Manchester crash reported BBC

[PAXboy]

Just a single headline at 13:12

BREAKING NEWS:

Light aircraft strikes two properties in Greater Manchester - two people reported injured

[airpolice]

A plane has crashed into two houses in Greater Manchester, police have said.


Officers were called to Newlands Avenue, Peel Green, Salford, at about 12:20 BST following reports a plane had collided with several properties.
When they arrived at the houses, near Barton Aerodrome in Irlam, they discovered a light aircraft had come down and hit two properties.


It is understood two passengers who were in the aircraft are being treated for serious burns.
A cordon is in place.


The A57 Liverpool Road is closed after junction 11 of the M60.

[ShyTorque]

This is less than 2 nm from Barton Airfield.

[phnuff]

Breaking: Light aircraft crashes into two houses close to Barton airfield | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1454122_breaking-light-aircraft-crashes-into-two-houses-close-to-barton-airfield)


A light aircraft has crashed into two houses close to Barton Airfield in Peel Green, Salford.

Early reports suggest that two people were onboard the plane and both suffered burns. One of them is seriously injured.

The light aircraft came down at about 12.20pm on Newlands Avenue which is just 300 metres from the edge of the airfield.

It is not known if the plane had just taken off or was heading in to land at the airfield.

Emergency services are currently at the scene and the road has been cordoned off.

Early reports suggest that two people were onboard the plane and both suffered burns. One of them is seriously injured.

There are no reports of any casualties in the houses.

Eyewitness Luke Taylor, 16, was in the living room of his house on nearby Southlands Avenue with mum Jayne and sister Jodie when they heard 'a massive bang'.

Luke said: "It was huge. We knew what it was with the airport being so close. It looks like it's gone up and come down again. The houses are in a mess - the top half has been demolished.

"They have taken people out of the houses and they look to be alright. Apparently the people who were on the plane are still there.

"The police and ambulances were there within a few minutes. There's a helicopter trying to land on the street. It doesn't look like anybody has been taken away yet."

The A57 is closed in both directions and diversions are in place.

A spokesman for GMP said: "Just after 12.20pm on 29 July, police were called to Newlands Avenue following reports a plane had come down onto houses.

"Officers attended and discovered a light aircraft had come down and collided with two properties.

"A cordon is in place and the other emergency services are also working at the scene.

"It is not known what injuries people have suffered at this stage."

[srobarts]

There are two Newlands Avenue in Salford one M30 one M44 post code areas. Given that the A57 is closed between Junc 11 on the M60 motorway and the junction with Crossfield Road i believe the M30 post code are Newlands Avenue is the site of the crash - which is as per the MEN site about 300yds from Barton Airfield.


ps I see Sky have the wrong one on their site

[Nick-viation]

Apparently the aircraft was a Piper Tomahawk...

[Odai]

I just got back from Barton.

I was finishing off an RT written test, when the aircraft crashed. An instructor came in and told us one of the local aircraft, a Tomahawk, had gone down in smoke near the runway. One of the 09 runways was in use.

We came out of the office, and you could see smoke coming up from the residential area east of the field. The smell was awful (wind blowing it towards us).

Definitely not a sight I'll be forgetting in a hurry...

The aircraft had suffered an engine failure after take off. Apparently, it was only a few hundred feet AGL when it attempted a left turn, probably stalling as a result.

It was chaos with the roads in the area, everything was cordoned off. As I use public transport, it was a nightmare getting home.

[WILCO.XMG]

Holy Moly.

Hope the two crew will be ok. BBC reports burns in the regions of 60-70 Percent.

[Juno78]

Sounds like the pilot attempted to land in the street after looking at the road. looks wide and long

Stricken plane crashes into Salford housing estate > Local News > News | Click Manchester (http://www.click-manchester.com/news/local-news/1213859-stricken-plane-crashes-into-salford-housing-estate.html)

Love how an anonymous remark on a forum turns into "A pilot who crashed into two houses may have been trying to land the stricken plane on a road after a catostrophic engine failure, experts say."

[Odai]

One expert on a respected professional pilot's website wrote: "Sounds like the pilot attempted to land in the street after looking at the road. Looks wide and long."

*sigh*

The media can be a bunch of morons.

[Pilot RatBoy]

I used to fly the Ravenair PA38's out of Barton about 5 years ago, hope the guys are ok! Having an engine failure off 09 is a night mare scenario as there are very few options for a forced landing. Anyone know what the reg was?

[Lost in Cloud]

Looks like a Ravenair a/c. Lets hope they are both ok!

[RTN11]

Pilot and passenger injured as light aircraft crashes into houses close to Barton airfield | Salford Advertiser - menmedia.co.uk (http://menmedia.co.uk/salfordadvertiser/news/s/1454122_pilot-and-passenger-injured-as-light-aircraft-crashes-into-houses-close-to-barton-airfield)

The M.E.N. understands that the plane was a single-engine, double-cockpit model about 15ft in length

Oh yeah, those double cockpit tomahawks. I wish I could get that modification on mine to stop me having to share the space with some of my students.

[funfly]

From the BBC website
"The BBC understands that the plane, being operated by Raven Air, was already on fire as it was taking off."

[mad_jock]

Well reading from the article if its 70% and 60% burns is true they are far from OK.

If they do recover its a long hard road to get thier quality of life back.

[RTN11]

Some very conflicting reports on whether the aircraft was on fire before it went down, or if the fire was a result of the impact.

Hopefully the Air Ambulance got them to care quick enough to save them, 60-70% burns will be a long and difficult recovery.

[WALSue]

I know a couple of Ravenair instructors at Barton.
Sad news indeed.

[Odai]

Ravenair - Aircraft Management, North West England, Liverpool Airport, City Airport Manchester (Barton Aerodrome) (http://www.ravenair.co.uk/news/index.html)


AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT STATEMENT

Posted on: 29th July 2011

Ravenair regrets to announce that an aircraft belonging to Ravenair training fleet was involved in an accident earlier today. (Friday 29th July 2011)

The aircraft involved is a Piper PA38 Tomahawk operating from City Airport (Barton Aerodrome).

The aircraft was a Solo Hire Flight with two occupants onboard, who have been taken to hospital.

The accident happened at 12:19pm (local), close to the airport boundary.

At this stage we do not have any further information but we will release another statement when more information is known.

Update

The two occupants of the aircraft were airlifted by the Air ambulance to Wythenshawe Hospital. We currently do not have any further information regarding their condition.

Our primary concern is for the welfare of the two persons onboard the aircraft and their family and friends. Also for the people affected on the ground by this accident.

We wish to express our gratitude and thanks to all of the emergency services and general public who assisted in the initial moments of the accident.

Further updates will follow when information becomes available.

IIRC, the aircraft involved was G-RVRM.

[Pilot RatBoy]

Taken from Ravenair's website

STATEMENT FROM RAVENAIR

Posted on: 29th July 2011

Ravenair regrets that an aircraft belonging to its training fleet was involved in an accident today (July 29) when operating from City Airport (Barton Aerodrome).

The PA-38 Tomahawk aircraft was being operated as a solo hire and there were two occupants on board. Both were taken to hospital by air ambulance.

Ravenair director Wayne Barrett said:

"Our primary concern is for the two people who were on board the aircraft, their family and friends, and those affected on the ground.

"We wish to express our gratitude and thanks to all of the emergency services as well as the general public who helped in the initial moments after the accident.

"At this stage it would be inappropriate to speculate about the cause of the accident."


Looks like there were no instructors on board so very unlikely that a student was flying. Media jumping to conclusions just because a 21-year old was on-board....NEHVER :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[cjd_a320]

Thoughts are with the pilots...

Its always close to home when its an aircraft in your the log book...

[WILCO.XMG]

I sincerely hope Ravenair woulnt be careless enough to let a cert of airworthiness lapse.

Let alone then let someone hire it out.

[gg190]

Does it matter this is out of date?
CofA / Permit EASA Certificate of Airworthiness Validity Expiry: 28/07/2011

I've noticed that G-INFO isn't updated very quickly, it usually takes about a month, so I wouldn't read too much into this.

Thoughts with the pilots, hope they both make a full recovery. It always seems a bit closer to home when it's an aircraft you've flown in the past.

[gingernut]

09 at Barton leaves few options.

Wythenshawe are relatively new with burns, but have a good reputation.

