Plane crash Caernarfon

[JUST-local]

BBC News - Light aircraft crash at Caernarfon injures two people with a third trapped (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22586020)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

G-ATRR, a PA28 from a Blackpool flying club. Very sad.

[silverknapper]

Sadly updated to one dead.

[BEagle]

The fire service said it had 32 crew members and three officers at scene, along with eight appliances.

Why?

In the last 24 hrs, there have been at least 3 serious road accidents. But you don't see many of those reported in the national media.

The BBC does like its weird aeronautical lexicon of 'planes flipping', 'tail spins' and no doubt 'power dives'. Meaningless garbage churned out by third rate journos.

Nevertheless, very sad news.....:(

[vulcanised]

The BBC report I read said the aircraft had "fewer than eight seats".

What a strange thing to say.

[spooky3]

just noticed the plane is 46 yrs old, is that old?

[stevelup]

just noticed the plane is 46 yrs old, is that old?

Not really....

[spooky3]

ok just thought it sounded rather old for a hire plane

[Echo Romeo]

Very sad, but why do the fire service seem to over react in these situations, if it was in a built up area you could justify 8 appliances.

[Scuzi]

just noticed the plane is 46 yrs old, is that old?

Not really. I've logged quite a few hours in that aircraft and while the "oldness" shows through in the ergonomic nightmare that is the instrument panel, it really did fly beautifully.

Very sad news indeed.

To those criticising the fire service response, consider that their initial call might have contained no more information than "there has been a plane crash". I'd rather they send half the fleet just in case rather than spend valuable time trying to find out how many seats it has.

[madfrankie]

tragic for those involved and friends and family, however if this had happened while driving home from the airfield it would hardly be covered by the press.....

I had actually looked at this aircraft on the flybpl.com website before I saw the accident on ASN

I have emailed a few different flying schools for prices to do my NPPL(M) to SSEA conversion today and doing a little research on their fleets. I would not have been happy learning in a 50+ year old aircraft which had already logged 16894 flying hours as of 31/12/2011, I would prefer to fly something a little less ancient and pay more...

I hate when people speculate as to the cause of a crash before any investigation has even begun, I am aware the age of the aircraft may not have been a factor in this accident.

[742-xx]

Very sad indeed. Makes you realise 'but for the grace of God'.

Does anyone know what the weather was and what runway they were using ?

I hope it was nothing to do with them bloody big wind turbines.

[AnotherWannabe]

Daily Star: Simply The Best 7 Days A Week :: Latest News :: One dead, two hurt in plane crash (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/latestnews/view/315432/-One-dead-two-hurt-in-plane-crash/)

[F4TCT]

Yeah i was thinking about those turbines too.

Very sad. Makes you think...

[collywolly21]

Another one of Robert Mergatroyds aircraft...

He has some bad luck that fella.....

[F4TCT]

G-BBBK Accident?

[DavidWoodward]

Does anyone know what the weather was and what runway they were using ?

I think they were using 26 today but I may be wrong. If they were using 26 then the undershoot is the caravan park and the overshoot is the road/beach.

[Vone Rotate]

With regards to the fire service attendance....

When called by the airfield or member of public the initial details will be limited due to the speed we need to dispatch the appliances. Crews get used very quickly at any incident. Add to that aviation fuel, potential close proximity of other risks etc. Its a bit more involved than a RTC or car crash.

Trust me the last thing to be wording about is how many appliances were mobilised!

RIP and thoughts with the injured.

[stevelup]

I would not have been happy learning in a 50+ year old aircraft which had already logged 16894 flying hours as of 31/12/2011, I would prefer to fly something a little less ancient and pay more...

The accident aircraft will have been maintained to the highest possible standard. The age really is meaningless. There have been plenty of accidents in brand new machines!

I hate when people speculate as to the cause of a crash before any investigation has even begun, I am aware the age of the aircraft may not have been a factor in this accident.

I'd be astonished if the age of the aircraft turns out to have had any bearing on this accident.

[charliejulietwhiskey]

Looks like runway 26 to me, the signs say that on the pics, I landed there in November and the caravan site, high trees and telegraph poles right at the end of the runway are a surprise, 26 has a displaced threshold due to this. It looks like the plane is sat just inside the airfield boundary on 26, wonder if it caught the trees?

[mat777]

I would not have been happy learning in a 50+ year old aircraft which had already logged 16894 flying hours as of 31/12/2011, I would prefer to fly something a little less ancient and pay more...
The accident aircraft will have been maintained to the highest possible standard. The age really is meaningless. There have been plenty of accidents in brand new machines!

What Steve said. I am training in a 50 year old steel/wood/canvas glider with an estimated 50,000 launch and landing cycles on it. IMO its much nicer to fly than the modern glass ones the club also owns. Newest =/= best in some cases

[Flying Lawyer]

madfrankie

Given that you "hate when people speculate as to the cause of a crash before any investigation has even begun", it seems strange that you introduced the age of the aircraft into the discussion.

I would not have been happy learning in a 50+ year old aircraft .......... I would prefer to fly something a little less ancient and pay more...

Your choice.

The aircraft in which I did my first solo was only eight months younger than me. We were both about 20 at the time.
It is still in active service and I would be very happy to fly it again if I had the opportunity.
We are both 62 this year.


FL

[Supersport]

I've flown many 40 year old PA28s and have had a lot of fun in doing so. Even at a ripe old age, a PA28 can and do still fly like new. I'd also be very surprised if age and / or maintenance had anything to do with this.

If 26 is where the incident happened....

Anyone that has landed an aircraft at Caernarfon will know that when you've got a runway like 26, shortish, displaced threshold, trees, telephone lines, caravan site and the odd seagull that even in the best meteorological conditions it wouldn't take much to distract attention away from a glance or two at airspeed indicator or similar. Being low and slow there is very dangerous indeed. Even the most experienced and seasoned Caernarfon regular needs full concentration on this approach.

Stay sharp guys.

My thoughts go out to all involved :-(

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

One man dies, two badly injured in Caernarfon airport plane crash - North Wales Weekly News (http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/one-man-dies-two-badly-3872969)

This report mentions the possibility of the aircraft clipping some trees on final. At least one local pilot who was there thinks this a distinct possibility, and it would explain the tragic outcome.

