C172 crash at Humberside yesterday afternoon [Archive]

Shunter

27th Sep 2009, 08:35

Why exactly does PPRuNe feel it necessary to censor blоgspot URLs?

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Piper Cherokee PA28 crashes on landing Humberside Airport (http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/news/Plane-crashes-Humberside-airport/article-1371462-detail/article.html)

THE pilot of a light aircraft had a lucky escape when his plane crashed on landing today.

The Piper aircraft was carrying only the pilot when it got into difficulties on landing at Humberside Airport at about 4.45pm.

Fire crews from Immingham’s East and West fire stations and from Hull attended.

The airport’s own fire crews also helped the pilot to safety.

He has not been identified, but an eyewitness said he was not seriously hurt.

The plane, a Piper Cherokee, was extensively damaged.

Air Accident Investigation officers from the Department of Transport are due to begin an investigation into the cause of the crash.

A Humberside Airport spokeswoman said: "Humberside Airport can confirm that investigations are currently underway into an incident that occurred at 4.45 today. The incident involved a Piper PA28 aircraft, based at Humberside Airport with one crew on board.

The airport’s Fire and Rescue Service were called to the scene as a precautionary measure."

She added: "The airport remains operational. Passengers are asked to check in as normal at this time."

An eyewitness, who did not wish to be named, said: "He was lucky. There were no major injuries, but the plane was badly damaged."

An East Midlands Ambulance spokesman confirmed a team of paramedics attended.
Source (http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/news/Plane-crashes-Humberside-airport/article-1371462-detail/article.html)

helimutt

27th Sep 2009, 08:36

Correct. this incident occurred yesterday at approx 5.00pm, No fire, 1, possibly 2 pob, didn't find out. Happened at rwy 26 threshold.

Was told it was a 172 although it was behind us so never saw it. Not a lot left of it afterwards though. :sad: Just glad the pilot was ok. Nothing much worse than having to go flying straight after having been held due to a crash!

Very interested in the cause of this crash for a number of reasons. :hmm:

toolowtoofast

27th Sep 2009, 09:52

The one linked in the Mail article is several years old.
Not the one mentioned by the original poster.

Thanks, I did wonder, although the Mail page was dated with yesterday's date. I've edited it out.

liam548

27th Sep 2009, 13:49

quote from an online news report,

"
I took my 2 and a half year old son to view the aircraft coming and going from Humberside Airport as we do on a regular basis, we were stood behind the boundry fence off runway 26. We seen the aircraft approach the runway over Croxton Road close behind a helicopter returning from the rigs. Everything appeared normal but at the last minute the aircaraft veered right of the runway and the pilot appeared to be putting the power back on and when the aircraft got to about 30 feet off the ground it roled to the right and nose dived straight into the ground and finishing on its roof. To my amazment the pilot immerged from the wreckage 3 or 4 minutes after he hit the ground and he appeared to be unhurt. The frustrating part was that I was approximatley 300 yards from the piolot but I had no idea if air traffic control or the emergency services were aware of the accident. Just as I was about to call 999 a small helicopter arrived at the scene of the accident and soon after that the airports fire crew were on there way. As far as my son is concerned it was just another day at the airport.
Steven Flaherty, Brigg "

helimutt

27th Sep 2009, 15:01

That person witnessed the crash so it would probably be a good idea to make himself known to the airport authorities. It'll help with the investigation. Hopefully his son won't grow up thinking that normally, helicopters land right way up and planes don't. :eek:

We were sitting re-fueling when atc asked if anyone had seen the a/c in question land. The R22 went over to have a quick look at the 26 threshold and reported an a/c down. Fire crews responded immediately.

NorthSouth

27th Sep 2009, 17:37

Helimutt:We were sitting re-fueling when atc asked if anyone had seen the a/c in question land. The R22 went over to have a quick look at the 26 threshold and reported an a/c down.That suggests that ATC can't see the 26 threshold. That can't be right.
NS

helimutt

27th Sep 2009, 17:52

Not sure if from the tower you can see the threshold of runway 02 either?? Maybe someone will be along to tell us soon.
I would also think that part of the fire training ground (mock up fire training aircraft etc) lies between the eye line of the tower and the a section of the very end of rwy 26.
I don't go to the tower often so wouldn't know for sure.

ScouseFlyer

27th Sep 2009, 18:46

Six years ago when I was training at Humberside if you were holding on the disused runway to the north of 26 the tower probably couldn't see you.Always struck me as a bit odd.

SF

safire

27th Sep 2009, 18:52

Hi, im the person that posted that message on the newspaper report, i have been trying to see if there is information regarding the pilots well being and ended up here. I took your advice to make myself available to authorities but I cant get through to anyone at Humberside Airport on the only number I can find and I even tried to contact Manchester Airport but the number there has been busy for the last hour and a half. If you have any information you could give me I will be happy to assist in anyway I can.

Sir George Cayley

27th Sep 2009, 18:59

You'd be better with the AAIB

www.aaib.gov.uk

Send them an email and I'm sure an inspector will call.

