PDA

View Full Version : Light aircraft down near Andover


ricardian
20th Sep 2009, 13:28
BBC news website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/8265473.stm) reports light aircraft crash. The plane came down in a field in Tangley near Andover shortly after 1300 BST and is currently on fire, Hampshire Constabulary said

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
20th Sep 2009, 13:31
Just seen the news having returned from the Fly-In at Popham. Two people killed. Very sad and my thoughts are with their families...

Denning
20th Sep 2009, 13:32
BBC are reporting a light plane down in Tangley (near Andover), 2 POB. Police are reporting both died at the scene.

Denning

LondonJ
20th Sep 2009, 13:47
Link here:
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Hampshire | Two dead in light aircraft crash (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/8265473.stm)

PilotPieces
20th Sep 2009, 16:18
Anyone have details on which aircraft it was?

foxmoth
20th Sep 2009, 17:25
Anyone have details on which aircraft it was?

If they have they will hopefully keep it to themseves until it is in the public domain:*

Sad news, RIP whoever it is:(

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
20th Sep 2009, 19:00
Beeb now reporting: "The twin-tailed plane came down in a field at Tangley, near Andover, shortly before 1300 BST"

I can only think of a Cessna 337 although I'm sure there are others...

Sir George Cayley
20th Sep 2009, 19:12
Oh dear, there is another type and one flew over westbound yesterday.

I met the owner recently so now feeling apprehensive.

Sir George Cayley

WorkingHard
20th Sep 2009, 19:31
Foxmoth said "If they have they will hopefully keep it to themseves until it is in the public domain". If it is not put in the "public domain" on here then could explain which "public domain" you would find acceptable please? This is not an inflamatory or trick question, I am truly asking for peoples views on what they consider to be an acceptable "public domain" and why.
Thanks

jxc
20th Sep 2009, 19:33
air coupe ?

BabyBear
20th Sep 2009, 19:46
Foxmouth said "If they have they will hopefully keep it to themseves until it is in the public domain". If it is not put in the "public domain" on here then could explain which "public domain" you would find acceptable please? This is not an inflamatory or trick question, I am truly asking for peoples views on what they consider to be an acceptable "public domain" and why.

For me, it's when the authorities release it to the media after the next of kin have been informed. It is not for an eye witness, or anyone else to 'unofficially' make assumptions and/or use the reg. to draw conclusions, or publish same on here prior to next of kin being informed.

StillStanding
20th Sep 2009, 19:52
It wasn't an Ercoupe/Aircoupe

shortstripper
20th Sep 2009, 19:53
And calling Foxmoth, foxmouth, isn't inflammatory??? :rolleyes:

AAIB would be acceptable IMHO, but realistically, that would be a very slow way of getting the info out. I suppose then, that the various news channels for all their inaccuracies, do at least wait for the relatives to be informed. Fishing for someone on here to name names/type ect, may be giving such info prematurely, and is pretty low ... don't you think?

SS

jimsmitty01
20th Sep 2009, 20:09
Anyone have any more info on this accident just north of Southampton..? (Andover)


Two killed in light aircraft crash in Hampshire:

Two killed in light aircraft crash in Hampshire - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6841674.ece)

foxmoth
20th Sep 2009, 20:19
If it is not put in the "public domain" on here then could explain which "public domain" you would find acceptable please?

I think AAIB as SS says would take a bit long, to me it would preferably be when the police have released details, often though the press unfortunately get something from elswhere first, once it is published there then fine, publish it here - but please don't let the press get it from here first!

Shunter
20th Sep 2009, 20:24
And when was the last time you saw names in an AAIB report exactly?

smarthawke
20th Sep 2009, 21:13
Oh please! It isn't hard to see what is being rightly suggested. In the past the media, press (call it what you want) has gleaned information from Pprune - aircraft types, registrations etc.

What is being said is if it appears in the media etc then fine but best not let possibly incorrect information be stated here which the press might pick up on. No one said wait for the names to appear from the AAIB, it was more to do with the aircraft type I think.

There are plenty of twin finned aircraft out there - from bombers to light aircraft.

At the end of the day, if this tragic incident affects you directly then you probably know about it already.

Aerodynamik
20th Sep 2009, 21:15
[QUOTE][It is not for an eye witness, or anyone else to 'unofficially' make assumptions and/or use the reg. to draw conclusions, or publish same on here prior to next of kin being informed./QUOTE]

I'm sorry but yes it is, this is a RUMOUR network and like it or not is the way of the modern world. If you only want confirmed facts don't look here.

Nibbler
20th Sep 2009, 21:21
Only the twin tail section remained which was of wooden construction. This made initial identification impossible and means only a very small number of people know which aircraft it was. I suspect then this sort of information will only be available here after the relatives have been informed and offered the support they may need.

I pray their end was quick and with little suffering.

The langauge used by the Telegraph in their report of this is disgusting and goes far beyond anything in any other news source. Shame on you.

BabyBear
20th Sep 2009, 21:35
I'm sorry but yes it is, this is a RUMOUR network and like it or not is the way of the modern world. If you only want confirmed facts don't look here.

Oh I see, because this is a RUMOUR network all sense of decency and respect should be lost?

You've missed the point, I believe.

WorkingHard asked:

I am truly asking for peoples views on what they consider to be an acceptable "public domain" and why.

and I answered on this RUMOUR network.

You believe what you will and conduct your life within whichever rules and ethics you choose, as shall I, but the fact this is a RUMOUR network is irrelevant! It does not make publicising non essential conjecture, rumour or fact any more acceptable, less distasteful, or disrespectful, however much you want to hide behind that excuse!

Incidentally, apology accepted.

Charlie Foxtrot India
20th Sep 2009, 22:29
I'm visiting familynear Andover at the moment and it was a beautiful day for flying. :(

EK4457
20th Sep 2009, 23:35
C'mon guys, less of the outpouring of grief for somone who you never met. Easily the most distasteful aspect of the thread.

Silent respect with sensible discussion is far more appropriate.

If I ever go that way, I hope you all do just that and try and learn from what happened.

I only logged on to see if I could (even at this early stage) learn somthing, become a better pilot and maybe even save my life in future.

No one even hinted at asking for a name.

Some of you sound like a vegetarian in a butcher shop.

EK

foxmoth
21st Sep 2009, 04:56
No one asked for a name as such, but from Anyone have details on which aircraft it was? it does not take much for anyone to get at least the owners name:=

- And actually very little outpourings of grief, mainly discussion of releasing info:rolleyes:

Katamarino
21st Sep 2009, 06:06
As with any thread of this nature on Pprune, it's 10% about the accident, 90% people squabbling about what they are and aren't allowed to write. Why don't you all go do that in Jet Blast, rather than having an identical argument in every single accident thread. Most of us are here for the flying, not your moral dilemmas.