I await the AAIB report with interest.

I would not have been happy learning in a 50+ year old aircraft which had already logged 16894 flying hours as of 31/12/2011, I would prefer to fly something a little less ancient and pay more...

Then, with respect, you don't know very much about aeroplanes and aviation.

[piperboy84]

As mentioned by others, my condolences to the victims,

Anyone that has landed an aircraft at Caernarfon will know that when you've got a runway like 26, shortish, displaced threshold, trees, telephone lines, caravan site and the odd seagull that even in the best meteorological conditions it wouldn't take much to distract attention away from a glance or two at airspeed indicator or similar. Being low and slow there is very dangerous indeed. Even the most experienced and seasoned Caernarfon regular needs full concentration on this approach.

Never flown in there but based on what i can see on google earth it looks like a fine airfield with plenty length for spam cans (2400 ft from the displaced threshold) by about 60 feet wide, the trees on final do not appear that large and are about 700 feet from the threshold, again i am looking at google earth and that the info/views may be dated.

[742-xx]

it looks like a fine airfield with plenty length for spam cans (2400 ft from the displaced threshold) by about 60 feet wide, the trees on final do not appear that large and are about 700 feet from the threshold

Absolutely.

I was there three weeks ago and I don't remember thinking 'must watch for them trees'. I'm not saying there are no trees, but I don't recall any surprising me, as such.
But perhaps the displaced threshold did its job and kept me well above ?

I had a Go-pro camera running in time-lapse mode at the time so I'll have a look at the pictures when I get up later. But I don't recall any surprises.

[jayteeto]

Nice airfield, approach to that runway is a little unusual but not massively challenging. The new wind turbines don't help any, but shouldn't affect that runway. At least the air ambo is based 100yrd away.medical help on scene if they were in.

[magpienja]

Where are the wind turbines located on the airfield...not been since they were erected....sounds scary.

[Fostex]

26/08 is fine, 20/02 is the one with the wind turbines and is unlicensed.

Caernarfon Airport Runway 02/20 Conditions Of Use (http://www.caernarfonairport.com/runwayconditionsofuse.htm)

I landed on 26 on new years day in very windy conditions and had no problems. Bit of windy shear / bumpiness over the caravans on final but nothing to write home about.

Sympathies to those involved. There for the grace of God go I...

[Whirlybird]

Never flown in there but based on what i can see on google earth it looks like a fine airfield with plenty length for spam cans (2400 ft from the displaced threshold) by about 60 feet wide, the trees on final do not appear that large and are about 700 feet from the threshold, again i am looking at google earth and that the info/views may be dated.

The Google Earth has it wrong. That particular runway is quite challenging, as other posters have said.

Though of course, it's possible that you are a much better pilot than the rest of us, and would find it a piece of cake. :hmm::rolleyes:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I have flown into Caernarfon many many times in the Chipmunk, Yak, Cub, Citabria, and various spam cans. Runway 26 is not in any way 'difficult' in my experience. It's not a short, rough strip with obstacles on the approach, it's a nice long tarmac runway with an unobstructed approach to the displaced threshold.

[Jonty]

Flew into Caernarfon in March and landed on runway 26, also in a PA28. Didn't have any problems. Its not a difficult approach and the runway is wide and long.

There are trees on the approach. The idea is you don't hit them, same goes for the caravan park, or any other obstacle between you and the runway.

It isn't rocket science.

[Jetblu]

Very sad. A challenging thought for us all, every time we get airborne to pursue our delights.

Fingers crossed for the two people in hospital. Condolences to family and friends.

[phiggsbroadband]

When I saw the first photo of Caernafon in UKGA, I thought someone had been very proficient with Paintshop Pro editing, but apparently the turbines do exist...

Caernarfon Airport Runway 02/20 Conditions Of Use (http://www.caernarfonairport.com/runwayconditionsofuse.htm)

If you look at the photos of the aircraft in the gallery series of photos, pay particular attention to the damaged trailing edge of the flaps, and what looks like vegetation in its hinges.

Man dies and two critical after plane crash in Caernarfon - North Wales Weekly News (http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/man-dies-two-critical-after-3874667)

I hope the survivors make a quick recovery, and that the AAIB reach some conclusion soon (and also for the PA38 accident in Cheshire one year ago.)

[Fostex]

Runway 26 is not in any way 'difficult' in my experience.

I concur, 26 is not a particularly difficult approach and the runway itself is in very good condition. I found the taxi ways to the 26 hold much more exciting, thought I might need some nobbly tires at one point!

No real point in conjecture at this early stage. Thoughts to the survivors and bereaved.

[piperboy84]

Though of course, it's possible that you are a much better pilot than the rest of us, and would find it a piece of cake.

Well that didn't take long, we normally get at least 5 pages in and usually not on a thread of this gravity before the catty personal nonsense starts. Shame really, as there is no doubt a lot of learning could be had, especially by us low timers, from a rational discussion involving legitimate opinions on the issues surrounding the incident.

[Whopity]

Noticeable from the photos; the aircraft is in the undershoot adjacent to a road. One picture (http://i1.dailypost.co.uk/incoming/article3875173.ece/ALTERNATES/s2197/AR190513PlaneCrash-4-3875173.jpg) shows power cables along the road. The distortion of the fuselage shows a considerable forward impact. I would not wish to speculate but the clues are there for all to see.

[ETOPS]

Which leads to the question - why was this aircraft so low that it appears to have collided with trees/power lines before reaching the airfield boundary?

[Fostex]

A known unknown.

No real point in conjecture but there is no real reason ( barring exceptional circumstances ) why anyone should be flying shallow VFR glideslopes in GA aircraft with flaps. A bit of extra height might give you that safety cushion in case of the aircraft going tech on final.

[magpienja]

Anybody know the wind direction/speed at the time...it was from the N/W at Liverpool around the time.

[piperboy84]

Trying to match the photos up with the google earth view, are the trees between the power lines and the undershoot or is it power line, then trees then undershoot.