Hope that they are doing ok.:)

[Deadside]

You have completly the wrong aircraft. It is not the one that is shown in Media Photos So please do not speculate and give the 'press' who read these articles new ideas. Thankyou.

[The Old Fat One]

Deadside

Well said...

Although let them print duff defamatory ill-informed rubbish....would be nice to see them get another kicking in the courts.

[Sir George Cayley]

Ginge,

I had a GF who was a nurse at Wythy burns unit. In 1982 !

SGC

[gingernut]

Could 've bin me mum Sir George. Have you got ginger hair.

[jxc]

How is sir Cayly going to take that one ? maybe you can get some backdated child maintenance

[Cumulogranite]

This is not the first time, and sadly probably not the last time, that I find myself commenting on ill informed press specualtion, so to help out any reporters hovering here trying to get a new "angle" on this story let me make it simple for you....
The pilot did not have to wrestle bravely with the controls
He did not narrowly avoid an orphanage/school/hospital etc
Light aircraft are NOT dangerous
As private pilots we are not trained in how to land on a rooftop for obvoius reasons !

For any you left please repect the fact that 2 guys are in hospital in a very serious state indeed, as the flying community our thoughts and prayers are with them and thier families at this time, and we wish them a speedy recovery. Please do not speculate about these things, let the proper investigation take place and comment on that, in the mean time leave those guys in particular, and general avaition (that is what little planes are called) alone!!!

Thank You

[Lima Juliet]

ONE thing we can speculate on is...why the hell hasn't the airfield been SAFEGUARDED? I'm reasonably sure that these houses, less than 1000ft from the runway, were not there whenn Barton was first opened.

If I am correct, and the poor occupants do not pull through, then those in the planning department should be culpable. Time and again I see planning permission granted for housing developments close to arfields - this is why SAFEGUARDING was invented; for the safety of all.

Drunken rant over...

LJ

[Gertrude the Wombat]

then those in the planning department should be culpable
I suspect it's not any of their business. A planning application must be granted unless there is a good reason in planning law to refuse, and a planning officer saying "well, I don't really know anything about aeroplanes, but isn't that a bit close to an airport?" is not, I'm afraid, going to survive appeal or judicial review.

Any "safeguarding" process (yes, I've seen some such maps, but only in relation to CAT, not SEP GA) must surely be the responsibility of aviation professionals, not town planners?

[Lima Juliet]

The CAA transferred safeguarding responsibilities to aerodromes in 2003. Revised legislation for England and Wales and for Scotland came into effect on 10 Feb 03 resulting in all licensed aerodromes now having to safeguard themselves. Furthermore, it is the advice of HM Government within that legislation that all aerodromes, licensed and unlicensed, should be safeguarded. Note that Northern Ireland has separate legislation

For those that are uncertain of the meaning of safeguarding or how it could affect them, we offer the following short definition. It is the control of land use in order to protect the airspace over and around an aerodrome against developments that could adversely affect safe operations. A fuller explanation can be found in the appropriate legislation.

Planning departments have paid lip service to this for way too long, in my opinion. I would love to see this accident act as precedent to a toughening of safeguarding legislation - after all there is plenty of other space left in the UK to build on. Building near airports is easy for developers as normally it is only the airfield that objects!

LJ

[Treadstone1]

Just been informed that one of the pilots has died. The airfield is closed for the day.

R.I.P

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Planning departments have paid lip service to this for way too long, in my opinion.
But the text you quote say that it was the CAA's job and they've devolved it to airfields, so not the planning department. This makes sense, as only an aviation professional can have a clue what's needed.

I am however checking with my head of planning (I'm the portfolio holder) re our local airport.

[Exascot]

Manchester plane crash pilot has died > National News > News | Click Manchester (http://www.click-manchester.com/news/national-news/1213871-manchester-plane-crash-pilot-has-died.html)

[sunday driver]

Dreadful news .... really strikes home

So the airfield/port is responsible for safeguarding.
Here's how I interpret this ...

The airfield has the job of doing it
The airfield is responsible if it's not done effectively

So, in a practical world,

What power does the airfield have to implement its safeguarding plans?
How does this compare with the power of an individual to appeal against the airfield's safeguarding plans?
What responsibility does the local authority planning department have to support the airfield's safeguarding plans?

I suspect everyone above will give the same answer - "er ... never thought of that one ..."
In the event of an accident where safeguarding is an issue, does the airfield carry the can despite having their hands tied behind their back?

SD

[mad_jock]

Talk about safe guarding around established airfields who already have housing around them is going to be a spectacular own goal to GA airfields.

Realisatically to get the safe guarding back would mean the removal of several hundreds of millions worth of housing stock which there isn't enough of anyway.

It doesn't matter that the airfield was there first if the point is argued and the nimbys get hold of it that its unsafe having singles operating with out safe guarding you will be stuffed. The airfields will be deemed pref A airfields only and that will mean they will be shut for GA users. And then quite quickly afterwards be shut as uneconomic.

[IO540]

What does a "single" have to do with this?

The stats suggest that most twin piston pilots are flying hardware with poor SE performance and are nowhere near current enough to implement the required very critical procedure with the required haste, and will still crash if they get a total engine stoppage on takeoff.

Thankfully this kind of accident is extremely rare. If it were otherwise, perhaps 50% of GA airfields in Europe would close immediately, with Gertrude's one being one of the first.

[mad_jock]

Exactly which is why I said Perf A ie known performance on a EFTO.

And that the issue that most GA airports arn't safeguarded, if there is a fuss kicked up about this fact there is only going to be one outcome and it isn't that houses will be demolished

[goldeneaglepilot]

Quote from Manchester news paper:
It is thought the pilot may have been attempting to land his aircraft on the road when it collided with the two homes which belong to a mother and daughter.

One expert on a respected professional pilot's website wrote: "Sounds like the pilot attempted to land in the street after looking at the road. Looks wide and long."

Neighbour Vivian Fletcher, 72, lives in Newlands Avenue described her shock after hearing a bang as the plane came down.

She said: "I had just returned from the shops and was putting my shopping away when I heard a big bang.

"The plane came down on two houses, a woman lives in one of them and her daughter lived next door.

"I ran out when I heard the noise, there was black smoke everywhere, before we knew it the street was swarming with police and fire and rescue officers. Everyone is still in a state of shock I think.


The quote is from the post of stewmath, post #3 on this thread,

Manchester light plane crash update > National News > News | Click Manchester (http://www.click-manchester.com/news/national-news/1213866-manchester-light-plane-crash-update.html)

[subsonicsubic]

As a GA pilot YOU are responsible for all aspects of safe flight. If the airfield location is in your mind "unsafe" you go fly somewhere else. Lets not blame anyone for this accident. GA carries risks and the PIC is the person responsible for mangaing these risks. Full stop.

[JimA_UK]

I and many other pilots based at Barton have taken this incident very hard, it is just so sad. Whilst we await the AAIB investigation results it is of no consolation to the family of the pilot who has died or for the young guy who is still on the critical list.

I was at Barton yesterday talking to a number of pilots who are based there and to some of the staff who help to run the airport, together with a few instructors. All of us agreed that taking off from runways 09R or 09L presents an almost impossible situation if one encounters engine problems on take-off. I understand that the media have been positive pests in approaching various personnel at Ravenair and Barton. They have been desperate to get hold of the names of the two people involved so that they can probably pester their family's.

The airport was certainly there before the houses, in fact long before. It does appear to be stupid to build houses so close to an airport. I see that the airport is closed today and that a crane is operating 650m from the airport - I pressume this is related to recovering wreckage, but gives a clear idea of just how far the aircraft had travelled before the crash.

Whatever the AAIB results show, there will be questions raised as to how safety can be improved. Taking off from runways 27R or 27L creates far less of a problem should one encounter an engine failure on take-off as there is very little by way of property to avoid. There are some electricity pylons at 273 ft across the flight path but one can probably avoid these.

Those familiar with Barton know that all runways are grass, bumpy and not that long. This means that a decision to abort a take-off can be a dilema. (I do not generally take passengers out of Barton preferring to use another aircraft at John Lennon Airport Liverpool.) Many pilots have been pressing for improvements to the runways for several years and asked for at least one tarmac runway. The airport is operated by Peel Holdings and hopefully they will now come forward with some positive solutions.