Lightning6
21st Sep 2009, 06:12
As with any thread of this nature on Pprune, it's 10% about the accident, 90% people squabbling about what they are and aren't allowed to write. Why don't you all go do that in Jet Blast, rather than having an identical argument in every single accident thread. Most of us are here for the flying, not your moral dilemmas.

I quite agree Katamarino, A severe lack of sensitivity.

foxmoth
21st Sep 2009, 06:41
Why don't you all go do that in Jet Blast,

Which would be fine if we had not seen all too often "the aircraft was a XXXX based at EGXX registration G-XXXX", putting "please do not post these details here" in JB would be a pointless.

mustpost
21st Sep 2009, 06:56
Worth noting the thread about another accident lasted 1 post and was then deleted, despite being undoubtedly in the public domain.

Lightning6
21st Sep 2009, 06:59
Agreed again foxmoth, unfortunately the media look at this forum for info, albeit they don't understand what they are reading, they take interesting info (to them) and distort it to make a sensational headline, just look at the amount of first time posters, who obviously know nothing about aviation...The media...Just after making a spectacular issue...Please be careful what you say on PPRuNe.

englishal
21st Sep 2009, 07:03
As a pilot and co-owner I want to know ASAP what type the aeroplane is, if for no other reaons to eliminate my friends from the accident. If I knew what type it was, I'd post the details of type purely for this exact reason.

BoeingMEL
21st Sep 2009, 07:41
..... is common sense and this ol' timer has no intention of sharing personal information before it reaches the public domain. However, the aircraft concerned came to grief in CAVOK conditions and witness reports claim "high impact speed", "low and slow" and wing-rocking."

Since the type of aircraft concerned has a pretty low glide speed, would it be rocket-science (or cause offence) to suggest that this was a classic stall/spin accident? No slur on the pilot concerned of course... simply trying to invite constructive debate. bm

cats_five
21st Sep 2009, 08:00
..... is common sense and this ol' timer has no intention of sharing personal information before it reaches the public domain. However, the aircraft concerned came to grief in CAVOK conditions and witness reports claim "high impact speed", "low and slow" and wing-rocking."

Since the type of aircraft concerned has a pretty low glide speed, would it be rocket-science (or cause offence) to suggest that this was a classic stall/spin accident? No slur on the pilot concerned of course... simply trying to invite constructive debate. bm

It would be very, very premature to try to assign a cause. Even if they did stall/spin there might have been something going on beforehand to put them in that situation.

I also can't think of any 'constructive debate' we can have at present, and I'm not sure what value consolences from people who don't know those involved and/or their families have.

However if any of you want to read something about it to make you see red, check the reader's comments in the Daily Mail's online report. Most of them have not only no sympathy expressed, but the lack of knowledge of quite a few contributions seems to echo that of the new Strictly judge:

Aircraft crash leaves two dead | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214838/Aircraft-crash-leaves-dead.html)

twistedenginestarter
21st Sep 2009, 08:17
I don't understand it. If you people don't like discussions about aviation events unless they're on the BBC, what are you doing on PPRuNe?. We don't want your pompous pontifications, and you don't like reading speculation so why are you here?

It wouldn't be so bad if there was any logic. If details of who has been killed is going to reach the next of kin, why are you bothered by the mechanism or timing? Personally if someone close to me might have crashed I'd rather get information as soon as possible, even if it might not be 100% correct. It's highly unlikely that what is said here would be the primary route to those affected.

You may find this kind of event distasteful - it takes all sorts - but please don't clog up the threads with pointless moaning. The rest of us want to try and understand what sorts of things go wrong, and why, if there are any patterns that apply to us.

BoeingMEL
21st Sep 2009, 08:21
It is deeply regrettable that my attempt to provoke intelligent discussion results in your negative handbagging!

Condolencies: I expressed none and did not comment on others who chose to do so.

Daily Mail: Irrelevent

Constructive discussion: Lives are lost throughtout the world every year as a result off stall/spin accidents. Anything (yes, anything!) that can be done to bang-home in the minds of low-time pilots the importance of avoiding stall/spin situations must be a good thing. This forum is for information and education you know! Cheers bm

Cows getting bigger
21st Sep 2009, 08:23
I'm with katamarino. Every single time there is a crash the vast majority of the discussion shoots-off in exactly the same direction. Pointless, self-righteous and a complete waste of time as far as aviation safety is concerned.

Katamarino
21st Sep 2009, 09:00
Anyway, perhaps the actual pilots here will permit some speculation. The eyewitness reports, which are of course notoriously inaccurate (as I see one guy determined that something might be wrong not by the explosions, but by the favt his cows were acting oddly :confused:) suggest engine problems, followed by a stall/spin into a large field.

Of course, this may be a million miles from the truth.

True or not, in this situation, I can very easily see the temptation to try and keep the plane in the air. It's not a total engine failure, where the forced landing in a field would be obvious, but critically there may not be enough power for level flight. The fact the engine still turns over may be enough to tempt a pilot to hang on in there, rather than putting it down. I know I'd find the decision very difficult.

Do we perhaps not give enough emphasis to the precautionary landing in training? I know that it was never mentioned in mine, and in a borderline case, it could be a very difficult choice to make and might not even be thought of. However, I've recently read a number of cases where it has saved people.

rlsbutler
21st Sep 2009, 09:10
I go along with EK4457, Katamarino, BoeingMEL and others.

Up to the time of writing, there are 34 other contributions to this thread and 5584 viewers. Of the latter, I would bet the great majority are hoping for news, facts and rumour in that order. To date, they leave disappointed. They will get nothing from threads that offer shallow sympathy to the unknown families of the unknown occupants of an unknown crashed aircraft.

This PPRuNe community has the potential to know the facts (here because one member may belong to the affected flying club), has great collective experience (if the old hands stick it out, even while the others drivel on), is very interested to know what is going on (and is not afraid to learn promptly from the mishaps of others) and has the capacity for sound judgement (to be assessed, contribution by contribution, by its members).

I hope, uncertainly, that our moderators are mulling over how to keep PPRuNe more fit for aviators and less gratifying for the groupies.

That is my joining in with the 90% of squabblers.

For the speculators, we have thought of Cessnas model 337 and of Ercoupes. With Hampshire in mind, has the Optica been flying lately, if at all ?

doubleu-anker
21st Sep 2009, 09:17
BoeingMEL

".................... low-time pilots the importance of avoiding stall/spin situations must be a good thing."

Sorry to have to say it is not only low time pilots either. Multi thousand hour pilots are getting themselves into trouble too, when they shouldn't be. They probably are aware of the result of inadvertent stalling but some seem to be so far out of the loop with the automatics flying the aircraft, they are unable to catch a pre-stall situation when the automatics do let them down.

