Firefly accident in North Yorkshire.
Dr Jekyll, it wasn't planned. He just decided to spin it, all I kept thinking was get ready to jettison , release harness, then I realised that wasn't going to happen. It was all over fairly quickly.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTF have spinning or Pipers got to do with this tragedy? Get a grip and show some respect.
It's incomprehensible to imagine the situation at the 'home' airfield that day.
Any discussion relating to flight safety is never out of place - and spinning, whether applicable to this case or not, is well worth considering.
I used to spin every glider and light aircraft I flew (if it was so cleared) until I spun the PA38, had an engine cut on me, and decided I was too old for that s**t!
There was a reason why spinning was deemed too dangerous to be included in the PPL(A) syllabus and I learned from personal experience why that was the case.
Those of us who are pilots understand the situation here and please don't for one minute imagine we don't sympathise with all concerned. It's just how pilots are and how they deal with these tragedies ...
I have to agree with you spanner.
The PA38 Tomahawk nearly stopped me flying during the mandatory spin part of the ppl 36 years ago.
The Slingsby has a bad record for killing pilots.
The PA38 Tomahawk nearly stopped me flying during the mandatory spin part of the ppl 36 years ago.
The Slingsby has a bad record for killing pilots.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They pair have been named, both RAF students, aged 21. and 25. Very sad
Ryedale light aircraft crash: RAF student pilots named - BBC News
Ryedale light aircraft crash: RAF student pilots named - BBC News
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Respect after an accident
What have spinning or Pipers got to do with this tragedy? Get a grip and show some respect.
Virtually all of the fatalities - and yes, there have been a significant number - have been in the smaller engined civilian models.
I don't think that the aeroplane is a death trap, but nor do I understand why civilian clubs routinely aerobat T67s without parachutes. Mind you, I would rather not aerobat anything without a parachute or equivalent safety device, regardless of what it was.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 2nd May 2016 at 22:07.
The only variant of the T67 which I've spun is the T67A. It was critical to ensure that the weight limits were strictly observed and we had to be VERY careful when refuelling the aircraft to ensure that the actual weight of the crew was taken into account.
The T67A fuel tank is well forward, so with a chubby student the maximum fuel load was quite low and the CG was correspondingly aft, which made the spin less pleasant, but still entirely predictable. I never doubted that the aircraft would recover using the correct technique. Later versions of the aircraft have totally different limitations, but there is no reason to doubt that the spin recovery would be anything but predictable if carried out in accordance with the POH technique
However, some versions of the T67 do seem to have had rudder control restriction issues, hence ADs were raised to ensure that the rudder pedals weren't obstructed in any way. Of course the normal taxying check should be sufficient to ensure that full and free rudder movement is available - does everyone still do that though? I hope so..
Currently, there is no requirement for a PPL holder to hold an aerobatic rating in order to conduct aeros on the T67. But proper training is very firmly recommended - and will become mandatory after Apr 2018.
As with the G-BLTV accident, I suspect that the cause of this sad accident will never be established beyond all reasonable doubt.
The T67A fuel tank is well forward, so with a chubby student the maximum fuel load was quite low and the CG was correspondingly aft, which made the spin less pleasant, but still entirely predictable. I never doubted that the aircraft would recover using the correct technique. Later versions of the aircraft have totally different limitations, but there is no reason to doubt that the spin recovery would be anything but predictable if carried out in accordance with the POH technique
However, some versions of the T67 do seem to have had rudder control restriction issues, hence ADs were raised to ensure that the rudder pedals weren't obstructed in any way. Of course the normal taxying check should be sufficient to ensure that full and free rudder movement is available - does everyone still do that though? I hope so..
Currently, there is no requirement for a PPL holder to hold an aerobatic rating in order to conduct aeros on the T67. But proper training is very firmly recommended - and will become mandatory after Apr 2018.
As with the G-BLTV accident, I suspect that the cause of this sad accident will never be established beyond all reasonable doubt.
I would be cautious of any public information about the USAF track record. It's rather more complex than is portrayed, particularly by the residue of the pressure groups who successfully campaigned for those aircraft to be destroyed. (Or those who disagree with their position, who can also be less than balanced in their accounts.)
Wikipedia is also basically the document last amended by whoever chose to amend it. Mostly it's very good, but it may sometimes be biased or misleading.
G
Wikipedia is also basically the document last amended by whoever chose to amend it. Mostly it's very good, but it may sometimes be biased or misleading.