[treadigraph]

One picture (http://i1.dailypost.co.uk/incoming/article3875173.ece/ALTERNATES/s2197/AR190513PlaneCrash-4-3875173.jpg) shows power cables along the road

Looking at Bing Maps (http://binged.it/19UKPdJ), that power line actually appears to be a little further to the east inside the caravan park, the other side of the trees and the western most row of caravans - you can just see a pole in the north west corner of the grass area, and follow the line of them to the north.

[742-xx]

As promised last night.
This picture was taken using a cockpit mounted Gopro camera.
This was three weeks ago.
Not brilliant quality.
But I think/hope it shows what is a clear unobstructed approach.

http://i730.photobucket.com/albums/ww310/ReluctantMountianeer/EGCKapp_zpsa9c0c70e.jpg (http://s730.photobucket.com/user/ReluctantMountianeer/media/EGCKapp_zpsa9c0c70e.jpg.html)

[piperboy84]

Looking at how clear the approach is in 742's pic, you'd have wonder if a misunderstanding of what a displaced threshold actually is could not be ruled out

[maxred]

Looks like runway 26 to me, the signs say that on the pics, I landed there in November and the caravan site, high trees and telegraph poles right at the end of the runway are a surprise

I have landed on this runway many times, and as the above photo clearly shows, there is no problem at all with this runway, nor its approach.

If the comment about this chap hitting trees is accurate, then he severely undershot, and the reasons for this could be many...

[flyalotbob]

Carb ice? Would explain why he was too low

[talkpedlar]

You would intentionally decend through trees because of carb-ice? :ugh:

[hoodie]

talkpedlar, why the " :ugh: " ?

Regardless of what happened on this sad occasion, carb ice leading to loss of power and inability to maintain approach flight path is a logical sequence.

[wsmempson]

If the pilot concerned was more used to flying a taper wing PA28, the different glide characteristics of the Hershey-bar wing could well have caught him by surprise, and led to a considerable undershoot. Difficult to imagine, short of engine problems, what else could have resulted in such a monumental FUBAR.

[bingoboy]

What studies have been done on wind turbine vortices?

A crosswind from the right on 26 seems a potential issue or is it an unknown.

[charliejulietwhiskey]

Re the above quote, read the posts from those of us who have been there.

I agree with Shaggy Sheep, makes sense what you say but as a first timer there I wasn't expecting what I found on finals, I could see how someone could be caught out with the displaced threshold though.

[abgd]

What studies have been done on wind turbine vortices?

The last I read, they didn't cause any additional turbulence.

[maxred]

CJW, out of curiosity, how can a displaced threshold catch you out?

Also, theoretically, how to the extent that one would undershoot and clip some trees?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

No real point in conjecture but there is no real reason ( barring exceptional circumstances ) why anyone should be flying shallow VFR glideslopes in GA aircraft with flaps. A bit of extra height might give you that safety cushion in case of the aircraft going tech on final.

The elephant that might be in the room is a recent thread on here where some folk (at least one who we suspect isn't even a pilot and was subsequently banned) was pushing the idea that everyone should always fly 3 degree approaches.... "that's what PAPIs are for".

This aeroplane appears to have undershot. There could well be a technical reason for that and I'm not saying the accident pilot was using flawed technique. But as a general point, perhaps a look back at that other thread in the light of this tragedy might be educational for those not yet convinced that PAPIs and VASIs (yes, I know there are none at Caernarfon) and 3 degree approaches are not appropriate for light VFR singles except under unusual cirmstances.

I await the AAIB report with interest.

[AirbusA350]

I don't see why everyone is getting the planes age involved. There is a lot of old planes and they all fly perfectly as long as they get they are checked regularly. The reason of the crash hasn't been mentioned yet so we can't blame the planes age.

[stevelup]

A 3° approach wouldn't put you anywhere near those caravans or trees...

[Pace]

It looks like a stall/spin accident caused by low speed back of drag curve with maybe a does of shear ito the equation.

Pace

[mad_jock]

But as a general point, perhaps a look back at that other thread in the light of this tragedy might be educational for those not yet convinced that PAPIs and VASIs (yes, I know there are none at Caernarfon) and 3 degree approaches are not appropriate for light VFR singles except under unusual cirmstances.


well said. Leave 3 deg approaches for times when the risks of not doing one exceed doing one. Which VFR I can't really think of one unless the additional risk is taken for the benefit of training.

[tomtytom]

Anybody see fly bpl owner on the news tonight being interviewed?

[baldwinm]

Quote:
What studies have been done on wind turbine vortices?

The last I read, they didn't cause any additional turbulence.

Where did you read that?

Have a look at

CAP 764: CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=2358)

In particular Chapter 2, section 8

[adamnewby]

I'm a instructor at Liverpool, heard them on freq getting a basic service and routing around the airspace. At Liverpool on the day, it was really calm early on, winds picked up a little in the afternoon. No idea what could of happened and wouldn't like to make a guess until report comes out. But does make you think how carful we have to be as pilots, go around if your even little un stable and up to us instructors to get across how important safety is from very early on.

[sapperkenno]

What time of day did this happen? Was there a problem with low sun and a grazed windshield?

Haven't noticed anyone bring this question up yet, so apologies if it's already been discussed.

[flyalotbob]

Rm at Flybpl today being interviewed

Blackpool light aircraft crashes in Wales - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/granada/story/2013-05-19/blackpool-light-aircraft-crashes-in-wales/)

[Pooh-Bear]

As the mother of the 26yr old who lost his life flying the above plane in Feb 2007 my heart goes out to the relatives and friends of yesterdays accident in North Wales.
Todays news has brought it all back to me and I am not surprised that Blackpool Airport is yet again highlighted.
I can only hope and pray that this never happens again.

[1.3VStall]

Jeez Guys,

Approach to RW26 at Caernarfon not difficult - fact.

Aircraft crashed on approach - fact.

Everything else pure speculation - fact.

Leave it to the AAIB and move on - wish!