As for a thread like this on JB I dont think it would last long to be quite honest. After the AF prang, the hysteria among the mods and the heavy handed editing was something to behold.

This may sound cynical but to guarantee safety in the air, is to stay on the ground. There always has been accidents and there always will be.

cats_five
21st Sep 2009, 09:31
Since most of us know nothing about the accident beyond the location, what sort of 'constructive debate' might we have?

You want to discuss stall/spin, of course it's an important avaiation topic (after all avoiding stall/spin is vital), but we have absolutely no idea if it was a causal factor, something that happened way after the aircraft was doomed or something that didn't occur.

The idea that it might have been seems to be based on a possible interpretation of what might have been seen by a witness who isn't (so far as we know) an aviator.

CRX
21st Sep 2009, 09:44
I, too, was concerned about the well being of a friend who was probably flying in a similar area at at similar time. I logged on to see if pprune would reveal what type was lost.
When it didn't I googled a simple search term and found the type in a trice.
Not my friend.
It really isnt hard, and pprune is not the only source of info when these things happen.
All accident threads follow the same path,
1. initial notification,
2. What type, where and who q's?
3. Condolences and people objecting to condolences...
4. More 'what type, where and who q's'...
5. Wait for the AAIB brigade come out to speak.
6. Regular news sources reveal the type and names (normally after police conference)
7. More condolences, then the thread ends...
Until the next one.


CRX.

englishal
21st Sep 2009, 10:10
Whether it was related to this incident or not, one thing this thread re-enforces is the fact that if something goes wrong and if you stop flying the aeroplane, you will die, unless exceedingly lucky.

One vital thing to do in the event of an engine failure is to "push" - unload the wings and you WILL NOT STALL. Without a stall a spin is impossible and a spin at low level will 99% of the time kill you.

S-Works
21st Sep 2009, 10:15
CRX, you forgot the personal insults that reduce to outright attacks......

Daifly
21st Sep 2009, 10:20
Like, I imagine, most people who fly in Hampshire, I logged in looking for a type rather than names at this stage.

I was, of course, expecting to find the usual moral debate on information release that invariably goes with this type of thread on PPRuNe and so I find myself unsatisfied on one part and satisfied on the other.

I'm not going to speculate given that all the eyewitness reports (from the cows...) are contradictory (high speed, low and slow etc) but if it's an Ercoupe don't forget that it's "unspinnable" (well, that's what the designers said anyway).

Have to agree with the general feeling that a) I don't want the press to quote PPRuNe "fact" (it's lazy journalism given it's the opinions of everyone from Air Accident investigators through to Flight Sim First Officers...) but they will regardless of whether we want them to or not and b) this is a rumour site and it's therefore not really somewhere family members should be directed towards to view conciliatory messages within the first hour, it's going to have "rumour" in it some of which won't be nice. Therefore, please stop stressing about the rights and wrongs - AAIB/Police are very good at managing these events (sadly much experience) and families get informed as soon as possible.

It is perhaps interesting that the one person on here who does appear to know all the information made PPRuNe almost their first stop last evening, so even they want to enter the debate and gain some further insight - it's a horrible situation and thankfully the last time I was in it was pre-PPRuNe and so this debate was conducted on a smaller scale in the hangar.

S-Works
21st Sep 2009, 10:32
It's not aircoupe. Aviation safety net has all of the details down to the serial number as they do with every aircraft incident that occurs. It is posted within hours of an accident.

Paul_Sengupta
21st Sep 2009, 10:37
Please be careful with rumours. I know there's one going around and it's the wrong aircraft. Correct type, wrong reg. The police are still contacting relatives, so please be patient with type and names.

wsmempson
21st Sep 2009, 10:45
Gosh, looking at aviation safty net, I'd say that looks as if it's in the public domain.

For what it's worth, If I ever bite the bullet as a result of an aviation accident, you're all welcome to speculate as much as you like. Whilst I'm still here is quite another thing...;)

Paul_Sengupta
21st Sep 2009, 10:50
Just had a look, that's the wrong reg.

Rod1
21st Sep 2009, 10:52
Thanks Bose!

Rod1

'Chuffer' Dandridge
21st Sep 2009, 11:34
CRX,

You also forgot the obligatory re-runs of the poem 'High Flight' which I am now sick of hearing, as to me it just means false condolences when anything like this happens.. Light a candle anyone? Group hug anyone?

Those who need to know what type or occupants name etc will already know that information.

And as for those who want to speculate on a cause already, are you sure????:=

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
21st Sep 2009, 11:47
So it was a Nord NC-854, if Aviation Safety Net is to be believed.

Kiltie
21st Sep 2009, 13:12
This has to be a Pprune record. 5 posts and someone is chastised for asking what is a reasonable enough question on a rumour network.

If these Pprune members demonstrated such confidence to patronise their fellow posters in the pub face to face I suspect there would be persistent :ouch:

Sometimes anonymity breeds an ill-perceived right to quickly dismiss others' remarks. This is not the Professional Pilot's Debating Network, so one would like to think disagreements are posted with respect to other's opinions.

Sigh.

Captain Stable
21st Sep 2009, 13:58
One vital thing to do in the event of an engine failure is to "push"There are rather a lot of people who would disagree violently with that.

First action in the event of an engine failure in a single-engine type is to achieve, maintain, and trim for best glide speed, whilst searching for a suitable landing area. Once that has been identified

plan your circuit
try to identify the reason for the failure
decide whether a restart is desirable or likely to be successful
get out a mayday call
carry out shut-down and security checks.

Molesworth 1
21st Sep 2009, 14:08
5 posts and someone is chastised for asking what is a reasonable enough question on a rumour network.



PPRuNe has sadly become notorius for posters making venomous attacks on each other. This despite what each new member agrees on joining.

There's some great information to be had in this forum, so why spoil it with infantile behaviour?

Personally I ignore these remarks as I assume that the posters making them couldn't possibly be what they claim to be. Probably some sad old git* sitting in front of his pc trying to get away from his nagging other half - the closest he ever got to an aeroplane was a SleazyJet ride to a packed holiday destination. This when he was still able to walk.

*Not so young myself, mind you!:*

Rod1
21st Sep 2009, 14:09
“One vital thing to do in the event of an engine failure is to "push"”

I was taught to check airspeed and if in normal cruse, pull up. I have to slow from 138kn to 70kn and the considerable height I would gain would be of considerable assistance in finding a suitable landing site. I would recommend the advice;

DON’T STALL

Rod1

hotair67
21st Sep 2009, 14:40
hampshire incident a/c NORD NC 854

worrab
21st Sep 2009, 14:45
CRX - You missed the bit where people write "I haven't had time to read the whole thread but..." :ugh:

Molesworth 1
21st Sep 2009, 14:57
hotair67

Did you intend there to be more to your debut posting?

