T-33 prang at Duxford 6/9 - crew safe

[treadigraph]

BBC are reporting that a T-33 has crashed just west of Duxford; happily both crew have escaped from the wreck unharmed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/5320788.stm

[autobrake3]

Rotated with a high angle of attack and never recovered, stalled into the field beyond the end of the westerly runway and caught fire. I think they were very lucky chaps to walk from that.

[DH106]

Glad the crew's safe.

Hope the service station developers don't jump on this as an example of how 'unsafe' Duxford is as a flying field :uhoh:

[vintage ATCO]

On the other hand, it does demonstrate the folly of building a service station adjacent to the airfield, doesn't it? Hmmm, double edged sword maybe. :confused:

Glad the crew are OK.

[akerosid]

Was this aircraft supposed in RCAF colours and supposed to be coming to Jersey to participate in the air display tomorrow?

Hope not, as a colleague won a raffle to fly in it (I came third!)

[Nopax,thanx]

I'm afraid that's the one, Aeroskid....completely burnt out in the post-crash fire. Sorry for your friend, perhaps he will get a chance for something else.

Duxford was a very quiet place for a time this afternoon.

[AerBabe]

Very glad to hear the crew are safe. Well done to the fire crew and everyone else involved.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

I was just thinking how little this subject had been speculated on, but then got down as far as this:

Rotated with a high angle of attack and never recovered, stalled into the field beyond the end of the westerly runway and caught fire

Whilst I agree with everything from "field beyond the end of the westerly runway and caught fire", the rest is just idle chit chat:ugh:

The crew are safe, nobody was killed, no property was damaged, so lets leave the causes to the experts shall we? For those that need clarifcation, experts = The AAIB

[Mr Blake]

Anybody know how the crew are doing and what caused this hole in the ground?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/5320788.stm

[ORAC]

Bit more in the Cambridge Evening News (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2006/09/07/4c3201e3-427a-4956-9cc4-fa83ee5f1bd2.lpf). Both OK, justs some cuts.

Anybody know if it was Cliff Spink and G-TBRD?

[Mr Blake]

ditto:ugh:

[GeeRam]

Anybody know if it was Cliff Spink and G-TBRD?

It was G-TBRD.

Don't know if CS was on board, but remarkable for both crew to be able to walk/hobble away from this virtually injury free.....thankfully...:D

[Mr Blake]

It was G-TBRD.

remarkable for both crew to be able to walk/hobble away from this virtually injury free.....thankfully...:D

:ok: Totally agree. Looking at the press photo, it's amazing that anyone escaped alive, and is obviously testament to the flying skills of whoever was in the seat at the time. Reading the more in-depth report provided by the local rag (see earlier post), it seems Duxford has suffered a few accidents in the recent past. Bad luck or something more sinister?

[Two's in]

There are two really uplifting pieces of news in the BBC article, firstly that both crew members are safe and well, and secondly, that 59 is regarded ad "middle aged".

[Flying Lawyer]

Speculation :mad:

It's so unfair when people are so quick to suggest pilot error at a time when no-one except the pilot could possibly know what caused a crash.
Just the sort of speculation for which we condemn journalists.

I feel particularly strongly about it in this instance because the pilot, Alan Walker, has been a good friend for many years.
Not only is he a highly respected aviator and a very experienced display pilot, he is also one of the nicest people on the display circuit. I have never, in all the years we've been friends, heard him say a bad word about anyone.

Another friend of mine was following 20 seconds behind in a stream take-off. He didn't speculate on the cause of the crash, even in a private conversation, saying it could have been a number of things, far too early to say etc - and he's got almost 4000 hours on fast jets.

I'm told the passenger (an engineer) cut his way out through the canopy, jettisoned it from the outside and bravely rescued Alan from the burning aircraft. It was a hard impact and a fire. Those who've seen the wreckage say it's nothing short of a miracle that anyone survived.

Let's just thank God that the two of them not only survived, but without serious injury. :ok: :ok:

Alan, who is a Captain with Cathay Pacific and regular contributor to this forum, was discharged from hospital today.

Tudor

[matt_hooks]

I am glad to hear that both occupants escaped relatively uninjured. Having looked at the pictures it is amazing to say the least! :)

it seems Duxford has suffered a few accidents in the recent past. Bad luck or something more sinister?

I think Duxford shows a high number of accidents purely due to the nature of aircraft flown from there.

You are dealing with aircraft types that do not benefit from all the bells and whistles of modern aircraft, and generally pretty long in the tooth. I would imagine that rixk of an accident increases with age of aircraft.

It would be interesting to see statistics for this.

[Blacksheep]

There are two really uplifting pieces of news in the BBC article... ...that 59 is regarded as "middle aged".Nonsense.

Good news that the crew survived, but a sad end for a nice flying machine. :(

[JDK]

it seems Duxford has suffered a few accidents in the recent past. Bad luck or something more sinister?
:ugh: For the number of movements, it's probably a lower accident rate than a GA airport. It can't be 'sinister' as FULL DETAILS are available to anyone who cares to look.