[abgd]

The turbine research I read about most recently

Wind farms: A danger to ultra-light aircraft? - Research News August 2012 - Topic 4 (http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2012/august/wind-farms-a-danger-to-ultra-light-aircraft.html)

and there's a poster about it here:

http://www.forwind.de/makingtorque/Posters/Poster_81.pdf

If anything, they seem to suggest that wind gradient is a bigger problem than turbulence.

I agree, having now read the poster, that it's hardly the last word on the matter. I also hadn't realised anyone had gone so far as putting turbines on the airfield.

[Into-the-blue]

She may indeed have been old, however she was well kept. These were taken of me flying G-ATRR a few weeks ago out of Blackpool. Thoughts are with the injured and the family of the departed.

http://imgur.com/4mwzKYOPicture 1 (http://imgur.com/PSho42z)

Picture 2 (http://imgur.com/ogAeKi7)

Picture 3 (http://imgur.com/4mwzKYO)





http://www.flickr.com/photos/95971573@N08/8758468011/in/photostream

[charliejulietwhiskey]

Well said Pudknocker

[RTN11]

It's a shame that these threads always go the same way, people start to speculate and then others come along and shoot them down for the speculation.

The accident has happened, and someone has lost their life. Very sad news, but nothing can change that now, and I would hope that no relatives would be reading these boards so soon after an event like this.

Speculation is healthy and good. It can bring up points of discussion which none of us may have thought of before, on this thread for example turbulence created by wind turbines. It's probably absolutely nothing to do with this particular accident, but might just make one person think about it in the future, and it could prevent an accident then.

When the AAIB report eventually comes out in about 18-24 months, most on here will have completely forgotten about this incident, it certainly won't get posted, discussed or picked through, so for many of us this is the only opportunity to brain storm possible causes and how we can work against them in the future. I would call it threat and error management.

[stringfellow]

RTN11.

Im from the rotary world but experience the same clap trap about keeping silent until the report is out... by which time everyone has forgotten about it and moved on... and a valuable debate is lost.

After all these years it still amazes me. Can someone please tell me in plain English why a spirited debate, however inaccurate it may transpire to be, is a bad thing???

[flybymike]

Well, since we are all jumping on the speculation bandwagon I might as well join in.
One of the three most useless things in aviation is "runway behind you" and I suspect that many pilots who can plainly see the start of a runway might well be inclined to simply aim for it as a touchdown point, rather than the actual displaced threshold, and do so without necessarily considering the reason for the displacement. A low approach resulting in contact with the trees may have been all that was necessary for this tragedy.

[Fostex]

Reminds me of the incident earlier in the year when a 172 on approach into an airfield in the US clipped an SUV. Everyone focused on the SUV driver apparently being in the wrong by not checking the approach but the runway clearly had a displaced threshold to protect against such an eventuality which the pilot violated.

I know I am guilty of making the arrows on the starter ext. my aiming point, particularly on short field ops, but I will always make sure the wheels are never on the ground before the white line.

[piperboy84]

FLYBYMIKE
One of the three most useless things in aviation is "runway behind you" and I suspect that many pilots who can plainly see the start of a runway might well be inclined to simply aim for it as a touchdown point, rather than the actual displaced threshold, and do so without necessarily considering the reason for the displacement.

That is exactly what I was trying to convey but failed to put it across so clearly, if at all, I have no knowledge of this particular incident and am not suggesting the following is what happened, but I remember on my first xc solo I landed at a field with a displaced threshold and I landed quite a bit before the threshold, now I was just a PPLbut I knew about displaced thresholds and why they were there and I also knew there was plenty runway after the threshold for my little 152 but my head told how and where to land at the particular field but my heart said get it down just in case I run out of runway, so in justifying what I wrongly concluded would be the “safest” option not based on aircraft performance or runway length but on an IMAGINED danger, I had created a REAL danger, as we all know the displacement is there for a reason and it is not just for the big boys doing approaches. The reason I specified in my earlier post that the runway was 2400 feet is that every spamcan pilot knows by reading the POH that that is more than enough to land on and they should eliminate from their minds the “best get it in and down regardless of what the marking say” panicked thought process (like I did) and give priority consideration to the POH and Airfield Facilities Directory and not what they imagine the runway to be based on a feeling or imagined threat.
Just my 2 cents from personal experience, and again absolutely no speculation as to what happened to these poor folks.

[Johnm]

A key lesson that no-one has mentioned is that flying is about procedures, just like surgery. If you fly IFR that goes without saying, but it applies equally to VFR flying. The more precisely you follow procedures the better.

Runway markings are there for a purpose as are circuit and approach patterns and you deviate from them at your peril. If you find that you have deviated then go-around is the appropriate reaction.

I can think of no circumstances where low and slow is a good idea in a spam can even on a short field approach the numbers and procedure are clearly laid out in the POH.

[maxred]

Well CJW has decided not to tell us why displaced thresholds may be a difficulty, but others have. Well done.

It is of course illusionary, a fixation on landing phase, to the extent that the mind is telling you that the threshold is in fact the end of the Tarmac, not the clearly defined, white runway markings which as we all know indicates where the take off run should start, and the landing phase/flare may begin. In general, displacements are there for very good reason, normally that danger lurks prior to the runway beginning. Carlisle was a classic, can't remember which runway, but there was a fence, a wire fence that crossed the runway, I think laterally they put up big white crosses, but it would have ruined your day had you landed short of the threshold.

It may be that in this particular case, it was really as simple as being to low, and to slow, thinking that get it down on the Tarmac prior to the markings, and of course the trees came a bit too close.

Condolences to all involved.

[talkpedlar]

Well, since we are all jumping on the speculation bandwagon I might as well join in.
One of the three most useless things in aviation is "runway behind you" and I suspect that many pilots who can plainly see the start of a runway might well be inclined to simply aim for it as a touchdown point, rather than the actual displaced threshold, and do so without necessarily considering the reason for the displacement. A low approach resulting in contact with the trees may have been all that was necessary for this tragedy.

Such a tragedy all the same..