MichaelJP59
21st Sep 2009, 15:00
Re: Stalling: Like most people, I've practiced many times EFATOs and simulated forced landings into fields.

This may be nothing to do with this accident but I still think the discussion is useful. It must be the hardest thing to keep airspeed up and not pull up when you know there is no suitable landing area and you are going to hit something fairly solid. We know it's usually better to hit something at low speed in a stable attitude rather than spinning in, but I hope I can maintain presence of mind if it ever comes to it.

JW411
21st Sep 2009, 16:18
I find this phenomenon of people attacking one another on pprune every time there is a fatal accident quite fascinating. It is such a recurring theme that you can almost set your watch by it.

Why are you all so scared or upset about talking about the demise of fellow aviators? We are ALL going to die. It is the only thing that we all have in common.

I absolutely agree that we should not be talking names until the next of kin have been informed, but after that, what exactly is the problem?

Perhaps my 18 years in the RAF had something to do with my attitude to such events.

I was 19 years old when I first got involved in carrying coffins.

Our usual reaction was to repair to the bar when we had a fatal accident on the squadron and have a bl**dy good thrash. The attitude was "Bloggs was a great chap so let's get round to his room and nick his flying boots while we've got the chance".

I can imagine that a lot of you out there might find this a strange way of dealing with a fatality but it worked.

If one of your mates has died, then do his memory a service but let us not have these artificial outpourings of grief from people who have never met or would ever have met the poor b*gger who has just paid for his love of flying with his life.

To me, it seems quite incredible that it has taken this long for someone just to announce that the aircraft involved was a Nord 854.

Let us get real people, we are all headed for the great hangar in the sky so let's get a bit more objective about the inevitable.

englishal
21st Sep 2009, 16:45
First action in the event of an engine failure in a single-engine type is to achieve, maintain, and trim for best glide speed, whilst searching for a suitable landing area. Once that has been identified
Perhaps I should clarify - the first thing you should do with an engine failure at take off is to push.....

FlyingOfficerKite
21st Sep 2009, 17:13
Not that it may be of much relevance to the incident in question but:

Rod1

I was taught to check airspeed and if in normal cruse, pull up. I have to slow from 138kn to 70kn and the considerable height I would gain would be of considerable assistance in finding a suitable landing site. I would recommend the advice;


If you are looking out when you pull up (particularly above the aircraft) you are not looking for a suitable field and therefore wasting valuable time (and some of the height gained).

There is an argument whether it is better to pull up or to maintain level flight and let the speed bleed off whilst looking for a field.

englishal

First action in the event of an engine failure in a single-engine type is to achieve, maintain, and trim for best glide speed, whilst searching for a suitable landing area. Once that has been identified

Perhaps I should clarify - the first thing you should do with an engine failure at take off is to push.....

Are you on the correct Thread? What on earth has an EFATO to do with this discussion?!

'Pushing' is not an aeronautical term I'm familiar with. Adopting the 'glide attitude' is better whether or not there is a need to 'push' or 'pull' the control column will depend on the phase of flight and the attitude and trim of the aeroplane. Don't presuppose that 'pushing' is necessarily the most appropriate action, although adopting a nose down attitude will, most likely, require a forward movement of the control column if the engine fails when the aircraft is in a climbing attitude immediately after take-off.

JW411

I agree entirely.

Respect for the dead, but insofar as a discussion regarding the accident itself is concerned is what a 'discussion forum' is all about - surely? No discussion about a fatal aircraft accident is pleasant, but the causes and the possible cure or avoidance of a similar occurrence must be of benefit to all. If not then why bother discussing such matters on PPRuNe at all?

FOK

Paul_Sengupta
21st Sep 2009, 17:22
I think the reason EFATO was mentioned was that the accident site was along the climbout path of runway 29 at Bourne Park.

FlyingOfficerKite
21st Sep 2009, 17:38
Paul

Thanks for that - it makes sense now!

The impression was that the aircraft was en-route as no mention was made in the press of it having just taken off or of a nearby airfield - only that it 'came down near Tangley'.

FOK

englishal
21st Sep 2009, 17:49
Don't presuppose that 'pushing' is necessarily the most appropriate action, although adopting a nose down attitude will, most likely, require a forward movement of the control column if the engine fails when the aircraft is in a climbing attitude immediately after take-off.
I don't want to get too into it in this thread, but there was an excellent article written by some extremely experienced aerobatic pilot that I read. Basically the article was along the lines that if your engine quits on take off you have moments to react properly, climb speed will normally be around minimum drag on the drag curve (and hence best glide) and when people fall onto the back of the drag curve is when the stall spin scenario often kicks in. This can happen in a very short space of time once the engine stops.

If the engine dies on take off (at low level anyway), pushing forward unloads the wings and guarantees you are not going to stall and spin (an unloaded wing cannot stall). It also gives the pilot vital seconds to come up with a course of action and also improves forward visibility. Of course if you are too low you have to accept that landing straight ahead may be the only option, but it is better to LAND straight ahead, making adjustments to your course and avoiding solid objects where possible, than to spin into the ground.

Again I am not saying that this is what happened here, I don't know. There are various reports as Paul says that state this was on the climb out from a runway, and various other reports which suggest "wobbling" - sounds like it *could* be a stall.

Chequeredflag
21st Sep 2009, 18:17
I spent 30 years as a professional competitor in the world of motor rallying. In the '70 and 80's particularly, the cars were ultra powerful, hugely quick and the events were organised in such a way that sleep over three or four days was limited to a (very) few hours at a time. It was dangerous in the extreme, and as a result, we lost a lot of fellow competitors to accidents, often caused by extreme fatigue.

In every case, it was sad indeed, and being quite a close "community", we all felt the losses deeply. Nevertheless, there was never the sense that you could not talk about these fatal accidents, their causes, and how they could be avoided in the future for fear of upsetting other people (albeit there were no public forums for such discussion a la Prune).

It was recognised as a dangerous profession, that was hugely exciting to take part in - the fatal accidents never put anyone off their total commitment to being fastest through the special stages. Looking back, we took massive risks, and I was lucky enough to retire from the sport relatively unscathed.

I guess this is why I canot personally understand the outpourings of condolences to family and friends of pilots that most of us will never have met, (though I can privately understand the anguish loved ones will feel). Nor can I understand the attempts to quell discussion about such accidents, though I totally accept the need to keep names out of the forum until they are officially announced.

