Chilbolton Accident

[Contacttower]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7394627.stm

Is it just me or are these little smashes becoming quite common in Hampshire at the moment?

[dont overfil]

Not just in Hampshire.
With the rapid expansion of microlight ownership more people are able to fly outside the regulated environment of the self fly hire from a flying club.

Short grass strips surrounded by trees/power lines are more common than ever and are being used by aircraft more suited to hard surface.

Some microlights are more challenging to fly than the typical group A trainer.

Yes I am sure there seems to be more incidents of this type (three in last three days in my local rag) but do the official figures back that up?

[airborne_artist]

From BBCi the single engine Rans S6 kit plane

DO Some microlights are more challenging to fly than

<anorak>Rans S6 can be Group A</anorak> :ok:

[dont overfil]

AA
Maybe so but it aint a typical trainer. Anyway I was generalising.

[BEXIL160]

Flew over the site today, en-route Compton Abbas - Popham.

The aeroplane looked pretty much intact, about 200m west of the Chilbolton strip, and came to rest pointing north....

A couple of questions spring to mind. When did this happen? Hasn't the wind been generally easterly for the last few days?

BEX

[rans6andrew]

The Rans S6 micro isn't your typical trainer because it is not available as a factory built aircraft. This stops the schools from using them although if you own one yourself you can do all of your training in it. I know, I did, it is fine for the task.

There are some challenging microlights but the S6 really isn't one of them.

[Rod1]

”Short grass strips surrounded by trees/power lines are more common than ever and are being used by aircraft more suited to hard surface.”

Most modern BMAA / LAA types are equally at home on hard or grass. One has to take into account the surface condition, but this would be true of most GA aircraft.

Rod1

[gasax]

And an S6 doesn't so much take off more levitate - at least the more powerful ones do. We had one locally which averaged well under 100m ground roll. The microlight version with the 503 was marked less spritely but still pretty capable.

Strip performance is not what is causing these accidents. It is the shortness, congestion (in terms of surroundings like trees, buildings, other aircraft) that mean a much higher level of precision is needed to operate safely. The general perception is that strip flying is 'rough and ready' - which is sometimes true in terms of facilities or surfaces, but compared with areas where you have 0.5km in any direction without obtacles most strips are mcuh more challenging and so require real accuracy and control.....

[Genghis the Engineer]

Chilbolton has 410x15m of good quality flat grass, on 24/06 (which is the prevailing locally), with 24ft powerlines just before the 24 threshold and again about 15m off the side of the runway, but nothing but a gap in the hedge and shallowly descending fields at the other. So, apart from a little care around the powerlines, it's eminently suitable for an aeroplane like the S6 - indeed there have been Rans aircraft based there or flown in for years.

Knowing nothing about the specifics, if it's 200m from the strip (assuming that's where the accident was), rather than near the runway then it seems likely that something fairly non-standard happened.

G

[dont overfil]

Gasax and Gengis
I fully agree. One of the points I was trying to make was perhaps "horses for courses."
The strip would be totally unsuitable for a PA28 140, or even a 160!
There are more options available for pilots now which means more decisions.
DO

[ericferret]

I seem to remember the Hampshire police using a Cessna 172 from there circa 1986.

[Flybywyre]

I've taken a PA28 140 in there a few times without any problems........
:ok:
FBW

[dont overfil]

FBW
Wow! Do you dismantle it and take it out by road?
I'm not having a go here but what does the POH say?
DO

[Rod1]

“having a go here but what does the POH say”

1 If it has been done then this is a fact.

2 I imagine the POH says reduce the distance needed by X % for every 10 knots of headwind. As we have no data on the temp, the wind, the surface condition or the weight, but we do know that it worked it would be bad form to speculate wildly that it was a bad idea.

Rod1

[dont overfil]

Rod
I take your point about the weather and the fact that it has been done. (Did some hero test pilot also roll a B707) Nonetheless the decision to do this and the handling skills required are not for the novice pilot. One could imagine a novice seeing this type of ac there and thinking "I could do that."
If there had been a problem even unrelated to the field length, don't you think the insurance may look at it as an excuse not to pay?
I do believe the field length would not be a problem for a C172 but my experience of PA28 140s suggest they need more runway length than the Cessna.
DO

[Flybywyre]

I am not in the habit of flying outside the POH "envelope" and I am particularly wary of short runways, both hard and grass. On both occassions I flew in (and out) it was to take a Stampe owner form White Waltham to view his aircraft that was being repaired there.
Both visits were on R24 and in the winter, the thing that did concern me was the power cables on the approach.
Getting out of there was fine and a correctly executed shortfield take off in a PA28 140 is very effective, especially on a cold winters day.
Regards
FBW