Ironically Ravenair Flight Training School at Barton was to close last Friday and relocate to Liverpool. Their remaining Tomahawk was transferred to Liverpool yesterday.

[subsonicsubic]

Jim.

Firstly thanks for the factual information. I also fly from a compromised strip ( HT lines, housing etc) and I sympathise with the pilots involved. If im flying family / friends, I won't use the dangerous departure. Solo or light...for sure I will.

I'm sure both pilots knew the risks inherent and I am sorry that on this occasion they were unlucky.

Im convinced that GA is as safe as you want it to be and I'm sure both pilots were aware of the risks involved regarding this particular departure.

RIP fellow aviator and get well soon to the surviving pilot.

Best,

SSS

[Heliport]

goldeneaglepilot

Good example of why we should type posts with caution

Yes indeed, it certainly is.

The "expert on a respected professional pilot's website" isn't a pilot but hopes to get a PPL one day.


H.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I learned to fly at Barton in 1978, flew a based Chipmunk and many other types from then until a few years ago when the group moved to John Lennon, and have probably made hundreds of take offs from 09, later 09s north and south, still later 09s left and right.

About 10 years ago I got a partial engine failure on take off from 09L. But I was luckier than the guys on Friday; the engine kept going but at much reduced power and we made it back in. Had it stopped, or developed even a tad less power than it did, we'd have had absolutely nowhere to go.

Have the pilots been named yet? I've a horrible dread that the older one may have been someone I knew.

[Deadside]

Vince, The pilot has now been named..

BBC News - Tributes to Salford death crash pilot Ian Daglish (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14357758)

Sad day indeed.. :(

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I am deeply shocked - my worst fears confirmed.

[Sir George Cayley]

Safeguarding is a red herring. It is divided into two distinct parts; officially safeguarded aerodromes and those that have tacit arrangements with the Local Authority Planners.

If you study the official list, it comprises mainly of previously government owned civil airports. It's quite a short list and so the majority of current licensed aerodromes aren't officially safeguarded. Add to this that safeguarding came in around the time of the second world war then the 'tween war semis of Peel Green fall out side this arrangement.

The flats, maisonettes and bungalows right on the 27 threshold step down only because the aeroclub made representations in the 60s about approaches and takeoffs.

I think the 'we were here first' argument will be self defeating. Better the 100s of thousands of safe takeoffs and landings over more than 50 years.

Sir George Cayley

[Kerling-Approsh KG]

Regardless of which was there first (the airport or the housing), general aviation is, generally speaking, regulated more to protect non-participants than participants. Rule 5 provides for this, but repeatedly (Barton, Biggin Hill, Southampton, most recently) does not work because pilots do not comply with it. The Authority doesn't prosecute, though, so that bit of the Rule is derelict and needs attention, either by way of prosecutions to make people comply, or by an acceptance that an aircraft which has suffered a power failure has some sort of 'right' to come to earth on someone's home...

I don't fly single-engined aircraft any more, but respect the opinion of a close friend who refuses to operate an SEP aircraft into or out of a number of aerodromes, including Barton, which he views as simply unsafe and, in respect of Rule 5, impossible to operate to or from lawfully.

[Robin400]

What goes up must come down. Lockerbie, London Heathrow and the Hudson River involved multi engine aircraft.

[Kerling-Approsh KG]

Robin, Lockerbie was terrorism for heaven's sake! Heathrow was non fatal on an airport and extremely rare compared to engine failures in SEPs and the Hudson would just as easily have brought down a single or four-holer...

Dialogue by all means, but idiocy, no.

[IO540]

Nevertheless it is true that the last non aviation related ground fatality from a plane coming down is believed to be Lockerbie.

[Whopity]

in respect of Rule 5, impossible to operate to or from lawfullyHow do you work that one out?Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions
6 The exemptions from the low flying prohibitions are as follows:
(a) Landing and taking off
(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the low flying prohibitions in so far as it is
flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of:
(aa) taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at; or
(bb) checking navigational aids or procedures at,
a Government or licensed aerodrome.
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and takingof
in accordance with normal aviation practice or air-taxiing.

[mur007]

Nevertheless it is true that the last non aviation related ground fatality from a plane coming down is believed to be Lockerbie. There was this in New York in 2001:

American Airlines Flight 587 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587)

[Deeday]

I think IO540 meant in the UK.

There was also that man struck and killed by a SEP attempting a forced landing on a beach in the US a couple of years ago IIRC, and of course the several Antonov that that have come down on crowded African townships in recent years.

[Pudnucker]

There are some truly shocking posts on this thread. At best some are misinformed/dillusional at worst totally inappropriate. It worries me that I may have to share the sky with some of you - frankly it scares the cr@p out of me... My thoughts go to the survivor's recovery and comfort for the pilots wife, children and friends.. P

One last point.. How often do you "experts" practice efato and pfl's? In my experience the vast majority don't do it enough.. Next time it may be YOUR donker that goes quiet - not someone else's...

Ive had a major engine problem on climb out and got back in.. A truly frightening experience..

[150commuter]

The truth is that, though light aircraft do pose a risk to those of us who fly them as the death of Mr Dalglish very sadly illustrates, they pose almost no risk at all to people on the ground and I can't remember a single case in the UK when someone on the ground not at an airfield was killed by a light aircraft.

By contrast cars, buses and trucks kill pedestrians in their hundreds every year. Unfortunately, the public perceive the virtually non-existent risk from light aircraft as far more serious than the all too real risk from road transport hence the the news coverage of the Barton accident banging on about what a " miracle" it was that nobody on the ground was hurt while almost ignoring the fact that the two people aboard the aircraft were at that time both in a critical state from which one of them has since succumbed.

This seems to be unique to the reporting of light aircraft accidents. I've never seen a report on a road traffic accident that said that someone was killed when their car left the road but miraculously no pedestrians were hurt so it seems that we are considered to be engaged in a rather dodgy activity that the public needs to be protected from. What we probably need are spokespeople who can make this point whenever a light aircraft accident "miraculously" misses every school, playground, hospital and care home within a three mile radius. Something that AOPA or the LAA should be considering perhaps?

[camlobe]

My deepest sympahty to Mr Dalglish's family and my sincerest thoughts with the young passengar and his family.

May I humbly suggest starting a seperate thread for finger-pointing.

camlobe

[742-xx]

Better the 100s of thousands of safe takeoffs and landings over more than 50 years.


Exactly.

This has been a tragic accident, but an accident nonetheless.

I've said it before, but I was always told that if the engine fails off 09 put it in the ship canal. A terrifying prospect, but an option.

[IO540]

BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14357758) now saying the aircraft was on fire when airborne.

The plane was on fire as it took off from Barton Aerodrome, the BBC understands.

If true (and we all know about the "quality" of journos in the "must have a headline today" department) this is very worrying particularly in light of the latest regs from the cynical money grabbing Euro gravy train known as EASA (the "S" stands of "screw") which makes it difficult on a European registered (e.g. G-reg) aircraft to replace originally specified rubber hoses with like-for-like modern teflon replacements.

On an N-reg you can fit teflon hoses and most N-reg owners have done that. A Piper will be all-American and won't have any expensive ISO (metric) fittings which cause hoses to cost a few hundred quid. Most American-pattern Teflon fuel hoses, fireproof and tested to 1500psi) are about £70 and they have no degradation mechanism (in this application), have no inherent life limit, and on some aircraft types (e.g. my TB20) they are not life limited even in situ.

It will be interesting what comes out of this sad and pointless accident...

[Fred Flange]

One last point.. How often do you "experts" practice EFATO (Engine Failure After Take-Off) and pfl's? In my experience the vast majority don't do it enough.. Next time it may be YOUR donker that goes quiet - not someone else's...

A very important part of remaining current, unfortunately the airfield operator prohibits such practice on some runways.....

2.33.3 Practice Engine Failures on climbout from Runway 09L, 09R and 14 are not
permitted.
http://www.cityairportltd.com/downloads/pilothandbook.pdf

[Sillert,V.I.]

... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14357758)very worrying particularly in light of the latest regs from the cynical money grabbing Euro gravy train known as EASA (the "S" stands of "screw") which makes it difficult on a European registered (e.g. G-reg) aircraft to replace originally specified rubber hoses with like-for-like modern teflon replacements.