I rather fear I have been hardened to death over the years, and accept fatal accidents as an unfortunate side effect of a pastime (flying) that can (and sadly does) bite from time to time. I tend to simply reflect that those concerned died doing something they loved.

There are many worse ways to meet your maker when your time is up.

stickandrudderman
21st Sep 2009, 18:44
What's this? A sensible post? Surely not? Shouldn't this kind of thing be banned from prune?
I mean, it is not pretentious, doesn't slag anyone off, doesn't quote any tedious legislation, doesn't seek to promote the standing of the poster, what on earth will be next I wonder?
Actual facts?
Probably not.

EK4457
21st Sep 2009, 19:45
Completely agree.

Mods- please ban Chequeredflag on the grounds he wants to discuss an incident in a logical, ethical and common sense way.

This is clearly not the PPRUNE protocol.

Interestingly, already we have started a discussion on EFATO and low level stalling/spinning. Even if this is nothing to do with the accident, surely a good thing from which we can all learn?

If there are some confused ethics which prevent some from taking part, simply read another forum. Dead easy.

On the subject of EFATO, I have had it drummed into me from day 1 that you push the stick forward, pitch down, maintain best glide, and LAND it 30 degrees either side of the nose. Interested as to what the more experienced FIs have to say?

EK

foxmoth
21st Sep 2009, 20:08
I would also agree with Chequered flag, all my comments were about not prematurely exposing the details of WHO was involved, not a problem with debating what happened, even when some come up with daft ideas!

And Kiltie This has to be a PPRuNe record. 5 posts and someone is chastised for asking what is a reasonable enough question on a rumour network.

The whole point here is that many people here do NOT see asking prematurely which aircraft (thus leading to who it was) as a reasonable question
As far as If these PPRuNe members demonstrated such confidence to patronise their fellow posters in the pub face to face I suspect there would be persistent In the pub you do not generally worry about being overheard by the press which is a problem on Pprune - and I am sure if you got a notion in the pub that the press were in and listening you would get a quick "hey chaps keep it down" from the person who picked up on that, which is basically what I tried to do here!

hotair67
21st Sep 2009, 22:11
suddenly thought perhaps if i said too much i would get chastised !!

srobarts
21st Sep 2009, 22:18
The BBC website now has the names:
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Hampshire | Light plane crash victims named (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/8266094.stm)

Noah Zark.
21st Sep 2009, 22:52
there have been many crashes with light turboprop aircraft over the last 6 months; there should be a safety review and I think they should only be allowed to fly when appropriate, not for a nice day out

This comment by a Mail Online reader says it all, really. :ugh:

FlyingOfficerKite
21st Sep 2009, 23:10
I agree that the adoption of a nose down attitude after an EFATO should be a positive and immediate action.

However use of the word 'push' tends to suggest that this is a semi-aerobatic manoeuvre - especially when used in conjunction with the phrase 'unload the wings'.

True the idea is not to stall and to ensure the aircraft is in the correct flight attitude.

However this should be a GENTLE and POSITIVE action - not designed to send the pilots into the cabin roof due to excessive negative g.

Students can over-react in this situation and whilst it is essential for positive action to be taken rather than delayed or no action at all, the aim is to SMOOTHLY adopt the attitude and not upset the instructor (or passengers) - or lose excessive height through being over-zealous!

This is an important topic and as others have said, worth positive comments - but without detracting from subject of the Thread.

FOK

Paul_Sengupta
21st Sep 2009, 23:39
Nord G-BGEW out of Bourne Park. Owned by Stuart.

doubleu-anker
22nd Sep 2009, 03:06
As has been mentioned on this thread.

The experts say you have an excellent chance of survival in the EFATO scenario if you go in "under control". I.E., fly the thing onto the ground. It is the sudden vertical acceleration due to the sudden loss of lift that does the damage to man and machine in the stall situation, as they are not stressed for it. The vertical speed compared with the horizontal speed, will be very high, with a stalled wing. One maybe faced with trees in front or gaps in them. Fly it into them. You will loose the wings etc., but they will also absorb a lot of the impact, just like the break fall used in Marshall arts..

Keep this in the back of our minds. It is the stall that will kill us, whether it be a few feet or hundreds of feet AGL.

As for the "push" theory, if the wings are completely unloaded I.E., zero G, the wing "cannot" stall, can it?. The fun starts when the wing has to be loaded again to >1g, to execute a landing under control. :}

Kiltie
22nd Sep 2009, 05:30
I disagree Foxmoth, there is nothing premature about asking which type it was. If we were to worry about the press watching our threads we would stifle our discussions on aircraft systems and operating techniques on all sorts of threads such as Tech Log. Stating which type crashed does not infer who was flying it.

We have to remember this is a rumour network so rumours should be tolerated regardless of their accuracy.

englishal
22nd Sep 2009, 06:11
However use of the word 'push' tends to suggest that this is a semi-aerobatic manoeuvre - especially when used in conjunction with the phrase 'unload the wings'.
Call it what you want, ignore it, whatever, I don't care. The article actually said "push forward until the windscreen is 2/3 ground and 1/3 sky" as this gives a reasonable glide attitude in most aeroplanes.

Push is pretty descriptive of what you have to do, and every pilot should know about wing loading....

T-21
22nd Sep 2009, 06:45
In gliding up to at least 500feet we always go ahead in the event of a winch cable break or problem on the aero-tow. Also we taught to ease not push the stick forward ,but don't prat around as time is vital in maintaining airspeed. Always have a pre take off brief regarding the wind on the day and your options. Alot of private pilots could do with a session of good ole stick and rudder handling at gliding. My own safety brief started as I was driving to the airfield looking at the wind effect and viz conditions.

Chequered flag agree with you. Having had an air experience passenger die in the cockpit and dealt with two nasty gliding accidents one does have to harden to accidents. I have had no counselling,stress management .... just live with it and time is a good healer. Society today is pampered and shows LMF (lack of moral fibre). One should remember the young men from Bomber Command who just had to carry on regardless.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
22nd Sep 2009, 06:59
Thanks for the information Paul. Everyone else on here seems to have forgotten what the thread was about.....sad.

T-21
22nd Sep 2009, 07:13
Heathrow Director, No we have not forgotten the thread. Each one of us have different feelings about air accidents and deal with it ,it helps to talk about it amongst fellow aviators on this forum. Let's see more bonhomie and less shark attacks.

cats_five
22nd Sep 2009, 07:19
In gliding up to at least 500feet we always go ahead in the event of a winch cable break or problem on the aero-tow. Also we taught to ease not push the stick forward ,but don't prat around as time is vital in maintaining airspeed.
<snip>

Another thing drummed into us (and sometimes demonstrated at a safe height) about winch launch failures is that when unable to land ahead, wait after adjusting the attitude and check the ASI. Don't attempt a turn until airspeed has increased sufficiently (figure depends on glider type) - the results of doing so are stall/spin very close to the ground.