Sir George Cayley

safire

27th Sep 2009, 19:03

Ok, thanks for that, I'll look it up now.

Bahn-Jeaux

27th Sep 2009, 19:05

Glad the pilot is OK.
Know him and the aircraft.

I have always been extra cautious in any approach to 26, always seem to get some wind shear there. I was doing some solo circuit consolidation 3 years ago shortly after my first solo and got caught out. Pulled me over the grass just as I was about to flare. Recovered it but it gave me a lesson I have never forgotten.

Not saying or speculating thats what happened, it just reminded me of what I experienced.

pumuckl

27th Sep 2009, 19:59

Safire, I have sent you a PM.

niknak

27th Sep 2009, 20:07

That suggests that ATC can't see the 26 threshold. That can't be right.
NS

When I worked at Bumbleside you certainly could see the threshold of 26 (or 27 as it was) and there were CCTV cameras available for the specific purpose of viewing the 02 threshold.
Wind shear and turbulance on the final approach for 26 always has been a known problem, why it's never been published in the UKAIP is a mystery.

It could well be that the Fire Training ground equipment now partially precludes a direct view of the threshold, but I do find it rather odd that ATC didn't see the accident occur or at least the aircraft after it had come to grief.

helimutt

27th Sep 2009, 23:12

where the a'c ended up, and the condition it ended up in, you would have been hard pushed to see it from 100 metres away. the fire training equipment definitely hid it from the tower view.

englishal

28th Sep 2009, 07:08

I will speculate then...

close behind a helicopter returning from the rigs.

172driver

28th Sep 2009, 07:55

Funny you should mention it, the thought had crossed my mind too, especially with a thread about helo vortices running at the moment.......

Farmer 1

28th Sep 2009, 08:02

Not sure if from the tower you can see the threshold of runway 03 either??

I can assure you they definitely cannot.

There is no runway 03 at Humberside.

helimutt

28th Sep 2009, 08:40

That's so funny. A slight typo and the runway disappears. Could have meant 02.

pumuckl

28th Sep 2009, 15:04

When I worked at Bumbleside you certainly could see the threshold of 26 (or 27 as it was) ...

It could well be that the Fire Training ground equipment now partially precludes a direct view of the threshold, but I do find it rather odd that ATC didn't see the accident occur or at least the aircraft after it had come to grief.

Niknak, the fire training ground equipment now partially obscures the view of the threshold of rw26 from the tower. As helimutt said, the aircraft also did end up close to the fire training equipment which completely obscured it from the view from the tower. The ATCO reacted very quickly though when it didn't appear where it should on its landing roll, even though he was very busy at the time!

And just to clarify, there are CCTV cameras for the 02 and also 08 thresholds which are also difficult/impossible to see from the tower.

Oldpilot55

30th Sep 2009, 15:06

http://ukga.com/images/content/preview/image18164.JPG

Its looking a bit mangled!

markflyer6580

30th Sep 2009, 17:02

Thats a real shame,I did my first solo in that very aircraft!:(
Glad to see the Pilot got out.

Oldpilot55

30th Sep 2009, 17:18

He should be out of hospital tomorrow.

paint_the_sky_blue

30th Sep 2009, 17:51

Good news that he is out of hospital tomorow. Aircraft looks repairable so hopefully it will all end up well.

PSB

Pace

30th Sep 2009, 19:39

Firstly i am really pleased the pilot was not badly hurt in this accident but then I also ask why?? should such an accident happen? What a shame to see an aircraft wrecked like that! Is something lacking in the training?

Pace

Bahn-Jeaux

30th Sep 2009, 20:05

Is something lacking in the training?

The Pilot concerned is very experienced pace and flies regularly all over the country. Not a newly minted PPL nor a minimum hours flyer.

englishal

30th Sep 2009, 20:18

Is something lacking in the training
To be fair to him, I was once practicing instrument approaches while VFR - i.e. "no seperation service".....

I was vectored in behind an airbus on a nice still day, and was warned "caution wake turbulence". Yea yea I thought, then all of a sudden the aircraft started rolling right....I had full left aileron on and was still rolling right.....so I started putting in left boot on the rudder...and was still rolling right. Suddenly my mate in the RHS who was a 000'hr pilot clicked, grabbed control, wacked on full power and pulled up. As soon as we were out of the vortex, no problem.

It was wierd because it caught me totally by surprise. The airframe started shuddering and rolling very fast and I'm thinking to myself "what the heck is going on, has something broken...**** we're at 1500'....:eek:"....This all happened very quickly, and I certainly learned about flying from that and now have a very great respect for wake turbulence since. I was lucky, I was flying an ILS at 100ks. I hate to think what would have happened has I been at a final approach speed.

Pace

30th Sep 2009, 20:20

The Pilot concerned is very experienced pace and flies regularly all over the country. Not a newly minted PPL nor a minimum hours flyer.