I think Duxford shows a high number of accidents purely due to the nature of aircraft flown from there.
You are dealing with aircraft types that do not benefit from all the bells and whistles of modern aircraft, and generally pretty long in the tooth. I would imagine that rixk of an accident increases with age of aircraft.
It would be interesting to see statistics for this.
Age? Rubbish. Bells and whistles? To a degree. For people in AH&N to make such statements is a bit poor.

Duxford is one of the WORLD'S most important active vintage aviation sites, with a greater amount of activity than anywhere else I can think of. If there's an airshow on anywhere in the UK it's almost inevitable that there will be departures and arrives, plus practices at DX.

Yes, the accidents at DX shouldn't have happened; however each and every one of them has been analysed in depth, and conclusions drawn, and the lessons learned and applied. Most (all?) of the reports are available to anyone who cares to investigate the AAIB website. In that sense Duxford's still safer than crossing the road, and not only more interesting, but the errors and problems better investigated and resolved than a road accident, and on occasion better than an air transport accident.

ALL the active aircraft at Duxford are better and more rigourously maintained than the airliner you'll fly on holidays in. They are in better condition than a Cessna 172 at your local flying club, and though older have less hours, cycles and bad landings etc. than that Cessna. The flying is far more tightly regulated and monitored, both self-policing and externally than and private flying and some airline flying. The public's REAL safety is on the highest priority at all times at the site.

We are bloody lucky to have such a global attraction and active historic site. Don't act like an anti-aviation illiterate tabloid journalist. Aircraft aren't dangerous; ignorance and thoughtlessness is.

Rant over.

[Ethics Gradient]

I vaugely remember a AAIB presentation that said something like

Airliner Accidents

1 in 1,000,000,000,000 sectors
GA
1 in 1,000,000
Ex-mil types (jets and props)
1 in 10,000
Gyrocopters
1 in 1 :}


Numbers all made up by me as I cant remember the real stats but the ratios were something like that so hardly surprising that Duxford sees the odd incident. I guess its all part of the fun.

[John Farley]

matt hooks

You suggested that older aircraft are more likely to have accidents and received a one word comment of 'rubbish' from JDK.

There are three aspects that stem from the age of an aircraft. Age as in worn out or on last legs which as I am sure is unlikely to be a factor with loved and cherished aircraft - of which there are plenty at Duxford.

Then there is also the fact that older aeroplanes have more demanding handling characteristics because of the limited knowlege that existed when they were designed. This is normally compensated for by carefully selecting the crews - especially these days after one or two boobs in that area in the past.

Finally there is the inherently reduced level of reliability of components as designed decades ago. Again this is compensated for today by tighter maintenance procedures and the quality of the ground crew.

JF

[GET-U-LOST]

Sad to see the loss of any aircraft especially an historic one.

Glad to see the crew got out OK, best wishes to them and hope the are not too shaken up.

[formationfoto]

Just want to echo what Tudor has written. I have only bumped into Alan a few times whilst training at DX and a perfectly decent guy. Speculation does no good at all and certainly does nothing to help those of us who wish to keep historic and interesting aircraft in the air and participating in displays.

The activities at DX are different from those at commercial airports and that does bring a degree of additional risk but it doesnt mean that the pilots are inherently unsafe. They probably think a great deal more about the safety of their chose sortie than most GA pilots or operators of aluminum tubes do.

A loss of a piece of aviation history but no loss of life.

[Saab Dastard]

John F,

There are three aspects that stem from the age of an aircraft.

Is there not a fourth - material (primarily metal) failure, whether this is by fatigue, embrittlement, corrosion or other cause?

Obviously, I am not referring to the sort of visible wear and tear that you refer to in aspect 1), rather the sort of failure that only becomes apparent after examining the resultant failure surfaces!

SD

[Lima Juliet]

Report is now out.

www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Lockheed%20T-33%20Silver%20Star%20Mk%203,%20G-TBRD%2012-07.pdf

Seems that the pilot over-rotated and was trying to fly with too much AoA. Fortunately, he survived and will now become and an "old and bold" pilot - I guess he owes his engineer mate a few beers as well :ok:

Glad to see that Al is up and about after such a horrendous accident and I agree he is a thoroughly top chap.

[Background Noise]

I guess he owes his engineer mate a few beers as well

The engineer was recognised by GAPAN at their Awards Banquet last year. See page 9 - The Hugh Gordon-Burge Award.

The Hugh Gordon-Burge Award is for a member or members of a crew whose outstanding behaviour and action contributed to the saving of their aircraft or passengers.

Well deserved!


Awards Booklet (http://www.gapan.org/Awards/Citations%20Booklet%2007.pdf)

[barit1]

Seems that the pilot over-rotated and was trying to fly with too much AoA.

a.k.a. Back side of the power curve. This was the cause of many accidents in early jets, and it killed WWII Ace Dick Bong when he was new to the P-80. It also caused a horrific accident (Canadair Sabre) in Sacramento (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=66685&key=0) in the 70s.

[PPRuNe Pop]

Anyone can access the very comprehensive AAIB report for a most lucid account available, and I see no reason to subject the pilot to a re-run of a most unfortunate accident in which he was lucky to survive.

Al Walker is a friend who I once sent solo in a Tiger Moth. I have no compunction in stating now that unless he expressly tells me that he is content for the "lucid details" to be aired - it will not happen.


PPP