Captain Stable
22nd Sep 2009, 07:29
LAND it 30 degrees either side of the nose.Yes.

However, when students come out with this phrase in their Captain's Brief at the start of a flight, I sometimes wonder at the sense of it.

Certainly, trying to land more than 30 degrees either side of the nose would be a little foolhardy, but what students tend to fail to consider is the wind. If it's already 30 degrees (or more) off the runway heading, you wouldn't really consider going more acrosswind than that - I tell people to favour the side the wind is coming from.

Consider Runway 27. Wind 240/20. On takeoff he only has a 10 kt XWC. If silly stude turns right after an EFATO he then has most of a 20 kt crosswind to try to land in. But in his pre-Takeoff brief he's told me "I will look for a landing site within 30 degrees either side of the nose". No, no, no, no, NOOOOOooooooo..... :ugh:

Ptkay
22nd Sep 2009, 07:32
Photograph of Aircraft G-BGEW (http://www.caa.co.uk/applicationmodules/ginfo/ginfo_photo.aspx?regmark=G-BGEW&imgname=G-BGEW001&imgtype=JPG)

worrab
22nd Sep 2009, 07:56
One maybe faced with trees in front or gaps in them. Fly it into them.
I'm sure DA meant the gaps and not the trees, but in all seriousness, do try and avoid trees - they're completely, utterly unyielding.

Cows getting bigger
22nd Sep 2009, 08:04
"Push forward", "EFATO", "Unload" are all rather vague terms for the ab-initio. My first thought is that if you ever have an engine failure in any climb or significant turn (not just after take-off) you will need to react more quickly than if the failure occurs in straight & level flight/descent. However you describe it, you are initially trying to reduce angle of attack and then manage a limited amount of energy by selecting the most favourable AoA. It is the rate of change of energy that causes problems.

As far as turning 30 deg or back, it all depends on your definition of EFATO (ie how high and how close to the airfield you are). There are occasions where a turnback is entirely appropriate; especially if there is a cross runway available and you have enough height. Picking up on a previous post, I think glider pilots are far more attuned to the options in such scenarios, something I have noticed when converting them to SEP.

Anyway, just my tuppence worth.

Intercepted
22nd Sep 2009, 08:55
There are occasions where a turnback is entirely appropriate; especially if there is a cross runway available and you have enough height. Picking up on a previous post, I think glider pilots are far more attuned to the options in such scenarios, something I have noticed when converting them to SEP.

Yes, if you are at a safe altitude for a turnback, but if you are the slightest unsure about that DO NOT turn back. Gliders and SEP have one significant difference, i.e. 10/1 versus 50/1 glide ratio!

Glider pilots will obviously be more attuned to engine failure scenarios, but it's important to remember that the number of options in a glider is significantly higher compared to a SEP. If an experoienced glider pilot would base his turnback decision on previous glider experience he could be in serious trouble in a SEP.

mm_flynn
22nd Sep 2009, 09:28
"Push forward", "EFATO", "Unload" are all rather vague terms for the ab-initio. My first thought is that if you ever have an engine failure in any climb or significant turn (not just after take-off) you will need to react more quickly than if the failure occurs in straight & level flight/descent.


In a previous version of a EFATO thread I advanced the push, quick response, slip to the back of the drag curve .... concepts and was told by someone with great experience b@lls.

I then went out and tried it. At least in my aircraft, after a sudden loss of power it will gracefully and automatically pitch forward to maintain trimed airspeed with out aid of human hand. It oscillates a bit and overshoots so flying is obviously better. In conversation, we concluded PUSH is important to drill into ourselves so that we don't HOLD in the climb position and are phsycologically expecting to pitch to a position where the ground is the bulk of what you can see out the window.

In my experiment I was surprised at how big the change from mostly sky to mostly ground was - So I felt I learned something in that hour or so of practicing.

Miles Magister
22nd Sep 2009, 10:20
I would recomend that pilots find an RAF light aircraft trained QFI and have a proper lesson on EFATOs which will be practiced at height. What you learn may save you at some time in the future.

The EFATO is a difficult manouvre to fly well and requires proper training. The big thing is to maintain speed, perhaps normal glide +10kts in the turn as this will give you energy and make sure you have htis as a minimum before you start the turn. Only turn as far as the first possible landing area, do not try and continue to a 'better' area.

If you are not properly trained then land straight ahead.

MM

Molesworth 1
22nd Sep 2009, 10:23
but in all seriousness, do try and avoid trees

maybe Vince could lend you one of his Biggles books?:E

cats_five
22nd Sep 2009, 10:35
Ye<snip>
Gliders and SEP have one significant difference, i.e. 10/1 versus 50/1 glide ratio!
<snip>

For most of us a 50/1 glider is in our dreams, though there are lots of 40/1 gliders around. The average glass club trainer is pretty much 30/1 and the primary I've seen a couple of times would be struggling to make 10/1. However most of us don't fly primaries, and I agree that 30/1 gives you quite a few more options than 10/1.

What I am curious about is if power pilots consider launch failure options before departure? As noted above gliders have a lot more options because of the better glide angle, and also we consider them before each and every launch so when there is a failure we know what we are going to do.

If we are are in a position to turn (e.g. can't land ahead) we've already decided what approach speed will be and which direction we will turn if land ahead is not possible. (normally downwind)

Does the equivalent go on in SEP?

PS had wondered how long before the Dundee tree landing would get a mention...

robin
22nd Sep 2009, 10:48
Put simply, in light GA, highly unlikely.

You should be monitoring progress and prepare to abort take-offs is things are not going as planned but I would doubt many do a W&B or take-off performance calculation. Look at the case of the Diamond Twin Star at Lands End, as an example.

But unless there is a big bang pilots do have a habit of hanging on hoping things get better.

Mind you even glider pilots get it wrong. I've seen some waiting for the winch to accelerate when they should have pulled off earlier.

We are all very good at it when students, but bad habits do creep in over time.

Intercepted
22nd Sep 2009, 11:12
I did a little bit of google earth browsing around my home field to locate some spots with approximate directions if I ever get an EFATO, but I would also like to take an hour or two to visit those spots by foot.

Maybe the airfields should publish a map in the same fashion as they publish a map for circuits?

Bocian
22nd Sep 2009, 11:38
I quite agree that the next of kin should hear about it from the police or other authority before names are released in the media, or any informal forum.

The police have now informed the next of kin, and released the victims' names in the media; Peter Fitzmaurice (67) from Alton (Hants), and Stuart Francis from Camberley (Surrey).