On an N-reg you can fit teflon hoses and most N-reg owners have done that. A Piper will be all-American and won't have any expensive ISO (metric) fittings which cause hoses to cost a few hundred quid. Most American-pattern Teflon fuel hoses, fireproof and tested to 1500psi) are about £70 and they have no degradation mechanism (in this application), have no inherent life limit, and on some aircraft types (e.g. my TB20) they are not life limited even in situ.
t...

Couldn't agree more. Another triumph of bureaucracy over safety.

IIRC though some of the Ravenair PA-38's are close to their wing life limit and I can't imagine the owners would want to spend more than was absolutely necessary to maintain them at this point in their life cycle. I'm not suggesting anyone's been cutting corners, but the incentive to invest in such upgrades on an aircraft that's close to the end of its structural life simply isn't going to be as great as it would otherwise be.

[MichaelJP59]

By contrast cars, buses and trucks kill pedestrians in their hundreds every year. Unfortunately, the public perceive the virtually non-existent risk from light aircraft as far more serious than the all too real risk from road transport hence the the news coverage of the Barton accident banging on about what a " miracle" it was that nobody on the ground was hurt while almost ignoring the fact that the two people aboard the aircraft were at that time both in a critical state from which one of them has since succumbed.

This seems to be unique to the reporting of light aircraft accidents. I've never seen a report on a road traffic accident that said that someone was killed when their car left the road but miraculously no pedestrians were hurt so it seems that we are considered to be engaged in a rather dodgy activity that the public needs to be protected from. What we probably need are spokespeople who can make this point whenever a light aircraft accident "miraculously" misses every school, playground, hospital and care home within a three mile radius. Something that AOPA or the LAA should be considering perhaps?

I think damage to houses generally is always newsworthy for some reason, especially local news - if a lorry, an aircraft, a flood or even a tornado damages a house, you always get an item showing the images. I think there's something deep down that terrifies people about the chance of being killed while being at home as against when they are out and about.

[stewmath]

oh dear cant believe my post was quoted in the news. Yes im no expert, i was mearly mentioning what i thought when i saw the first images on that day.

To me it just appeared the pilot was attempted to find somewhere safe to land due to maybe aircraft failure, but at the time there was not alot of info on the disaster.

[Pilot DAR]

A sad event, I feel for the pilots. A crash is bad, burns are so much worse...

Stewmath,

Your being quoted would seem to be the action of over zealous, wreckless reporting. Perhaps in the context of "news" publications in England turning over a new leaf after phone tapping scandals, you should contact the offending publication, and ask for a retraction of your quote, citing the error they have made. I'm not suggesting this to put you on the spot, but rather to have that publication put on the spot. You were quoted, you're entitled to do that.

To have a news publication quote a "rumour network", without independently checking the authenticity of the information being reported, is totally irresponsible! If editors can loose jobs over phone tapping, should they not loose jobs for allowing un checked quotes from a rumour network on the internet?

[jez d]

Rule 5 provides for this, but repeatedly (Barton, Biggin Hill, Southampton, most recently) does not work because pilots do not comply with it. The Authority doesn't prosecute, though, so that bit of the Rule is derelict and needs attention, either by way of prosecutions to make people comply, or by an acceptance that an aircraft which has suffered a power failure has some sort of 'right' to come to earth on someone's home...

See: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/AnnualProsecutionResults2010-2011.pdf

[MarkR1981]

It was my understanding that pilots were essentially exempt from rule 5 (ie 500ft) when on climb out and approach as long as any published approach information and guidance is being followed. Nobody wants to come down on anyone's house and despite the best intentions of the pilot it is not always possible to comply with this rule in reality.

[Kerling-Approsh KG]

Whopity,

It depends upon your interpretation of when a takeoff ends and a landing begins... This would be down to the court.

Jez, I'm not aware that the CAA has prosecuted in case of takeoff and landing without ability to alight clear...

...and why would you need Teflon hoses if you are going to touch down gently in a suitable field..?

[Check Mags On]

Regardless of which was there first (the airport or the housing), general aviation is, generally speaking, regulated more to protect non-participants than participants. Rule 5 provides for this, but repeatedly (Barton, Biggin Hill, Southampton, most recently) does not work because pilots do not comply with it. The Authority doesn't prosecute, though, so that bit of the Rule is derelict and needs attention, either by way of prosecutions to make people comply, or by an acceptance that an aircraft which has suffered a power failure has some sort of 'right' to come to earth on someone's home...

I don't fly single-engined aircraft any more, but respect the opinion of a close friend who refuses to operate an SEP aircraft into or out of a number of aerodromes, including Barton, which he views as simply unsafe and, in respect of Rule 5, impossible to operate to or from lawfully.

Your post implies that pilots at Barton are not complying with Rule 5.
You are exempt from Rule 5 during take off and landing.
I would always instruct students to turn into the circuit at a safe height, not to high that you are over Eccles, and not to low that you compromise safety.

Barton in itself is not unsafe, what is unsafe is pilots, visiting or based, ignorance of its' surroundings and short runways.
As for Barton being in breach of Rule 5, no more so than at it's big sister down the road.
As you approach 23R at Manchester you pass within within 500ft of some houses. Is this a breach of Rule 5 or am I landing?

As for practice Efato's at Barton, they have never been allowed off 09/14.
For very obvious reasons. But you used to see a string of Fanstops on a summers evening from 27.

On a final note, I did not know Mr Dalglish other than in passing, but my thoughts go out to you your family and the other gentleman still in hospital.

[HowlingMad Murdock]

Sincere condolences to Mr Dalglish's family - my thoughts are also with the other passenger and his family.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

'Other' passenger?

Anyone know how the passenger is? I heard on the grapevine that his burns were not as bad as the 60% reported, so hopefully he'll recover.

[Exascot]

oh dear cant believe my post was quoted in the news.


Don't worry about it Stewmath. But one has to be aware of the fact that the press are all over this forum like a 'nasty rash'. I have had two serious incidents in the past and the reporting was so inacurate that it was a farce. I have flown the press many times on long overseas tours and they are generally great guys. And, golly can they drink :ok:

[Flying Lawyer]

Pilot DAR Stewmath,
Your being quoted would seem to be the action of over zealous, wreckless reporting. Perhaps in the context of "news" publications in England turning over a new leaf after phone tapping scandals, you should contact the offending publication, and ask for a retraction of your quote, citing the error they have made. I'm not suggesting this to put you on the spot, but rather to have that publication put on the spot. You were quoted, you're entitled to do that.

To have a news publication quote a "rumour network", without independently checking the authenticity of the information being reported, is totally irresponsible! If editors can loose jobs over phone tapping, should they not loose jobs for allowing un checked quotes from a rumour network on the internet?

I take a completely different view.

The press have a responsibility to quote accurately - which they did.
They reported that the comment was made on this site - which it was.
They referred to this site as "a respected professional pilots website" - which it is.
The error they made was assuming that Stewmath is an "expert" - which he is most certainly not. In other threads in various forums, he has said he'd love to get a PPL one day, but that's a long way off because of the cost involved so he's looking into the possibility of gliding.

It was Stewmath who chose to post that comment on a public aviation website despite the fact that he has no aviation expertise whatsoever. Some might regard that as "over zealous, reckless" and perhaps even "totally irresponsible!" Others might just regard it as a silly thing to do.

Stewmath
I agree with Exascot. One has to be aware of the fact that the press monitor PPRuNe - because it is the leading aviation website. It's happened in other forums. Posters who've never flown an airliner in their lives, or no aircraft of any sort, sometimes see fit to post their opinions in R&N, PPRuNe's 'flagship forum. Unfortunately, such comments are occasionally quoted in the press.

Lesson hopefully learnt. ;)
On reflection, you may think that, at your stage, it would be wiser to read, learn and ask questions rather than post opinions.


FL

[ak7274]

Respected Professional website is a bit strong. If it does what it says on the tin it's a "rumour" network. The forum a lot of "professional pilots" are using is in fact Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA as was Stewmath when he made his remark.

I would suggest that any Journo quoting this site is wrong to state professional.

The Press monitor places such as this because they are lazy plagarists and although Stewmath may have jumped the gun a bit I would hope he continues to contribute as opposed to being driven away by his "betters"

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Safeguarding is ... divided into two distinct parts; officially safeguarded aerodromes and those that have tacit arrangements with the Local Authority Planners.
Not exactly. From my planning policy officers:

Policy 8/13 Cambridge Airport Public Safety Zone within the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 refers to the Public Safety Zone shown on the Proposals Map as a cone (with a corresponding cone in South Cambridgeshire). In addition, there are also safeguarding zones which restrict the height of new buildings in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. These safeguarding zones are mentioned in paragraph 8.33 of the supporting text to the policy. These height restrictions will be taken into account in any planning decisions.