[proplover]

Jeepers so many crash experts, infering that the pilot allowed the aircraft to get low and slow is conjecture. If this was the case then for all you know there may well be a reason why this happened - imagine how you pilot experts would feel comming into land with a caravan park and trees in front of you and your suddenly without power - would you try and streach it for instance or plant it into the caravan park or trees? I for one find it distastefull that your casting doubts on a pilot without knowing many\any of the details of the incident. An intrim report will be produced in short time. With all 3 in the incident from the same family try and 'think' before writting disparaging remarks about the pilot, I believe he survived so he may of lost his son and injured a grandson - dont you think that weighs heavy enough on his mind?

[sapperkenno]

If this was the case then for all you know there may well be a reason why this happened - imagine how you pilot experts would feel comming into land with a caravan park and trees in front of you and your suddenly without power - would you try and streach it for instance or plant it into the caravan park or trees?
All the more reason to fly a steeper, proper old-school glide approach when landing over such obstacles then isn't there.

[Captain Singh]

Sad turn of events indeed.

I have been to Caernarfon myself - a great place with beautiful scenery. When I heard of the incident, we (me/friends at Barton) immediately thought he must have hit (or missed and crashed) due to the wind turbines recently installed on the airfield.

Some people I know who are skeptical of GA are already saying - "Told you so" / "Maverick pilots" etc. etc. The media does not help - with the Great British Tabloids saying that GA is dangerous, environmentally unfriendly (Sun talking about the environment :hmm:) and a non-sport for the elite.

These things do happen, but it seems like while driving like a Maniac with cellphone in one hand is "cool", GA is a danger to the society :ugh:

Anyway, my best wishes for the survivors, and their families. I hope the youngest one is not put off by this horrible incident.

[Pace]

A few facts! the vast vast majority of accidents are pilot error.
When these tragic events happen they scare the rest of us " There for the grace of god go I syndrome".
Hence pilots with the accident fresh in their minds want to talk, take it apart discuss possible scenarios and are more likely to take in those possible scenarious.
One of those scenarios maybe the actual cause of the accident many other may not be but at least pilots discuss.
The usual excuse not to discuss is wait for the AAIB report. Two more facts! When the AAIB report comes out maybe a year later the incident has become a distant memory and few bother.
Two the AAIB Investigations do not always come to a definitive conclusion.
I have lost 7 friends over the years to flying accidents all pilot error!
Should I be such a victim feel free to discuss my accident, take it apart, talk about possible reasons but NEVER STATE ANYTHING AS FACT and always be respectful to the tragic victims

Pace

[jayteeto]

Dont wait for the accident report! Speculate over and over again, however bear in mind that NOTHING is fact. Nobody is right or wrong until the report is published.
Why not have "scenario" threads, where a simulated accident is announced and pilots can guess the cause. After a couple of days we could publish the solution and pilots can see how well they did. ANY discussion about an accident that can get one single pilot to realise his errors has to be valuable.
Moderators, how about giving this a try?

[RTN11]

Why not have "scenario" threads, where a simulated accident is announced and pilots can guess the cause. After a couple of days we could publish the solution and pilots can see how well they did. ANY discussion about an accident that can get one single pilot to realise his errors has to be valuable.
Moderators, how about giving this a try?

Don't they already do that over on the FLYER forum?

I find discussing real incidents far more valuable though, as it really shows how even very experienced pilots can have a lapse in concentration, or complacency or whatever it is, and we must all look for it in our own flying lest we are the next one being discussed.

The displaced threshold may well have played it's part in this particular incident. It can completely alter the approach aspect, perhaps if the sun was in his eyes he would not have seen the arrows painted on the runway, perhaps it was his first visit, or perhaps he had flown there so many times he was complacent of the displaced threshold. It's easy to ignore a displaced threshold if you do not see the reason for it being there, Exeter runway 08 being a good example where a lot of pilots disregard it and land at the beginning of the runway as they just can't see why it's displaced.

[mary meagher]

Those of us who buzz round the same old circuits on the same old airstrips keep fairly well up to date with the local hazards.....I used to ignore the displaced threshold at Enstone, knowing why they painted it in the first place, to lure pilots from London Airport (Oxford) !!! into doing some training at Enstone. Being familiar with the local scenery, there were no hazards on approach to merit a displaced threshold.

There were also some territorial disputes there that ended up with wire fences strung along the perimeter that caught the unwary. If you flew in every week or so for fuel, and kept abreast of the latest hazards, not a problem.

The main hazard on approach to one of our runways at Shenington for the unwary visitor is the electric fence occasionally erected at the end of the runway to keep in the cows....probably not mentioned in Pooleys....and quite invisible until too late....

I also would not wait for any AAIB report before making a contribution to a reasoned debate on any accident.....to my certain knowlege the AAIB doesn't always get it right even when eventually they publish. Certainly the airmiss reports are not to be relied upon. The new format that emphasises the two classes of report, one provided by the pilots involved as compared to the more authoritative one that has been properly investigated, is an improvement.

[F4TCT]

personally don't usually partake in accident threads because of my lack of experience (104 hours), but the various suggestions of causes certainly makes me think and does affect how i fly.

Doing my IMC has proved invaluable, only last week fresh in the saddle again did I find malfunctioning instruments in mostly crap weather. All worked out well because im confident.

visit planned for the said airfield in the near future.

Very sad accident.

From what was said earlier in the thread about age of the aircraft, used to fly a 1970 pa28 140 and it was sweet as a nut, bar the shafted adf. A little underpowered maybe but no issue at all.

Dan

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I agree these things should be discussed as long as no 'this was the cause' statements are made, and those stridently demanding that everyone else say nowt until AAIB report time should wind their necks in.

And don't forget, the AAIB is not the paragon of disinterest (that's disinterest, not uninterest; something quite different) that it once perhaps was. Some years ago I was close to one of their investigations (it involved a pilot in our group - not me - in our shareoplane and I was last to fly it before the accident pilot). I was deeply unimpressed with some aspects of the report and complained to the investigor. He agreed I had a valid point, apologised, but would not change the report.

it ain't neccessarily so
it ain't neccessarily so
the the things that you're liable
to read in the AAIB bible
it ain't neccessarily so.....

[emperess762]

Reason for crash solved.... Quote Walesonline ...Owner of Fly Blackpool aviation club, Robert Murgatroyd, said: “We believe it’s pilot error as the aircraft is mechanically sound.” hmmmmm !!!!