My condolences to all who knew them.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Hampshire | Light plane crash victims named (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/8266094.stm)

Oldpilot55
22nd Sep 2009, 12:06
In a previous career as a land surveyor I attempted to demolish a small tree with a Landrover, which I think we all would recognise as a robust vehicle, largely made of aluminium. The tree was about 6" diameter and did considerably more damage to the Landrover than I did to it. Some young ladies came along with axes and cut it down for me after seeing me try to set fire to it with 20 litres of petrol. It was Africa and I was young but I have a lot of respect for trees and would not try and run into one (or indeed land on top of one) in order to lose energy in a forced landing.

Nibbler
22nd Sep 2009, 12:40
Interesting debate about EFATO I had no idea the topic had such varied opinions and some good ideas.

Looking at the surface wind where I was (not too far away) on the day and given the position of the crash site I had thought this could have been where you would be turning final. Slow, low and turning could have been factors in what might have been a stall spin accident so I wondered if there were such varied points of view on this topic?

edited to add: ignoring newspaper reports that it had just taken off of course

Captain Stable
22nd Sep 2009, 18:08
Could mean anything, Nibbler.

An aircraft could easily have been in that position (close to base/final turn) if they wanted an overhead departure and ran into problems before departing the circuit, or if they had problems shortly after takeoff and were trying to get round the circuit for a precautionary landing, or all sorts of reasons.

It is to be hoped that the AAIB will find something that can be published and serve as a warning to others, but I think it's unlikely.Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.

Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001) Author

gmc17
22nd Sep 2009, 18:13
nibbler, i had the same thought -the wind was light n-easterly, i believe, but bourne park has a slope downwards east to west and I think preference in relatively benign conditions is to take-off in westerly direction

bjornhall
22nd Sep 2009, 19:07
You should be monitoring progress and prepare to abort take-offs is things are not going as planned but I would doubt many do a W&B or take-off performance calculation.

Interesting observation. One would hope you were wrong...

The sad part is that such misbehavior is highly contageous. "Yeah, I know we were taught to do that, and the law even says we must, but nobody else does so I won't either..."

I would put it this way: Most pilots (non-professionals in particular) are not terribly good at what they are doing. If we fly the way everyone else flies we won't be very good either. Then again, one doesn't have to be the best pilot in the world in order to be 'sufficiently safe'...

I think being a good pilot is a goal in itself, whether 'necessary' or not. So I do those calculations every time. I rather enjoy it too.

We are all very good at it when students, but bad habits do creep in over time.

Isn't that the truth! Experience is a prerequisite for both complacency and excellence, but only the former comes automatically.

horizon flyer
22nd Sep 2009, 20:59
Having suffered an engine failure at 750ft and ended up standing in a field 1.5miles and 60 seconds later, I know how little time this pilot had and how he was feeling. Mine was not a takeoff engine failure but approach, so I did not need to push, just set up best glide plus ten then look for a field. Running through my head was. Don't stall it on approach, better to run into the far fence than try and slow it down to much and stall in. Remember you can walk away from a 9g stop, that is 9ft from 60mph. As it was, we ended up crossing my first choice field at 5 ft with a fence line coming towards me at 85 mph. I pulled hard just before it and landed in the next and rolled 165 yards in a nice just seeded grass field. This pilot was a lot lower with much less time by the sound of it. Unless you have a pre-plan of what to do, there is no thinking time, it should be instinctive, so I hope we can all learn from this, sit down and think, what would you do in such a situation. Several years later I lost a friend to a EFATO, he attempted a low level turn back, stalled in from 100 feet at the end off the turn. I feel sorry for this pilot as he must have been in panic and overload or he would have made the right choice or walked away.

horizon flyer
22nd Sep 2009, 21:04
Having suffered an engine failure at 750ft and ended up standing in a field 1.5miles and 60 seconds later, I know how little time this pilot had and how he was feeling. Mine was not a takeoff engine failure but approach, so I did not need to push, just set up best glide plus ten then look for a field. Running through my head was. Don't stall it on approach, better to run into the far fence than try and slow it down to much and stall in. Remember you can walk away from a 9g stop, that is 9ft from 60mph. As it was, we ended up crossing my first choice field at 5 ft with a fence line coming towards me at 85 mph. I pulled hard just before it and landed in the next and rolled 165 yards in a nice just seeded grass field. This pilot was a lot lower with much less time by the sound of it. Unless you have a pre-plan of what to do, there is no thinking time, it should be instinctive so I hope we can all learn from this, sit down and think, what would we do in such a situation. Several years later I lost a friend to a EFATO, he attempted a low level turn back, stalled in from 100 feet at the end off the turn.

Monocock
22nd Sep 2009, 21:05
This is ridiculous. In post 72, Paul identifies his friend and the aircraft that perished. Was there any recognition of that? Was there hell.

The thread had become so obsessed with a bunch of armchair flyers all giving their little bit about how to perform during an EFATO that the topic of the thread, once again, got forgotten.

Listen up. Unless you have had a genuine EFATO at <500 feet (assuming that's what happended to the poor chaps) please don't start giving all the ****e about what to do under the circumstances. The theory is bolleaux and I get fed up hearing about it.

An EFATO at relatively low level just does not give you the chance to think any more than "what is softer to hit". Lucky people will see an open field ahead and bully for them.

The stationary prop that one encounters is like having a plank bolted to your cowling and your glide peformance will compare to an aerodynamic anvil. All you can hear is the wind on the airframe and the control cables running past the pulleys.

Please don't give all the cr@p about "stick forward". Yes, in theory it is correct but when it happens you need to fly the machine into the situation that will give you the least personal injury.

Mine resulted in a smashed up a/c and a neck brace for two weeks. One I saw last week resulted in a smashed up a/c and a brave chap who is limping a bit but not giving in to the situation. For God's sake move away from Trevor Thom and get real. When it happens you need the VERY best of luck and a very cool head, not the theoritical idealism of "stick forward".

'Chuffer' Dandridge
22nd Sep 2009, 21:23
Monocock,

At last a sensible post.......:ok:

There is no training for an engine failure (if indeed that's what happened here). It's something you deal with at the time, and hope to get it right. No amount of reading books or listening to 'experts' on here will prepare you for it. I've had several, walked away each time, but I know my luck will run out one day.





Move along, nothing to see here......

bjornhall
22nd Sep 2009, 21:35
Certainly one's standards can be set a bit higher than that.

Vino Collapso
22nd Sep 2009, 21:42
I am with Monocock on this. From what I read two people with flying experience, one the owner/driver most likely with significant exprience on type end up in difficulties with a severe ending.

All this talk of EFATO handling is pointless and appropriate only to an audience of student pilots.

Although many of you do not like it you will have to wait for the AAIB report to see why it ended up as it did.

