (RWY LIGHTS) AND THE L OUTBOARD TIRE WAS FLAT-SPOTTED. ACFT WAS SECURED. I BELIEVE THIS INCIDENT IS VALUABLE AS IT HIGHLIGHTS THE NEED/ADVANTAGES OF SIMULATOR BASED TRAINING WHEN DOING MORE ADVANCED (CHK AIRMAN OR INSTRUCTOR) TRAINING IN HEAVIER OR HIGHER PERFORMANCE ACFT. IT WOULD NOT ONLY BE SAFER - IT MAY BE MORE ECONOMICAL CONSIDERING POSSIBLE DAMAGE SUCH AS IN THIS CASE. IT ALSO MAY REMIND US OF THE DANGERS OF ROLE UNDERSTANDING (SHOULD I HAVE TAKEN CTL, COULD I HAVE - IN TIME) IN ADVANCED TRAINING SITS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 299746:I DID NOT RESPOND TO THE DRIFT IMMEDIATELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATING THE OTHER PLT AND HIS REACTION TO THE SIT. WE DID NOT DETERMINE WHO THE INSTRUCTOR WOULD BE. EACH OF US THINKING IT WAS OURSELVES. IT WAS POOR JUDGEMENT ON MY PART, NOT RESPONDING IMMEDIATELY TO THE DRIFT TO THE R WHEN IT FIRST BEGAN. I BELIEVE INSTRUCTORS AND CHK AIRMAN SHOULD GO TO SIMULATOR TRAINING AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR AND BE TRAINED ON HOW TO PROPERLY GIVE TRAINING IN A PARTICULAR AIRPLANE. I WENT TO A 3 DAY RECURRENT CLASS ABOUT 3 YEARS AGO ON THIS AIRPLANE, AND HAVEN'T BEEN BACK SINCE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.