[Jetblu]

It does beg the question, to wonder if a banned member/amatuer investigator is manufacturing some evidence for the AAIB on this one. ....... is well known to them. :ugh:

[tomtytom]

Would the owner of the flying club really say that? It sounds like a dogey media twist...

[Pace]

“We believe it’s pilot error as the aircraft is mechanically sound.” hmmmmm !!!!

That begs the question of when a crash is not pilot error? We are trained to deal with failures and emergencies with aircraft which are not mechanically sound.
In correct handling of those failures could lead to a crash which could also be classified as pilot error

Pace:O

[Jonty]

If an engine were to fail and the aircraft crash landed this would be a mechanical failure. However, if an engine were to fail and the pilot subsequently stalled on final approach and crashed, this would be pilot error.

Good isn't it!

[horsebox]

History tells us that it is likely to be a combination of smaller problems that lead to the crash?

From the scraps of information known he got low on the approach. Why and how he got there, and maybe why he could not correct the situation is anyone's guess at this stage.

Straightforward pilot error, distraction, mis-interpretation of the displaced threshold, carb ice, mis-management of fuel, problems when selecting flaps, some sort of pilot incapacitation, engine issues etc etc the list is long.

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi.. I remember many years ago an airplane put it's landing gear through the roofs of some houses on the approach to the old RW24 at Manchester.
Despite the obvious AAIB report, the houses are still there complete with repaired roofs.

I wonder if these Caernarfon trees will have a visit from a man with a chain-saw soon. If they were not there, or 10 foot lower, this accident would most likely not have happened.
Small trees have a tendency of growing into big trees, if left unattended.

Whether the turbines will stand the test of time, and the AAIB report, remains to be seen.

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Guys,

I am interested in Shaggy Sheep's last comment about being unimpressed by the accuracy/impartiality of an AAIB investigation.

As we all know, the AAIB has the duty to investigate all flying accidents, whether the aircraft involved has been a B747 or a Curry Wot.

My guess is that the people the AAIB would tend to recruit as investigators will mostly, if not all, have come from a background of 'professional' flying, such as the military or CAT.

Perhaps few of them will also be, or have been, ordinary flying club members and thus acquainted with private pilots or our kind of flying.

In my experience, 'professional' pilots not uncommonly regard the private pilot as a not very competent dabbler with minimal training whose skills are always going to be suspect.

If this attitude was to permeate the thinking of an AAIB investigation into a GA accident, it might have unfortunate consequences for the outcome of the investigation.

'Anybody throw some light upon this? Are there any AAIB investigators reading Pprune who could comment?

Regards,

BP.

[Pace]

jonty

Yes agreed the failure would contribute to the reasons why the pilot lost control but its the pilot who looses control unless of course the failure makes the aircraft unflyable.
An engine failure over extensive dense forestation would inevitably lead to a crash in trees a good pilot would maintain minimum flying speed into the trees and turn into wind another pilot may stall /spin into the trees.
Both could be killed but the good pilot would have a better chance of survival.
An even better pilot would not fly over dense extensive forestation in a single piston at an altitude where he could not glide clear into open ground

Pace

[Jetblu]

BroomstickPilot Reference to your final sentence.

*'Anybody throw some light upon this? Are there any AAIB investigators reading Pprune who could comment?"*


It is known that past contributors to this forum are known to the AAIB, some, very well connected. It is also known that they still read the posts here.

In answer to your question, my guess is that the AAIB have been alerted to this thread, if the are not already aware of it.

[hoodie]

The operator of Ashcroft airfield appears to be using this tragic accident to make an unrelated point.

http://www.ashcroftair.co.uk/images/caernarfon_airfield_crash__19_may_2013_.jpg

I think that is disgraceful.

[barry lloyd]

Hi.. I remember many years ago an airplane put it's landing gear through the roofs of some houses on the approach to the old RW24 at Manchester.
Despite the obvious AAIB report, the houses are still there complete with repaired roofs.


Totally different thing altogether. The accident was on Shadow Moss Road, which is not on the approach to 24 and had nothing to do with undercarriages and roofs:

="http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19570314-0"]http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19570314-0

Back to the main debate...

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

hoodie, I absolutely agree. There seems to be a lot of bad blood between this guy and LAC. I've no idea what it's about, but to cite this tragedy in the way he has is absolutely appalling.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I am interested in Shaggy Sheep's last comment about being unimpressed by the accuracy/impartiality of an AAIB investigation.

As we all know, the AAIB has the duty to investigate all flying accidents, whether the aircraft involved has been a B747 or a Curry Wot.

My guess is that the people the AAIB would tend to recruit as investigators will mostly, if not all, have come from a background of 'professional' flying, such as the military or CAT.

Perhaps few of them will also be, or have been, ordinary flying club members and thus acquainted with private pilots or our kind of flying.

In my experience, 'professional' pilots not uncommonly regard the private pilot as a not very competent dabbler with minimal training whose skills are always going to be suspect.

If this attitude was to permeate the thinking of an AAIB investigation into a GA accident, it might have unfortunate consequences for the outcome of the investigation.


The impression I got, after reading the report and subsequently speaking to the inspector in order to express my complaint, is AAIB were pushed for resources and didn't check some stuff fed to them by the accident pilot (stuff the group had already seen from the accident pilot's legal advisors and which we had dismissed as a desperate attempt by them to reduce their client's uninsured losses resulting from the accident).

AAIB's hitherto excellent reputation sank beyond trace in my estimation following that episode. In hindsight, and since the comments in the report pointed a passing finger at me, the previous pilot to fly the aerolplane, I shouldn't have let the matter drop, and should have followed my phone call up with a written complaint and taken it further than that if need be. But I was very busy at the time and life's too short. It's something I still regret not doing, however, especially as AAIB had not contacted me at all to check the facts.

[baldwinm]

I hope the AAIB do a thorough investigation that excludes (or otherwise) the possibility that the wind turbines situated on the airfield could in any way have contributed to the accident through wind shear, turbulence, visual distraction or by any other mechanism.