Monocock
22nd Sep 2009, 21:43
Certainly one's standards can be set a bit higher than that

If you are referring to the injuries and the extent of the a/c damage I can assure you that both are directly proportional to height at the point of engine "out".

There are a lot of people who assume that an EFATO occurs at a convenient 500 ft. What a lovely thought! Next time you take off, imagine killing both mags 12 seconds after your tyres leave the ground....

Paul_Sengupta
22nd Sep 2009, 21:43
Hi, please don't link this talk of EFATO to the accident. I don't think it was suggested this was an EFATO, just that it was one possibility in such circumstances and a whole discussion started. While I think a discussion on what to do in case of an engine failure is a useful thing to have, it isn't necessarily linked to this accident.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Hampshire | Air crash man 'meticulous pilot' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/8269138.stm)

Camberley man dies in light aircraft crash - News - getsurrey (http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2057591_camberley_man_dies_in_light_aircraft_crash)

Monocock
22nd Sep 2009, 21:49
Thanks Paul

Once again, speculation takes over...

bjornhall
22nd Sep 2009, 21:57
If you are referring to the injuries and the extent of the a/c damage

No, sorry about that, I just realized what I said could be misunderstood that way. What I had in mind was not the outcome in those cases in the two posts before mine, but the idea that you can neither train nor prepare for the successful handling of an EFATO.

In my view, you can, and should, do both.

I think 12 seconds after liftoff would be a rather less unpleasant moment to have an engine failure than at 500 ft... I know exactly where I'd go if that were to happen. "Imagine it"? I do that before each flight... Not because it is required, but because that is the way I enjoy to fly.

EFATO not related to this accident? No, probably not, I wouldn't know... But now that the identity of the aircraft and the occupants has been established there probably won't be any new info to discuss for a year or so, might as well pass the time! :)

Monocock
22nd Sep 2009, 22:05
bjornhall

Sorry I misunderstood your comment

One thing that intrigues me though is :

I think 12 seconds after liftoff would be a rather less unpleasant moment to have an engine failure than at 500 ft

It very much depends on where you fly from. If you fly from a strip where 12 seconds has put you way beyond the opposite threshold and over some factories you might wish you had the luxury of 500 feet!!!!!!

We don't all fly from runways! Some of us use strips.

At this point I would ike to refrain from posting on this thread as it is, once again, off topic.

dash6
22nd Sep 2009, 23:04
Bjornhall. You last comment was pretty dismissive,and surely did not warrant a "smiley". Had you forgotten the origin of this thread?

Intercepted
23rd Sep 2009, 00:18
All this talk of EFATO handling is pointless and appropriate only to an audience of student pilots.

I just read about two pilots who died because they turned back after an EFATO. Both were highly experienced commercial pilots with thousands of hours in their respective logbooks.

TheOptimist
23rd Sep 2009, 01:31
I've only made a few posts on this site, but have been lurking for a while. SOme of you need to grow up. You talk like little children.

1) If people want to express their condolences, in any form, then that is their perogative. Although only a PPL student I can understand the level of apparent 'comradery' in private flying, so if people want to simply leave a message leaving a respects then they should be able to without being bothered.

2) If people want to know the registration of the plane or the pilots then I see no problem with this. It is a small world, there must only be 1/2 degrees of seperation in most private flying in the UK. Baseless speculation is counter-productive and potentially damaging, but questionning the names of the pilots isn't disrespectful.

3) Speculation about the cause of the accident shouldn't be criticised. Discussing potential causes of accidents and their solutions has great benefits for students and qualified pilots alike. The debate around the correct course of action in an EFOTA for example has highlighted that some people do not know the correct cause of action. The previous posts contain information about ATPL holders with thousands of hours, who tried to turn back on take-off. It doesn't matter how many hours you have, you're still vulnerable to the most basic of mistakes. Discussion around the cause of accidents puts solutions and prevention to the forefront of your mind, which isn't a bad thing. Even if there was no EFOTA in this accident the information provided is very useful. Criticising the pilots for their actions is another thing completely and is usually completely unwarranted and unacceptable, however.

doubleu-anker
23rd Sep 2009, 05:24
After giving my 2 pence worth maybe I should try and clarify my rather vague comments.

What I was implying was, if you are faced with a EFATO and you find a lot of trees in front of you and they cant be avoided then dont try and avoid them. Go in under control. Don't try and "stall the aircraft in or on".

As for the turn back merchants. What were everyone of us taught from day one of EFATO training? DON'T TURN BACK! (over 40years ago in my case)Unless you are a pilot of exceptional caliber dont even think about it. "Aviation is a highly developed science, so don't pioneer." Remember you will need 1000' AGL abeam the threshold, at best glide a/s for the 180 deg turn in most light aircraft, to carryout a successful dead stick, after getting the aircraft into a landing configuration. (A "fast jet" you will probably need 7000' AGL min., if you haven't banged out, for whatever reason) As mentioned by a previous poster, a stationary propeller is a great source of drag and how many of us have practised that?

bjornhall
23rd Sep 2009, 06:12
It very much depends on where you fly from. If you fly from a strip where 12 seconds has put you way beyond the opposite threshold and over some factories you might wish you had the luxury of 500 feet!!!!!!

Yep! And where I most fly, it is the other way around; 12 seconds after takeoff I'm still headed for fields, whereas at 500 ft I'll have forrest ahead and factories to the sides... So, yes, it depends...

englishal
23rd Sep 2009, 08:18
All this talk of EFATO handling is pointless and appropriate only to an audience of student pilots.
The "Pprune most stupid comment of the day award goes to....":rolleyes:

Yes, it was a tragic accident and people's friends have died, but at least by reading the thread and focusing on the things that CAN go wrong then it may save someone elses bacon - perhaps someone who is not a skygod. Discussion about stuff like EFATO is completely revelant under the circumstances.

Desspot
23rd Sep 2009, 13:25
Well said Englishal.

I think the levels of pomposity on this thread have been astonishing.

A highly experienced commercial pilot and instructor at my airfield would always tell his students "As soon as you think you've nothing more to learn, you've become a dangerous pilot". He clearly wasn't talking about students or low hour PPLs there.

Virtually all saftey related discussion is valid after a terrible accident, even if it does not directly relate to the accident itself. I, for one, will be thinking about many of the points discussed on this thread the next time I roll. Even if EFATO had nothing to do with Sunday's unfortunate events.

Vino Collapso
23rd Sep 2009, 15:35
IMHO this is he wrong thread to be discussing EFATO on.

All the 'sage' advice on how to handle an EFATO has been covered in this forum many times before and nothing here is new advice for the readers.

...and before the cutting remarks start again I also think this is not the place for a hand bag fight.