Just expressing my feelings as why such an accident could happen in such a forgiving aircraft on a large runway in reasonable conditions.

If the pilot is experienced then that puts a bigger ? mark as on the face of things it appears to be a lack of speed control with a subsequent stall/wing drop any other possibilities which are excusable? Dont think ATC would allow him to land too soon behind a heavy or helo.
In that situation carrying extra speed would be the order of the day. Maybe catching up caused him to bring the speed right back and hey bingo.
Anyway a lesson? and glad he was OK.

Pace

Executive_Flyboy

30th Sep 2009, 20:32

The chopper had landed on 08 a few minutes earlier and had been cleared to direct taxi from the 08 threshold to the southern apron, ie: fly across the grass instead of down 02 and backtrack 20. It is thought that due to the light winds on the day, the choppers air doughnut was still present at the threshold when G-BRWO landed. The poor guy didn’t stand a chance. The pilot is not a newbie to flying at all so any suggestions that his inexperience or negligence is out of the question. He is a bit sore & tender in places but I’m sure you will join me in wishing him a speedy recovery.

Bahn-Jeaux

30th Sep 2009, 20:35

Pace, I have used that runway myself a few times and it is well known for unexpected wind shear and turbulence over the threshold.

Following a heavy in on that runway won't be in the equation as it is limited to light aircraft only, all the commercial boys using 20/02.
I saw mention of one of the Rig Choppers preceding his arrival but the only heli I am aware of that uses this smaller runway is the Robinson R22, I may be wrong on that score but when I have been given 26 for departure, I have often had to wait for the larger helis to vacate 20 before entering.

I know the pilot concerned and have flown as a passenger with him in his own aircraft, also a PA28 and not the one pictured. I dare say he might enlighten us in the near future but otherwise its wait and see what the AAIB come up with.

172driver

30th Sep 2009, 21:08

I've landed behind 'heavy' jet transports many times and it's no big deal, as long as you stay above its path and land beyond its touchdown point (i.e. stay above the wake).

However, have to admit that I wasn't aware of the damage a helo can do - learned something here :ok:

PS: best wishes to the pilot, looking fwd to reading his account

Pace

30th Sep 2009, 21:13

Best wishes to the pilot too. But reinforce there are lessons to be learnt from this from a pilot and ATC angle as it could have been far worse.

Pace

helimutt

1st Oct 2009, 14:22

We regularly use rwy 26 if the wind favours it, when we return from offshore.

Not just R22's but 365's and S76's.

MichaelJP59

1st Oct 2009, 15:41

I'm not familiar with helicopter ops - why do they use a runway at all and not have a helipad area away from the fixed wing approaches? Wouldn't that be safer for all concerned?

Or is it to do with instrument approaches using radio nav aids?

Bahn-Jeaux

1st Oct 2009, 16:55

Cheers Helimutt, I wasn't sure but will be aware now.

helimutt

1st Oct 2009, 17:37

If the Wx requires instrument approaches then we use the ILS on rwy 20, or non precision on either 02 or 20. There are no instrument appproaches to 26. Can't be used at night either.

We use runways because of the class of approach we do and for safety reasons. better to land on a runway than a field when you have wheels! If we had great performance and unlimited power margins, then yes, helipads would be great. We do have one published approach/departure which takes us direct from Charlie taxiway to the east, or vice-versa. A lot of the guys don't like using it though and we can only do it with the wind in the right direction and no passengers.

It's all to do with public transport ops.

Pace

1st Oct 2009, 17:54

Helimutt

Then we come to the point of the ATC part in all this. We know that ATC give seperation for take off and landings behind heavy aircraft which they suspect may cause wake turbulence problems. The same duty of care should lie with ATC mixing light aircraft and helicopters? surely?

The only other point is keeping speed high in light aircraft and being aware of a possible unexpected shear around Helicopters . I do not understand the fear in carrying 10 to 15kts extra speed in a single aircraft and knocking it off when assured of landing. Speed is your saviour. Yet many pilots seem to fly their 70kts regardless of winds turbulence or other aircraft and dont have enough in hand if it all goes pear shaped.

Pace

helimutt

1st Oct 2009, 20:02

Each to their own. As was posted above somewhere, an S76 is considered a light aircraft and so some people think no spacing required. ??:ugh:

goatface

1st Oct 2009, 20:46

Then we come to the point of the ATC part in all this. We know that ATC give seperation for take off and landings behind heavy aircraft which they suspect may cause wake turbulence problems. The same duty of care should lie with ATC mixing light aircraft and helicopters? surely?

No it doesn't.

If you are number two to an aircraft (be it helicopter or fixed wing) on final approach, you will always be given the recommended wake turbulance minima and it is the pilots responsibility to ensure that they apply it.

If you are being vectored for an IFR approach the IFR minima is always greater than the wake turbulance minima between aircraft.

The only time it is mandatory for ATC to apply wake turbulance separation within the aerodrome environment is on departure, even then, a wait 2 or 3 minutes seems too much for some pilots, you'd be suprised how many push to go early.