The mapping information held by the City Council on the safeguarding zones was provided to us by Marshall on the basis of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988: Town and Country Planning Aerodromes and Aeronautical Technical Site Direction 1992, which was issued with Department of the Environment Circular 2/92. At this point, we were required to consult with Marshall, the CAA and the MOD. This has since been replaced by Circular 01/03 Safeguarding, Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas. Annex 3 of the Circular 01/03 sets out the civil airports subject to official safeguarding. Cambridge Airport is not on this list of officially safeguarded airports. This means that we are not required to consult the CAA and the MOD. Although the circular does not apply formally to Cambridge Airport, the Department for Transport has confirmed that it is considered good practice for the airport to set out any necessary height constraints and to agree these as constraints with the Local Planning Authority. In the light of the constraints mapping data held by the City Council on height restrictions, Marshall is consulted on planning applications as a matter of course. In the event of their objection to any planning application, this is taken into account in decision-making.


So, nothing tacit about this at all, it's all quite explicit. But you do have to ask to get that level of detail, not surprisingly.

[eharding]

The sad fact is that more often than not when incidents such as the one in question happen, the press do quote directly from Pprune, and more often than not they are quoting someone who has very little idea of what they are posting about - because those who are in possession of the facts generally know well enough to keep their opinions to themselves in the aftermath of the incident.

I'm all for personal freedom of expression, but in cases like this people should think long and hard, and then think again, before clicking that 'Submit reply' button.

[Whopity]

It depends upon your interpretation of when a takeoff ends and a landing begins... This would be down to the court.I quite agree, but in accordance with normal aviation practice, Exercise 12 (Take-off) ends when established on the downwind leg and Exercise 13 (Landing) commences on the downwind leg!
In an emergency, anything goes, you do the best you can and land where you can, nobody is bothered about rules at that stage.

[Sir George Cayley]

G the W

There are licensed aerodromes not officially safeguarded who choose not to enter into any discussions with their LPA as they think that keeping heads down and being nice is the way forward. And in some cases it might well be.

There are others that enter into formal agreements with their (willing) LPA and lodge a safeguarding map. This won't be signed by the CAA as Official ones are.

Circular 01/03 saw the demise of CAA involvement in day to day safeguarding and it was transferred to the licence holders of the OS aerodromes. A missed opportunity was to have persuaded John Prescott to make all licensed aerodromes safeguarded and then there would have been a level playing field.

On the semantics lets replace tacit with unofficial or mutually agreed, friendly, cooperative or formal basis. What ever you call it the call in process that applies to OS aerodromes could be difficult to follow if an LPA Committee went against a non safeguarded objection to an application on the grounds of air safety, which in effect is the end game of being OS.

If you glance out of Barton's VCR you can't help noticing the Salford City Reds new stadium. Its size and location are directly linked to the Aero Clubs reticence to object on safety grounds due to who there landlord was.

Two ps esses. Marshalls of Cambridge and Cambridge City Council. Little Gransden and Cambridge County Council. Is there a conclusion to be drawn in terms of scale?

Also, Public Safety Zones are not the same as safeguarding but is in the process of reverting from whence it came.

[912ul]

This Site is called the Rumour Network. There is no requirement for anyone to prove themselves on this Site to be anything other than interested in aviation. The obsequieous attitudes that exist in the UK in aviation in this country are archaic and foster an entirely false perspective about what general aviation flying is about - it is simply a hobby, no more than that. You are not required to wear hours like epaullettes and only hold an opinion if you have more hours than the person you are speaking to.
If a Journo quotes from this Site then he/she is a Nob and there is no reason for anyone - Lawyer, Airbus Pilot or gazillion hours PPL to get on their high horse about it because this is an open web site.
Best the high and mighty create a Site where they need to submit evidenciary proof of their manliness and rights to exist over and above those that may just harbour an interest in aviation. Perhaps you could call it the professional pilots network as opposed to rumour network?

[Pilot DAR]

The press have a responsibility to quote accurately - which they did.
They reported that the comment was made on this site - which it was.
They referred to this site as "a respected professional pilots website" - which it is.
The error they made was assuming that Stewmath is an "expert" - which he is most certainly not.

I agree, that the press quoted accurately, and yes, it was on this site. "Respected professional pilot's website"? A stretch... but if "rumour" is included in there, okay.

However, I opine that it is not an "error" to (apparently to me) latch onto a statement, and quote it in a news publication (thereby bolstering it's apparent validity), when it would appear that there was no effective due dilligence in verifying and qualifying the source of the quoted statement for "expertise". An "error" would be mistaking "stewmath" for the well known and well respected senior pilot "stewman" (okay, I made that up, but you get the point). My experience is that errors in newspapers are retracted. This "more than just an error" should be.

Wreckless, and over zealous are not errors in the news reporting business, they are just what they are called. You can see an error, in that the person obviously made an effort to get it right, and still got it wrong. I think that a person of stewmath's modest (or unknown, 'cause I have no idea) knowledge being quoted as an "expert" goes beyond an "error".

Sorry you're the focal point on this one stewmath, no slam against you personally! You're in the middle of your 15 minutes of fame by circumstance, don't let it put you off PPRuNe. I think there is an expert professional around here somewhere, but most of us are just trying to do our bit to contribute, and spread good will in general aviation....

[Intercepted]

I agree with you 912ul, and my comment about FL's post stems from what you are describing. In a court room I would obviously have full respect for who he is and his vast experience, but on an anonymous rumour network my respect for him is the same as for anyone else. In my opinion, FL's comment about Stewemaths post was one step to far, but of course I should have known who FL was and kept quiet.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Marshalls of Cambridge and Cambridge City Council. Little Gransden and Cambridge County Council. Is there a conclusion to be drawn in terms of scale?
There's no such thing as Cambridge County Council. There is a Cambridgeshire County Council, but it's (mostly) not a planning authority.

As ever, if you don't like your council you can always vote for someone else.

[mur007]

When it is known that posts made on this forum are sometimes quoted in the wider media claiming to represent the GA community at large, then those making those posts need to take care with what they say.

What concerns me about this is that Joe Bloggs who has nothing whatsoever to do with GA may now think that it is normal practice for pilots to go looking for the nearest 'wide and long' road when their engine goes.

[Heliport]

Pilot DAR:

a person of stewmath's modest (or unknown, 'cause I have no idea) knowledge

Stewmath doesn't hold a pilots licence of any sort and never has.
He hopes to obtain a PPL some time in the future if/when he can afford to do so.


H.

[912ul]

Whether Stewmath has a licence or not is completely irrelevant. This Site does not require you to validate your credentials as having anything other than an interest in aviation.
This Site is a typical example of the stereotypical attitudes that exist in aviation in the UK. Too many people have an over inflated opinion as to their own value, the value and relevence of their postings and what it really means in the wider world.
Anyone on this Site can have an opinion about anything because the rules allow that. No one who is a normal member of this Site has a right to stifle or moderate postings by other Members and Members stay Members as long as they abide by the T&Cs of the Site.
Once again - credentials are NOT required and have NEVER been required and anyone is entitled to speculate about anything because this is a Rumour Network. If any Jouno quotes from this Site then they are just stupid and at the end of the day - so what?

[Whopity]

Well said 912.

Anyone who has flown an aircraft will know that a domestic road never looks wide enough to land on! In an emergency, any hole that you can put the fuselage into is fair game however, pilots instinctively try to avoid buildings because they are big and hard, and all to often the aircraft takes charge leaving them no choice! Airspeed is everything until impact.

[IO540]

I can see where FL is coming from but I think his post is much over-simplified.

The press has a duty to not only blindly report what they read elsewhere but to do due diligence on the source.

To quote a pilot forum is no better than to run a piece on the level of teenage drug addiction by quoting threads from Mumsnet (http://www.mumsnet.com/). Or by trawling Faceb00k where kids open their innermost souls to the whole world, especially the dumb ones which don't know how to secure their profile.

