Tucano at LOO - no steps required!

[The B Word]

I understand that ZF349 landed wheels up at Linton earlier today. The rumour is that it was an engine failure followed by a forced landing. Also, the good news is that I hear that the aircrew walked away - no steps required! :ok:

They shut the spotters enclosure after asking them for their footage! :}

[NutLoose]

Pictures

ZF349 crash pictures • FighterControl • Military Aviation Forum (http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&p=452574)

[Corporal Clott]

Allegedly, one woman driver...

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n113/Seaviation/Linton-on-Ouse/ZF349/RAFLintononOuseZF349crash08-01-2013014_zps8492a427.jpg

...bloody good skills :D:D:D

[Mach the Knife]

Hmmm? 4 bent props and no gear on an aircraft with a blow down system. SI report should be an interesting read.

[NutLoose]

Depends on a lot of things really such as what height you're at when the engine failed, engine wasn't under power as the blades are bent back.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

OK, they are bent back (all 4) more than they are bent radially but they don't look too featheared to me either.

[NutLoose]

Engine under power they bend forwards.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

OK, fair point.

Here's a Harvard that let down at Church Lawford with wheels up. One blade forward and one back. http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n131/Golf_Bravo_Zulu/HARVARD_zps8ee279e2.jpg

[Al R]

That link shows one fot of the the aeroplane resting on the grass but another, with the nose over a metal surface. ??

'Well done' to whoever bought it back.

[NutLoose]

They tend to go forward as the prop under power bends fwd rather like the cone effect in a helicopter rotor as it lifts off, so when it strikes it bends fwd, without power on the prop isn't bending fwd , so bends aft. :)

The blades bent both directions I could understand as the strike would in effect momentarily stop the prop and would offload the blades

[Trojan1981]

Looks repairable and they walked away - well done :D

[Bob Viking]

I'm no Air Crash Investigator but with my limited knowledge of the tin can (it's been a while) I would suggest that, since the blades aren't feathered, the engine was either under power or shut down but without the engine emergency shut down lever being selected (unlikely). As you can imagine in the latter case it would glide like a house brick.
Of course I may be wrong and I bow to your superior knowledge of post crash propeller habits.
Regardless of everything I have just said it looks like they did a bloody good job in the circumstances.
BV

[airpolice]

For Sale, as is, where is:

One Tucano Aircraft.

One careful owner, three hundred and forty six not so careful drivers, apply to OC Eng, RAF Linton-on-Ouse.

[Buster Hyman]

Now THAT's TFR!!!

[Farfrompuken]

Well the flap position vs blade angle can at least rule out the dreaded EESDL/Flap lever coggie!

Good to hear all okay. Chances are it'll fly as the T.Mk2 when they get converted; they're actually much stronger frames than people give then credit for.

[Stuart Sutcliffe]

No worries, it will buff out! :p

[Fox Four]

The comment I was waiting for! Took a while today.....

[Easy Street]

The SI report was released alongside the Red Arrows ejection report and has evidently been missed in the rush. Some forthright comment from the Convening Authority regarding the wisdom of conducting engine airtests with a 1200ft cloudbase, and notably a direct statement of DE&S airworthiness failures. Unleash the fury:

Service Inquiry report into the accident involving Tucano ZF349 on 8 January 2013 at RAF Linton-on-Ouse (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/service-inquiry-accident-involving-tucano-zf349-at-raf-linton-on-ouse)

[Wander00]

Glad all safe, but odd how all the pics on both fora have been removed.......Black Omega on the drive (Well, Citroen cos I am in France)

[Dan Winterland]

Interesting. Twenty years ago, the min safe altitude for conducting engine air tests was 2500ft - not 2000ft as stated in the report. This was probably a legacy requirement from the JP which had a Hi Key of 2500ft. I did many, and one involved a failure in very similar circumstances - but with a happier outcome. The report also claims that EEC manual checks weren't part of the air test schedule. Again, I disagree - in similar circumstances!

Seems we don't learn!

[Background Noise]

Quite. Even the 1500 ft mentioned in the FTS is only great if you happen to be at low key. It's a shame that it takes incidents/accidents to hone the procedures which, with hindsight, should have been obvious.

FTSs often seem to be written in a eye-pleasing flow without any consideration for the traps which can be set for the unwary - the Cranwell wheels-up stemmed from a similar trap. And the fact that the course recommended as a pre-requisite for air testers in the Radley Report (which followed another air test accident) is not available is 'poor'.

Notwithstanding the second guessing, and what would have happened ifs, I don't think the outcome was entirely down to luck, although that played its part. Without doubt there was some fine handling in there as well.

[StopStart]

What in the holy name of bureaucracy is the "Tucano Glider Support Authority" as referenced in the report??

[Evalu8ter]

"Tucano Glider" seems quite apropos in this case......

Good call from the AC - she made a decision and stuck with it.

[ACW599]

As a mere English literature graduate, can anyone please enlighten me as to the meaning of "...proper understanding and sentencing of a potential hazard" and "...the known failure...had not previously been sentenced by operating or engineering authorities"?

This is evidently a new and very esoteric usage which which I am unfamiliar, as indeed is the Oxford English Dictionary.

[Ivan Rogov]

As a mere English literature graduate, can anyone please enlighten me as to the meaning of "...proper understanding and*"sentencing*"of a potential hazard" and "...the known failure...had not previously been*"sentenced*"by operating or engineering authorities"?*

This is evidently a new and very esoteric usage which which I am unfamiliar, as indeed is the Oxford English Dictionary.

which which... graduate you say, ha, ha! :D

[ACW599]

>which which... graduate you say, ha, ha<

Blasted spill chucker :uhoh:

[tucumseh]

You should all be afraid, very afraid.

The recommendations? Mostly mandated policy. Been there before. What has the MAA been doing for 4 years?


The biggest howler? "Admittedly, is is unreasonable to apply the high safety standards of the post Haddon-Cave operating model to historic judgements made by our predecessors."


What absolute balls. The Haddon-Cave "operating model" is what Air Chief Marshal Loader said in his comments in the XV230 BoI report, and what numerous BoI and audit reports have said before. IMPLEMENT MANDATED POLICY.

So, it is unreasonable to expect past staffs to have implemented policy? Well, actually, he's right in a way, because in the early 90s the RAF Chief Engineer's organisation decreed it was an offence to do so. MoD(PE)'s CDP concurred, as did DPA. Today, it is still upheld by Ministers and DE&S policy branch.

When can we expect the MAA to acknowledge these simple facts? Until they do so, safety management is stuck in the Dark Ages. (With, according to this report, no management oversight; which is perfectly true and simply repeats a criticism made of the Nimrod MRA4 and Chinook Mk3 2 Star. A fact that Ministers accepted as true but were quite content with).

[MrBernoulli]

What in the holy name of bureaucracy is the "Tucano Glider Support Authority" as referenced in the report??
Yes, I would also like to know what this "Glider" nonsense is! Who dreams up this stuff?

[Stuff]

It's the "Tucano & Glider Support Authority" not sure where the & went in the report.