G
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jay Sata,
I was the person that facilitated the sale of the majority of the T67's 160/200/260 from Babcock (military to civilian including BONSO) on behalf of Lombard and took along G-ZEIN to Cambridge to ensure prospective owners were not offered the ability to bid on aircraft they had not flown.....we sold (26) aircraft that weekend - many will remember......... The T67 of all variants are safe - its typically the crew that might occasionally forget an item from either pre-departure or in flight memory action......
Woe betide anyone aerobating the T67 that feels they can ignore what the POH procedures - heights, recovery, weights, equipment or any other element that played a part or briefed...
Re USA and anything from Wiki - you really need to see where Hondo is and the DENSITY altitude of that airport and area are and the height that the manoeuvres where entered and the full reports...
I do not work for Slingsby or ever have but I started life as a glider cadet, instructor and worked my up plus served in the military. Like Alan Wade and many others I have a substantial time on the T67 all variants - The T67 is not an aircraft that is docile or forgiving in the sense that you can be lazy and not operate it as per the POH - thats why the military bought it - it teaches you lessons and will bite you if you are lazy - if you're son is taught as per the POH it will be a pussycat - it will not throw surprises, the military will never teach you to "kick the tyres and light the fires" in any situation which is why we rarely have accidents of this nature.... Plan, Brief, Demonstrate, Execute, De-brief and then do again as required if required. We also ensure currency in all aspects of the flight envelope especially high energy manoeuvres or aerobatics. The T67 is not a C152 Aerobat which is why the C152 aerobat was never used as military EFT aircraft.
Please remember flying itself is not inherently dangerous, but to an even greater degree than the sea, it is, however terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
I know BONSO as she was affectionally known.... please don't bash the T67 - and I openly offer anyone that has fears of the T67 to come and fly her with me or any of the military instructors....
The fact remains 2 young souls were lost and may they rest in peace....... Sincere condolences to all involved both family and at home airfield....
Oh! they have slipped the surly bonds of earth,
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward they've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds, --and done a hundred things
you have not dreamed of --Wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there
They've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
they're eager craft through footless halls of air...
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
they've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark or even eagle flew --
And, while with silent lifting mind they've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.
I was the person that facilitated the sale of the majority of the T67's 160/200/260 from Babcock (military to civilian including BONSO) on behalf of Lombard and took along G-ZEIN to Cambridge to ensure prospective owners were not offered the ability to bid on aircraft they had not flown.....we sold (26) aircraft that weekend - many will remember......... The T67 of all variants are safe - its typically the crew that might occasionally forget an item from either pre-departure or in flight memory action......
Woe betide anyone aerobating the T67 that feels they can ignore what the POH procedures - heights, recovery, weights, equipment or any other element that played a part or briefed...
Re USA and anything from Wiki - you really need to see where Hondo is and the DENSITY altitude of that airport and area are and the height that the manoeuvres where entered and the full reports...
I do not work for Slingsby or ever have but I started life as a glider cadet, instructor and worked my up plus served in the military. Like Alan Wade and many others I have a substantial time on the T67 all variants - The T67 is not an aircraft that is docile or forgiving in the sense that you can be lazy and not operate it as per the POH - thats why the military bought it - it teaches you lessons and will bite you if you are lazy - if you're son is taught as per the POH it will be a pussycat - it will not throw surprises, the military will never teach you to "kick the tyres and light the fires" in any situation which is why we rarely have accidents of this nature.... Plan, Brief, Demonstrate, Execute, De-brief and then do again as required if required. We also ensure currency in all aspects of the flight envelope especially high energy manoeuvres or aerobatics. The T67 is not a C152 Aerobat which is why the C152 aerobat was never used as military EFT aircraft.
Please remember flying itself is not inherently dangerous, but to an even greater degree than the sea, it is, however terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
I know BONSO as she was affectionally known.... please don't bash the T67 - and I openly offer anyone that has fears of the T67 to come and fly her with me or any of the military instructors....
The fact remains 2 young souls were lost and may they rest in peace....... Sincere condolences to all involved both family and at home airfield....
Oh! they have slipped the surly bonds of earth,
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward they've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds, --and done a hundred things
you have not dreamed of --Wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there
They've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
they're eager craft through footless halls of air...
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
they've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark or even eagle flew --
And, while with silent lifting mind they've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.
Modern single seat gliders mandate chutes.
In a CG critical situation having the occupant(s) that extra 2-3" forward may be what keeps you within limits.
That extra 2-3" may be what's needed to get the stick to the forward stop.