The press is for the most part of poor quality. In cases where one happens to be familiar with the background, the reporting is usually found to be so far off it is laughable. In the 1980s I did a few slightly dodgy but highly provocative things with an XR3i (wheelspins, etc) and the resulting court case (in which a policeman should have been jailed for perjury, but hey those were the good olde dayz before the CPS came along, when you could "teach a lesson" or three and generally take the p*ss, where the chairman of the bench has been picked up for speeding in front of the Beechams factory entrance but let off when he openly told the copper who he was) was misreported in the local rags so badly I considered suing them but a solicitor told me I would only get a few k and an apology - IF I had a transcript of the case which obviously I did not. I still have the full-page article here :) I have seen this crap reporting over and over. Local-rag journos are the lowest of the low (for the most part they don't give a damn what they write) but some of the big ones like the Daily Mail are not much better.

Then you get the people who write on this and the other pilot forums. If you read the place regularly, and you are pilot yourself, you get an idea of who knows what they are talking about, but journos are not going to do that. Most just dive in when there has been a crash, to see what copy they can harvest. As any university lecturer will tell you (my GF is one) plagiarism off internet sources is the absolute norm these days.

Then you get people on here who write apparently good stuff but actually they make it up as they go along. They can be very hard to spot. A really keen simmer can talk very convincingly - for quite a while.

Then you get people on here who do walk the walk allright but they have an axe to grind. Most people who work in aviation have an axe to grind in certain issues e.g. instructors, airline pilots, ATCOs, maintenance company owners, etc. Most of these have a lot to contribute on specific issues within their expertise but when something goes badly wrong and the direction of blame is fairly apparent, a lot of rank-closing takes place. All the regulatory/enforcement/control/military types tend to close ranks faster than you can type a sentence; it is a centuries-old tradition.

Everybody is learning continuously in this game and we have to be patient with novices. PPL training is mostly still steeped in WW1 and does not prepare anybody for seriously flying from A to B in the modern context. All pilots I know who fly seriously have learnt most of what they know from other pilots, and in the last decade or so off the internet. Pilot forums are not what they were 10 years ago (a general decline across the board on quality internet participation) but they are still the #1 information resource for pilots hoping to progress. Just because somebody doesn't have a PPL yet should not disqualify them from posting here. There are people on here with much bigger qualifications who don't have those qualifications, or don't have them until years later.

Lack of anonymity is no solution. It just makes for a banal shoe-licking site where matters like flight in icing conditions, effects of icing, weather strategies, you name it, cannot be discussed, which drastically reduces the value of any such site. Making it a "private forum" is pointless since anybody can pay up and join and read all past posts, and then threaten to sue, etc. I've seen that too. When the owner of one such forum asked me to change my ID to a full name I said OK but only if he deletes all my postings to date. He backed off. And anyway nothing stops somebody making up a name; I know of people posting on the Socata owners site who I know personally, whose name is unusual enough, and who just call themselves Smith or whatever. The most educational posts cannot be posted under a real name.

[stewmath]

I have deleted my original post, my apologies if i caused any problems

[912ul]

Is it any wonder UK General Aviation gets shafted by every conceivable regulatory body imaginable - I mean we virtually, lie down, roll over and ask for it.

Here we are on an unregulated, rumour inspired, forum and people who should know better are doing their damnest to stifle others, moderate posts because of "perceived issues" and generally add their perception of forum "regulation" where there is none wanted or needed.

This is why GA is so much in the doldrums in this country - we virtually ask to be regulated to death and those in heirarchy do their utmost to make sure those of lesser aptitudes suffer even greater regulation - for our own good of course.

Stewmath has now deleted his perfectly acceptable post. It did not infringe any part of the T & C's of this Site yet the senior posters have cyber bullied him into retraction. The fault was not his - it was the lunatic journo. Stewmath had every right to post what he did and no one on this Site had a right to bully him. Just who is out of order? Certainly NOT Stewmath - is cyber bullying under the guise of thinly disguised criticism allowed in the T&C's of this Site?

[2 sheds]

As 912ul says:
If any Jouno quotes from this Site then they are just stupid and at the end of the day - so what? They are still going to make up the usual "hero pilot struggled with the controls to miss the school" cr@p without any encouragement - or knowledge.

Perhaps the site should also contain a warning to journalists about the potential inaccuracy in quoting from it - but then, they probably don't care.

stewmath - take no notice, nobody will remember what was written in that rag by the day after.

2 s

[Duckeggblue]

Was going to comment, but the following

On reflection, you may think that, at your stage, it would be wiser to read, learn and ask questions rather than post opinions.

applies to anybody with plenty left to learn, like me.

So best I keep quiet :oh:
Damn, was that an opinion............................. ?

[stewmath]

@9ul and 2 sheds

Its ok guys :)

Cheers for your support

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Can anyone confirm the reg of the Tomahawk involved in this tragedy?

Was it this:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/GZK6NK/G-BGEL.jpg

Later registered G-RVRF?

[Pilot DAR]

I feel badly for stewmeth that he/she is the poster child for a quote run amok, but stuff happens. Fortunately for stewmeth, the passage itself, was (as has been pointed out) very benign, and as such stewmeth has nothing to feel badly about. It's the journalist who bears responsibility on this one.

When I first started participating here, I took very seriously the words in red at the bottom of the page. PPRuNe was my first (and so far only) participation in such forums, so I really did not know the etiquette. Those words remain very wise.

Regulation:

This is why GA is so much in the doldrums in this country - we virtually ask to be regulated to death and those in heirarchy do their utmost to make sure those of lesser aptitudes suffer even greater regulation - for our own good of course.

I am told it was Douglas Bader (a fellow who knew lots about flying) who said:

"Regulation is for the guidance of wise men, and obedience of fools."

Now I'm now calling anyone here a fool, but I have come to learn that the "common masses" seem to expect everything that they think is potentially unsafe, or difficult to understand, to be regulated by somebody. I believe that this is entirely reactive, as regulation seems to suddenly be needed after something has gone wrong.

If we prevent things going wrong without regulation, there will be less regulation, or at least less enforcement....

[mad_jock]

I am told it was Douglas Bader (a fellow who knew lots about flying) who said

There is two schools of thought on that. One of which is that he would have still had his legs attached if it were true.

To be honest stewmeths comment could have very well be true if there was nothing else going.

Stew dinna worry. It was an opnion that an experenced pilot could have held if they saw what you did. The unfortunate thing is the more experence you have the more you realise to not voice those opnions because as soon as you stick you head up and do, then everyone else takes great joy about shooting them down.

[Intercepted]

The unfortunate thing is the more experence you have the more you realise to not voice those opnions because as soon as you stick you head up and do, then everyone else takes great joy about shooting them down.

I believe that's absolutely ok and makes the discussion a bit more dynamic and fun, but I have identified two different type of contributors.

One type that use facts and good reasoning to prove their point and another type that spend an awful lot of time to describe to others how extremely experienced they are and use this perceived experience in an attempt to stifle others.

[mad_jock]

One type that use facts and good reasoning to prove their point and another type that spend an awful lot of time to describe to others how extremely experienced they are and use this perceived experience in an attempt to stifle others.

So true.....

[Sir George Cayley]

Any news from the hospital?

Sir George Cayley

[mad_jock]

I doudt it with 60% burns they are touch and go for about a month until they can get some skin grafts on.

At any point they can get an infection and thats it in the space of a couple of hours.

[cats_five]

I did a 4-day first aid course some years back, and the man giving it was from WYMAS. When we were discussing burns he said that for adults, if the sum of the age and percentage burnt is 100% or more the outlook is very grim - it also depends where the burns are, and if the airway and lungs are affected. So, sadly, it was no surprise when the older man died. The younger man is 20 with 60% so his chances are much better, but it will be a long haul and will affect him for the rest of his life. :(

[Odai]

@Shaggy Sheep Driver

I don't think so, I'm sure I heard "romeo mike". So it would be G-RVRM.

[Bronx]

Airbus38

Calling for restraint?
Asking folks not to make reckless statements which can lead others to believe something which isn't true?
You're a brave man to do that in this thread.

You might get away with just being accused of cyber bullying and trying to stifle discussion but if Intercepted sees your post you'll probably be treated to a load of abuse as well. :rolleyes:
I saw his posts before the Mods took action.


912ul
It's not an unregulated forum. It's moderated.

[Odai]

Airbus38,

I appreciate what you are saying but I most certainly did not get this information from any random photo being released with a news report.

