A PILOT suffered a significant injury to his head in an aircraft incident at Popham airfield, it has been revealed.

The 59-year-old commander suffered a cut to his head and was taken to hospital after the aircraft pitched nose down and landed heavily on the forward fuselage on March 27, 2022.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch has now completed its investigation and found that the incident happened most likely due to the lack of a split pin to secure the bolt’s castellated nut.

In a report published on Wednesday, June 21, the authority said the Pitts S-1C (G-BTOO) aircraft landed heavily after the elevator control disconnected inflight.

READ MORE: Hants and Berks 4x4 Response attend Popham Airfield event

The incident occurred when the pilot, who has not been named, was conducting a test flight as part of the process of regaining G-BTOO’s permit to fly following an extensive rebuild.

As the pilot was flying straight and level at 140mph, he became aware the elevator was no longer connected to the control column.

He was able to maintain control, but during the final stages of the approach, the aircraft pitched nose down and landed heavily on the forward fuselage – it came to rest inverted.

The investigation found that a pivot joint at the end of an elevator pushrod had become disconnected, probably due to the lack of a split pin to prevent the securing bolt’s castle nut from loosening.

The report said: “At the completion of the rebuild, two separate people signed to say the split pin was fitted.

“Both alternative holes in one side of the elevator bellcrank in the rear fuselage, to which the pushrod had been attached, had indications of being used and there is no record of if or when the pushrod position was changed. It is therefore not possible to determine with any certainty when the split pin was omitted.

“The pilot’s seat and harness remained intact, but he sustained a significant injury when his unprotected head struck the coaming above the instrument panel.

“This sharp panel edge should have been thickened and padded to comply with the aircraft’s design drawings. The AAIB were informed that the seat harness was new, and it appeared to be so. This is different from the one described in the narrative of the rebuild. There is no record of its replacement.”

SEE ALSO: Basingstoke fly-tipping: Council takes common sense approach

Although not directly linked to this accident, the investigating agency found further discrepancies regarding adherence to LAA guidance for recording work.

In addition, it was noted that the extent to which the 51 per cent rule for amateur-built aircraft needs to be applied in relation to overhaul, repair and restoration was not clear in the regulatory material.

As a result of these findings, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Light Aircraft Association have both stated they will be taking two safety actions each to address these issues.