One small pilot I know had to loosen his straps to recover from a spin.
In a CG critical situation having the occupant(s) that extra 2-3" forward may be what keeps you within limits.
That extra 2-3" may be what's needed to get the stick to the forward stop.
One small pilot I know had to loosen his straps to recover from a spin.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This looks to me like some sort of mutual flying where neither pilots are instructors and it may be somewhere unclear exactly who is in control regardless of who is defined as PIC/P1.
One or indeed both would have had a civilian PPL to hire the a/c and presumably had checkouts/qualifications for the T67 to the hiring out club's satisfaction.
Both will be at the same standard of flying, aerobatics etc in the RAF.
In the gliding world this is regarded exactly the ingredients for an accident should an emergency occur- which is why mutual flying where both pilots are at the same level tends to be frowned upon and the instructor i/c the day's flying are reluctant to give approval for.
Less of a problem where one pilot has vastly more experience or say one is the owner of the aircraft.
One or indeed both would have had a civilian PPL to hire the a/c and presumably had checkouts/qualifications for the T67 to the hiring out club's satisfaction.
Both will be at the same standard of flying, aerobatics etc in the RAF.
In the gliding world this is regarded exactly the ingredients for an accident should an emergency occur- which is why mutual flying where both pilots are at the same level tends to be frowned upon and the instructor i/c the day's flying are reluctant to give approval for.
Less of a problem where one pilot has vastly more experience or say one is the owner of the aircraft.
dsc - whilst you aren't the only person to think in those terms, may I politely suggest that given the uncertainty of information right now, and that there will be bereaved families looking for information - that a public discussion along those lines right now isn't wise, nor courteous to the memories of the two young men who have just died. There's a time for that discussion, but not I'd venture, right now.
G
G
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The P1 at least had a Civilian PPL. He was checked out in Bonso. He trained for at least 60 hours on a Tutor(Grob 115).
I am a member of the Club and was there all day. Unfortunately there were family members there too and I for one am most grateful to "V" the off duty Copper who took on the duties of informing and caring for the family. Thanks mate.
There is no more to tell. Except I agree with airpolice and GTE.
BTW there is absolutely nothing wrong in mutual flying. The expert remarks made DSC810 are not made by an expert.
I am a member of the Club and was there all day. Unfortunately there were family members there too and I for one am most grateful to "V" the off duty Copper who took on the duties of informing and caring for the family. Thanks mate.
There is no more to tell. Except I agree with airpolice and GTE.
BTW there is absolutely nothing wrong in mutual flying. The expert remarks made DSC810 are not made by an expert.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi DSC,
Mutual flying will be a moot point here I'm afraid, they would of both known it had gone pear shaped long before "terra firma" jumped up to grab them and open the pearly gates.... and I'm sure they would of both been crystal clear to each other as to actions and inputs to try and recover the situation.
The aircraft would only have entered an erect flat spin for one of two reasons, the first being intentional spinning that either they couldn't recover from due to weight and balance or incorrect recovery technique as well as insufficient height to recover from, or a high energy aerobatic manoeuvre that resulted in a flick to spin resulting in either disorientation of direction of spin rotation or again incorrect recovery technique, along with height to recover.
This is a terribly sad, bad flying accident with two young souls that were obviously keen enough to go and hire an aircraft whilst serving in the RAF undergoing flying training.. whatever they were doing and trying to do or practice, it went wrong and they paid the ultimate price... It was an accident and a terrible one... Lessons will come out for sure, but with no CVR or data recorder it will not be exact it will be approximate - either way we will all learn and adapt...
Mutual flying will be a moot point here I'm afraid, they would of both known it had gone pear shaped long before "terra firma" jumped up to grab them and open the pearly gates.... and I'm sure they would of both been crystal clear to each other as to actions and inputs to try and recover the situation.
The aircraft would only have entered an erect flat spin for one of two reasons, the first being intentional spinning that either they couldn't recover from due to weight and balance or incorrect recovery technique as well as insufficient height to recover from, or a high energy aerobatic manoeuvre that resulted in a flick to spin resulting in either disorientation of direction of spin rotation or again incorrect recovery technique, along with height to recover.
This is a terribly sad, bad flying accident with two young souls that were obviously keen enough to go and hire an aircraft whilst serving in the RAF undergoing flying training.. whatever they were doing and trying to do or practice, it went wrong and they paid the ultimate price... It was an accident and a terrible one... Lessons will come out for sure, but with no CVR or data recorder it will not be exact it will be approximate - either way we will all learn and adapt...