As I mentioned earlier, I recall somebody coming into the office where I was getting my exam marked, and telling my instructor that Romeo Mike had gone down in smoke near the runway.

As the only Ravenair operated Tomahawk that I am aware of with a registration ending in RM is G-RVRM, my assumption was a reasonable one.

Of course, it may well be the case that I am mistaken in what I remember, due to the shock of seeing what I did. But I'm pretty sure it was Romeo Mike.

[IO540]

A key aspect of this accident is whether the plane really was on fire when airborne.

There are really only a few things which can cause that.

[Contacttower]

You might get away with just being accused of cyber bullying and trying to stifle discussion but if Intercepted sees your post you'll probably be treated to a load of abuse as well.
I saw his posts before the Mods took action.

There is clearly a balance here; on the one hand no one should feel 'cyber bullied' or flamed or whatever for posting something that while one may not agree with is not ostensibly offensive and/or potentially damaging if the press report it. Certainly all stewmath's post may have prompted from me would have been a chuckle if the incident it referred to wasn't so serious and tragic. The debate about whose fault it was for appearing in the press seems largely academic since as we all know we should aways expect poor editorial standards from newspapers in general in this regard.

However we should still be CONSCIOUS of what we are posting and how it could be read or reported...for example the suggestion that 'so and so aircraft may have been involved' and that 'so and so aircraft had an expired CofA'...what if the press reported that?

How do you think someone from Ravenair or whoever was responsible for the aircraft would feel if they saw that suggestion reported in the press and it wasn't true? People just need to think a bit more before posting sometimes.

[Sillert,V.I.]

A key aspect of this accident is whether the plane really was on fire when airborne.


I've been thinking the same thing. The electric fuel pump would likely have been 'ON' for takeoff & the consequences of a major fuel leak are obvious.

The prospect of being in a cockpit filled with burning fuel is truly horrendous. Though not involved in any way, reading about this accident has disturbed me more than any other I've heard of and I'm struggling to find words which do justice to the emotions I'm feeling. Heartfelt condolences to anyone directly affected.

[172driver]

The prospect of being in a cockpit filled with burning fuel is truly horrendous. Though not involved in any way, reading about this accident has disturbed me more than any other I've heard of and I'm struggling to find words which do justice to the emotions I'm feeling. Heartfelt condolences to anyone directly affected.

Have to agree. This one also got me thinking more than most we read about. Probably because it appears to involve the worst nightmare we all have - fire on board.

Sincerely hope the chap makes a full recovery.

[mad_jock]

Sincerely hope the chap makes a full recovery.

Thats not going to happen with 60% burns

Simon Weston was less than that.

I have reread my posts on the burns subject an I seem to be quite harsh.

I have come to the conclusion that if I do start flying avgas machines again in any amount of hours I will be getting some fire retardant clothes for the purpose. The old Instructors uniform of a pair of primark chinos and cheap white shirt really does absouletly nothing for you and in the case of the cheap white shirt will proberly make matters worse when it melts into your skin. Something which I have experence with when I brushed up against a pitot tube while doing a first flight while it was on, resulting in a 2" by 3" second degree burn on my shoulder which all the skin got ripped off removing my shirt.

[IO540]

You would be better off being slightly proactive on the maintenance of the next spamcan you get into, perhaps asking when they last changed the fuel hoses ;)

I have read some accident reports involving fires and IMHO all were totally preventable.

One horrible one occured on a homebuilt, of a type well known for using rigid ally fuel plumbing under conditions of vibration, and the tube eventually cracks. Certified planes are a lot better built in this respect but if the rubber hoses are 30 years old, or been removed and refitted several times...

[Contacttower]

I have come to the conclusion that if I do start flying avgas machines again in any amount of hours I will be getting some fire retardant clothes for the purpose. The old Instructors uniform of a pair of primark chinos and cheap white shirt really does absouletly nothing for you and in the case of the cheap white shirt will proberly make matters worse when it melts into your skin. Something which I have experence with when I brushed up against a pitot tube while doing a first flight while it was on, resulting in a 2" by 3" second degree burn on my shoulder which all the skin got ripped off removing my shirt.

Funny that that attitude really doesn't prevail in GA despite the rare but nonetheless obvious fire risk in light aircraft, in fact I've read comments on here ridiculing the wearing of flight suits for example in non-aerobatic aircraft.

What sort of fire retardant clothes would you get? Something made from leather or Nomex?

[mad_jock]

Just good quality cotton will be way ahead than most.


If you google aero-ist clothing they have some good stuff

If I was working full time in avagas machine I would wear nomex. But its not cheap.

And another note my flight bag now has a pair of proper fire gloves ack the same ones that we have in the cockpit commercially in it.

[DX Wombat]

MJ I'm pleased you mentioned the wearing of cotton clothing which should be pure cotton rather than polycotton as the polyester melts. Pure wool is also good as wool is not easy to ignite. How many people bother to make any mention of suitable clothing to their passengers? About a year ago I took a friend on her first flight in a light aircraft. When she asked me if there was anything she needed to do I suggested that she wear the sort of items I have just mentioned but let her know that it was a purely precautionary measure in case of the unlikely event of a fire. She saw the sense of this and had a great time - her words.

[ShyTorque]

One material not to wear in an aviation environment is nylon.

In a fire it can cause major skin damage, as known and advised by the RAF. Even our aircrew watches which originally had a nylon strap, were suppiled with a leather "under strap" to protect the skin.

At least one major UK supplier of so called "flying clothing" (they provide free catalogues in aviation related magazines) sells 100% nylon copies of US military style nomex flying jackets. These are fashion items only and should be banned in aircraft, imho. In a previous job (helicopter SAR) I was provided with a similar one in blue, but I refused to wear it on safety grounds.

I was later justified after one of our crewman was burned whilst wearing one on a rescue job. Basically, it melted on him and began to shrink wrap him in scalding hot plastic. We got proper Nomex jackets after that.

[Cat.S]

@Shaggy Sheep Driver

I don't think so, I'm sure I heard "romeo mike". So it would be G-RVRM.

This website is reporting it as RF

ASN Aircraft accident 29-JUL-2011 Piper PA-38-112 Tomahawk G-RVRF (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=137762)

Pity if it was RM as I always found that the nicest one of the fleet to fly, not that that matters a jot compared to the tragedy affecting the crew and those close to them.

[172driver]

Basically, it melted on him and began to shrink wrap him in scalding hot plastic.

And the same goes for hi-viz vests :eek: !!

[Pull what]

Some very good points here about the wearing of suitable fire retardent clothing in light aircraft, in contrast to some of the shameful rubbish that this thread contains

[IO540]

My view is that if you really expect your plane to burst into flames at any time, you should stay on the ground.

Wearing fireproof clothing will do you sod-all good when the cockpit fills with fumes, which will prob99 happen long before you get any flames. Are you going to wear a hood with an air bottle on the back of it as well?

Planes don't just catch fire in the air on a routine basis. On the extremely rare occassions they do that, it is normally the result of shameful maintenance practices (assisted by the equally shameful European regulatory regime which for the most part sells job creation under a "safety" wrapper), and occassionally (on non-CofA planes) the result of stupid design.

[172driver]

Planes don't just catch fire in the air on a routine basis

No, they don't. But if this discussion serves to send at least some of the 'nylon pilot shirt plus hi-viz vest' brigade thinking and realizing that they are effectively wearing a shrink-wrap, then this is a good thing.

I don't know if you've ever seen a serious burn victim close-up. I have - trust me, it's not a pretty sight.

[ShyTorque]

Wearing fireproof clothing will do you sod-all good when the cockpit fills with fumes, which will prob99 happen long before you get any flames. Are you going to wear a hood with an air bottle on the back of it as well?


IO540, no need to be patronising or sarcastic. Nomex isn't fireproof, it's flame resistant; it doesn't melt in a flash fire. Nylon and other synthetics can do so.

No, I've never felt the need to wear a smoke hood. I would carry out the fumes in the cockpit drill, jettison my cockpit door if necessary then land after a sideslip descent, asap. In any case, a smoke hood is no good if you cannot see out of it, blinded by smoke.

My employer provides polyester based uniform items. I usually wear my own, more expensive woollen based trousers instead, and a pure wool jumper of my own choice over my shirt.