[Pace]

That is a valid point regarding placement of wind turbines or other obstructions in an airfield environment! I doubt it was a factor here but with the attitude especially with those horrendous wind turbines money and profits rule over safety!
With the huge profits they generate to landowners the placement of those awful wind turbines should be resisted anywhere near or on the flight paths to airfields!
Often some airfields have natural obstacles and it is up to the pilot to be familiar as well as maintaining the correct speeds and profile for the given conditions!
Above all keep the thing flying even into a hazardous landing area!

Pace

[baldwinm]

I think it unlikely too, and yet there is a nagging doubt at the back of my mind.

From the CAA document I referenced previously

"It is recognised that aircraft wake vortices can be hazardous to other aircraft, and that
wind turbines produce wakes of similar, but not identical, characteristics to aircraft.
Although there are independent bodies of knowledge for both of the above, currently,
there is no known method of linking the two. Published research shows
measurements at 16 rotor diameters downstream of the wind turbine indicating that
turbulence effects are still noticeable"

[piperboy84]

*'Anybody throw some light upon this? Are there any AAIB investigators reading PPRuNe who could comment?"*


It is known that past contributors to this forum are known to the AAIB, some, very well connected. It is also known that they still read the posts here.

In answer to your question, my guess is that the AAIB have been alerted to this thread, if the are not already aware of it.

I doubt the busy folks at the AAIB would use this as a source as they would spend a lifetime parsing thru a mountain of **** to get anything worthwhile if at all. I assume they are well aware the primary skills and training/professions of the vast majority on here are totally unrelated to flying, I’d be kind of concerned if they looked to this forum for help in their investigation into this or any incident. That would be like requesting David Hasselholf’s judgment on an individual’s singing and acting capabilities, or dare I say it, seeking guidance on iceberg avoidance from the captain of the Titanic. Let’s face it, apart from extremely rare breed on here (that you can tell by their posts involving advanced scientific theories and formulas that go way over my wee heed) who are no doubt the Formula 1 drivers of aviation knowledge the rest of us are rank amateur weekend stock car drivers when it comes to aviation

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I doubt the busy folks at the AAIB would use this as a source as they would spend a lifetime parsing thru a mountain of **** to get anything worthwhile if at all. I assume they are well aware the primary skills and training/professions of the vast majority on here are totally unrelated to flying, I’d be kind of concerned if they looked to this forum for help in their investigation into this or any incident. That would be like requesting David Hasselholf’s judgment on an individual’s singing and acting capabilities, or dare I say it, seeking guidance on iceberg avoidance from the captain of the Titanic. Let’s face it, apart from extremely rare breed on here (that you can tell by their posts involving advanced scientific theories and formulas that go way over my wee heed) who are no doubt the Formula 1 drivers of aviation knowledge the rest of us are rank amateur weekend stock car drivers when it comes to aviation

piperboy, you're right; there's a mountain of **** in here. Did you really have to add to it? :rolleyes:

[RTN11]

SSD

The impression I got, after reading the report and subsequently speaking to the inspector in order to express my complaint, is AAIB were pushed for resources and didn't check some stuff fed to them by the accident pilot (stuff the group had already seen from the accident pilot's legal advisors and which we had dismissed as a desperate attempt by them to reduce their client's uninsured losses resulting from the accident).


How serious an incident was it? This one obviously involves a fatality, and my experience of the AAIB is that they follow everything up a lot more thoroughly when someone has lost their life.

If the incident you have experience of wasn't quite so serious, they may just take the statements they receive and publish without much further investigation. If it did involve a fatality or serious injury, then obviously it's a pretty poor show if the AAIB didn't investigate further when you raised concerns.

[mary meagher]

Well, it is absolutely wonderful the explanations and excuses that pilots provide the AAIB and the airmiss folks. I have seen with my own little eyes, plus about six or seven other experienced observers, somebody making an abosolute bollocks of an approach, one ended up writing off his Archer by landing in poor viz, downwind, and stuffing it into our hedge. He blamed the prang on not receiving any information on conditions on the radio - which is NEVER MANNNED! As he kept his aircraft on our site and his wife was waiting for him in his car, he was certainly aware that there was NO RADIO SERVICE OF ANY KIND. And yet these excuses were included in the report.

Another occasion a helicopter lifted right up out of somebody's garden into the approach path of an early solo glider, which had no radio. Many gliders have no radio. We see and avoid. He explaned likewise that as he had called and received no answer, he assumed there was no active flying.... he had talked to somebody the day before who answered the clubhouse phone, and that, he assumed, gave him carte blanch....could have been the cleaning lad answering the phone, we certainly were unaware of any impending traffic.

The airmiss investigation report gave credit to the helicopter pilot's account of the incident. I suppose he expected the glider on approach to give way!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Relatively minor incident, if expensive for the pilot concerned. However, sloppy technique is sloppy technique and indicates flaws in basic methods of working.

I don't buy it that a flawed organisation would magically loose all those flaws for a more serious incident.

[smarthawke]

I know a number of the AAIB inspectors and they are all current GA pilots and some are owner/pilots. Not all have an ATPL or military background.

[Swiss Cheese]

Resources are limited at the AAIB, however I have consistently been impressed by the depth and completeness of their investigations into fatal GA accidents (fixed and rotor-wing). In all fatal accidents, there will normally be a Coroner's Inquest, at which the AAIB will be called to give evidence. That is always a good opportunity to test the thoroughness of the AAIB report.

As for non fatal accidents which do not result in some form of legal scrutiny.....

From personal working relations with the AAIB (and as a PPL H), I have never detected a commercial/mil bias, or condescending attitude to GA pilots.

[Tupperware Pilot]

Mary,
I remember that crash well, but it was a Cessna not a Archer...
This landing did not go well..... | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tupperware_pilot/3589362265/)
The report did make me laugh....:=

[BroomstickPilot]

Shaggy Sheep Driver,

Thanks for responding to my questions Shaggs.

BP.

[Rod1]

If you want an example of just how badly the AAIB can screw up have a look at this;

https://sites.google.com/site/gstyxstory/

I have been on the periphery of two investigations and am very skeptical re the AAIB.