One further thing I would feel more comfortable with is a protective helmet with a double visor. Unfortunately it would possibly make the passengers feel insecure, so we don't wear them in our specific line of work.

These are personal choices based on risk assessment of the environment I fly in and referring back to previous accident reports and from my own personal experiences.

[IO540]

no need to be patronising or sarcastic

No such intention; it's just my rapid writing style :)

But I stand by the words of what I say. I wouldn't climb into some old heap like that. On my plane, I know the hoses are tight, are Teflon, firesleeved, 1500 PSI tested. Actually I sourced them myself from Saywells and assembled the flow totaliser plumbing myself (prior to inspection by an IA obviously) with the correct sealants and correctly torqued. The whole lot is inspected with a torch on every preflight; one can just see the fuel hoses through a gap underneath.

OK, I realise that instructors, not to mention PPL students, have little choice but to fly in all kinds of junk which they cannot visually inspect under the cowling, but data shows it is still very very rare to get an in-flight fire, especially one which penetrates the firewall and extends into the cockpit.

You are more likely to get a mid-air collision. A couple of those a year...

A good point about "commercial pilot" clothing. I had a look at this recently (because one of the non-UK JAA IR options I looked at mandates the wearing of the full Col Gaddafi uniform despite the temperatures down there; they even suggested I wear four bars because I already have a CPL, hey ho) so cotton is desirable, but seems hard to find. I thought that buying a white shirt and black trousers from a normal shop might be the easiest way to get cotton.

If I do pursue that IR option I will delight in setting fire to the nylon when I am done so I will be able to report on how well it went. Might even put it on Youtube :)

[ShyTorque]

If I do pursue that IR option I will delight in setting fire to the nylon when I am done so I will be able to report on how well it went. Might even put it on Youtube

I recommend you're not wearing it at the time.

I'm not too worried about personal protection from fire in the air, especially as my aircraft is fuelled with less flammable Jet A-1 and both engines are located well behind me. It's maximising the chances of escape from the aircraft in the hopefully very unlikely event of an accident that I'm more concerned with.

In addition to our burned crewman I mentioned, I will never forget the thought of a friend of mine who perished in a crashed and burning biplane in 1989, only about two miles from where I'm sitting now. His girlfriend also suffered very serious burns trying to pull him out. Before the accident I was the last one to sit in the front seat he died in. Had she been wearing more suitable clothing she might have been less badly burned.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The chances are (we don't know for sure of course) that this aircraft crashed and then burned, as is usually the case when an aeroplane catches fire. Nothing to do with faulty hoses, but everything to do with ruptured fuel tanks when the aeroplane hit the ground or the house and broke up.

[vanHorck]

Unless as was ,mentioned the plane was already on fire before it crashed...

[mad_jock]

The only place you can get reasonable priced cotton pilot shirts is to get them made to measure somewhere in the east.

The only down side is they are an utter bitch to iron.

I got a load made after burning my shoulder.

[stevef]

Just for the record and not specifically apertaining to this incident:
1) All aircraft fuel/oil/hydraulic flexible hoses have pressure test intervals and/or ultimate lives. Engine hoses are usually replaced as a matter of course at scheduled engine change.
2) Overtightening hose or rigid pipe couplings can sometimes be as bad as undertightening, especially on aluminium alloy fittings.
3) Fuel filter bowls can leak if not tightened or locked correctly. The exhaust tail pipe can be in the vicinity on some aircraft.

[Contacttower]

I think as a number of posts have picked up on wearing clothing that isn't going to burn you badly could be just as relevant to a post crash fire as an in flight one. Obviously we do not know in this case but it could buy valuable time for example if you were trapped in a burning aircraft after a crash.

Does not necessarily mean I will start wearing nomex all the time but I might pay more attention to what my passengers are wearing for example. I almost always were cotton anyway when flying or otherwise since I do not like synthetic fabrics. I always take my hi vis (if I have bothered to put it on in the first place!) off when getting in the cockpit as well.

Nice to see a reasoned debate on this subject.

[Odai]

This website is reporting it as RF

ASN Aircraft accident 29-JUL-2011 Piper PA-38-112 Tomahawk G-RVRF (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=137762)

Pity if it was RM as I always found that the nicest one of the fleet to fly, not that that matters a jot compared to the tragedy affecting the crew and those close to them.

I think it may indeed by RF, someone told me at the airfield yesterday. So, seems I was indeed mistaken.

[Paris Dakar]

Just to add...

Nomex underclothing (long-sleeve vests, leggings and socks etc) are available from the likes of Sparco, OMP and Alpinestars etc. Some folk may find that this could offer them useful protection when worn under appropriate cotton clothing if they don't want to wear a full external suit?

This is a very sad accident and took me straight back to a fatal accident (1997) up the coast from where I live at the now disused Brunton Airfield in Northumberland. A Maule crashed, caught fire and the eyewitness accounts that appeared in the news made for awful reading.

[Odai]

Sorry to bump this thread, but I was just wondering if there has been any news on this recently, like the progress of the investigation/report, or the condition of the young passenger?

[Shaft109]

Just stumbled across this old thread -

My phone went ballistic on the day as I was enroute to Barton to fly one of LAC's GroB 115s. The news reported a twin seat single engine trainer so lots thought it might have been me.

I did actually fly the next day and can remember seeing the wreckage inbetween the houses as descending deadside.

1- If I ever flew a Passenger from there afterwards I cannot recall using 09 L/R - I asked for 04 and accepted the X wind if in limits purely so I had options after a PLATO.

2- As a direct result of this accident and thread I went to Demon Tweeks and bought some OMP Nomex undergarments that are light and not visible under a shirt and pants but certified flame retardant.
I also have NOMEX flying suits and will use them when in the Civi environment.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5422ecb840f0b61346000123/Piper_PA-38-112_Tomahawk_G-RVRF_04-12.pdf

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

There are serious lessons to be learned from this tragedy over and above buying Nomex undies; not least, whatever happens the first priority is to fly the aeroplane (the old aviate, navigate, communicate - in that order).

Does anyone know how the young passenger is these days?

[PapaEchoNovember]

There are serious lessons to be learned from this tragedy over and above buying Nomex undies; not least, whatever happens the first priority is to fly the aeroplane (the old aviate, navigate, communicate - in that order).

Does anyone know how the young passenger is these days?
Definitely, it goes to show training doesn't always prepare for the EFATO in the cold light of day. Sadly, when the chips were down, it seems he became overwhelmed and the right actions weren't prioritised.

I understand the passenger still works (or was working for) for the associated flying school in Liverpool. A really friendly chap, and very brave. A long recovery process I imagine, he seemed to be doing well although I haven’t seen him for a few years.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/salford-plane-crash-survivor-scarred-3860614

[Shaft109]

Yes - agreed the Immediate action of pitch down is far more important.

As an experiment after this accident I took a G115 up to clear airspace Nr Clitheroe and set up a climb at 4000' in the T/O configuration at 68Kts. After carb heat I throttled back and tried to maintain the climb attitude to see exactly what happens.

Suffice to say I counted literally to 3 and the aircraft stalled immediately with hardly any 'conventional' warnings and entered a hard wing drop to the left- although I didn't allow it to start spinning.

The main lesson was how it differed from other stalls that I'd tried - it just stopped flying basically - the aggressiveness was surprising. At 300' you'd have no chance.

That was my main lesson that I still remember.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Yes - agreed the Immediate action of pitch down is far more important.

As an experiment after this accident I took a G115 up to clear airspace Nr Clitheroe and set up a climb at 4000' in the T/O configuration at 68Kts. After carb heat I throttled back and tried to maintain the climb attitude to see exactly what happens.

Suffice to say I counted literally to 3 and the aircraft stalled immediately with hardly any 'conventional' warnings and entered a hard wing drop to the left- although I didn't allow it to start spinning.

The main lesson was how it differed from other stalls that I'd tried - it just stopped flying basically - the aggressiveness was surprising. At 300' you'd have no chance.

That was my main lesson that I still remember.


You have to get the stock forward IMMDITELY the engine quits on EFTO.
The aeroplane has low inertia (it's slow), and it's nose high. An immediate stall is a heartbeat away. That's why we train for it. Pavlov's Dogs.... There isn't time to think about it. Just DO it. It worked for me (I've always wondered if it would) and I suspect it would for most. Very sad it didn't in this case.

[piperboy84]

And climb out at Vy unless there is a reason to be at Vx