Rod1

[gasax]

I was tempted to post the styx story. Like any organisation the AAIB does good work and 'less good'. There will be highly competent people and those 'much less gifted'.

For GA incidents, in the general scheme of things there are considerably less important than CAT, so where do you put the really good people? That frankly is simple good sense, so many of the impassioned pleas "wait for the AAIB report" will mean the result may not be that impressive. Especially for those accidents where the only commentry comes from the pilot and given human nature they are unlikely to 'fess up to gross incompetance!

In this case, from the pictures and comment, it seems to hardly need detailed investigation, clipping trees on the approach should be something that simply does not occur during VFR flying. So that leads to a pretty obvious answer - whether the engine was running or not I'm afraid.

[jayteeto]

I have my own views on what happened, however something to bear in mind is carb icing if this ac has a carb! Read the books, low power setting, ac gets low on approach, pilot opens throttle to correct, cough cough, too late.
Just another point to consider.

[Jonty]

I would agree with the carb ice scenario. However, that would still be classed as pilot error.

[baldwinm]

In this case, from the pictures and comment, it seems to hardly need detailed investigation, clipping trees on the approach should be something that simply does not occur during VFR flying. So that leads to a pretty obvious answer - whether the engine was running or not I'm afraid.

How about pilot incapacitation (e.g. heart attack, stroke) plus a whole load of factors previously mentioned.

The logical conclusion of your argument seems to be that no properly flown aeroplane should crash, therefore all accidents are due to pilot error, isn't it?

[RTN11]

The logical conclusion of your argument seems to be that no properly flown aeroplane should crash, therefore all accidents are due to pilot error, isn't it?

I don't think that's what he's trying to say, but in the event of carb ice that can be said to be pilot error as there are many ways to stop it happening with use of carb heat, mixture and power setting. It is well documented, and if you are operating in known conditions where carb ice is rife without taking it into account, I'd say that's pilot error just as flying into a cloud and getting ice on the wings would be.

The AAIB will start at the very beginning, ruling out things like fuel contamination and pilot incapacitation early on, then look at the conditions on the day and draw their own conclusions. Obviously we don't have all that information to hand, and are purely speculating (which I again emphasise is a good thing as it may just make someone take something on board to stop an accident in the future).

History does rather show that accidents happen when lots of things line up rather than one sole cause, perhaps this scenario could be unfamiliar with the displaced threshold, sun in his eyes, grandson excitedly distracting him from the back seat, who knows maybe carb ice and an engine failure as well.

[mary meagher]

Thanks, Tupperware, for the correction. Just shows how memory at my age plays funny tricks....that is definitely the definitive photo of that arrival....how appropriate the registration of the Cessna, if you leave off the last letter.....

But the pilot's report was a bit economical....the AAIB doesn't always spend much effort in following up non fatal accidents, that's for sure.

Occasionally one can read between the lines that the investigators are not always convinced by the pilot's narrative of events. I remember reading about a Cirrus that pulled his chute not far from our airfield....he apparently was concentrating on pushing buttons inside the cockpit when he looked up and all he could see was green.....

[mary meagher]

According to what the pilot of GBAMJ told the AAIB, on 14 June 1997, he was returning from France, stopped at Lydd mid-day to refuel, and only at that time got the weather from Birmingham which he believed would favour the Easterly run at Shenington. He reports the cloudbase at 1,500, which was probably the height above sea level at Lydd. Shenington is 800 feet AMSL. And the cloud on his approach was even lower, as the wind had changed to a westerly, and the orographic had formed on the ridge.

We couldn't believe what we were seeing from the clubhouse; we had stopped flying an hour before because of the crap weather. And here he appears out of the mist, approaching downwind! surely he"ll go round...he cannot be serious...he needs to go round now! he touched down well past the midpoint, and just kept rolling, not only hitting the boundary hedge, but crunching right through it to the mini car park....

So what can we learn from his AAIB statement? not a lot! too bad they didn't interview the witnesses.

He was probably too tired to think straight, and his wife was waiting for him at Shenington with their car....

As other posters have said on this thread, there are usually several elements that lead to an accident. Certainly the displaced threshold could have been one. I hope the AAIB will in this case interview the witnesses.

[Pace]

I am sure a lot of these accidents occur as you say by mistakes leading to mistakes and eventually pilot overload.
I right seated a pilot in a twin who got so stressed out on an aborted approach that when it was obvious we were not breaking out and the command go around was given just pulled the nose up, no power, no gear retraction, no flap retraction yet the pilot had carried out missed approaches in training.
The overloaded mind just freezes and pilots do strange things.

Pace

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Wasn't there a chap who flew into a river in Yorkshire? Claimed he mistook it for a runway or something. You can almost (but not quite) read between the lines of the AAIB report what they thought he was really up to when he hit the water!

[Lagentium]

Shaggy Sheep Driver, yes sir you are correct, flew into the River Derwent in one of Sherburn Aero Clubs aircraft, there were all sorts of rumours floating about as to what happened, not helped by his videos on YouTube that his friends recorded of him! Then he flew into a mountain in Europe somewhere.....

Cheers,Jim:eek:

[wsmempson]

Shaggysheepdriver, the rumour doing the rounds was that he was trying to copy the T6 Harvard display team in South Africa, who skim the surface of a lake in formation.

Matey had a chum standing by the riverbank to video his amazing feat of daring-do but, when the accident happened, wisely decided to 'accidentally' wipe the footage. Matey then came up with the landing story.

Allegedly.:ooh:

[baldwinm]

Sorry to bang on about the wind turbines again but I think it is slightly more on topic than recent posts:)

I note with interest that on a thread about the proposed wind farm near Popham that the siting of two wind turbines near Strathaven airfield was refused, one of the reasons given being airfield safety. Also the wind turbines at East Midlands Airport are under ATC control and hence can be stopped if required, presumably to control turbulence.

Go figure, as they say in the States.

[Pace]

BaldwinM

I totally agree with you on wind turbines
They are a blot on the landscape as well as a hazard to not only aircraft but wildlife!
A sickening development where a lot of people are making huge profits under the guise of " GREEN "
I doubt wind turbines were an ingredient in this tragic accident although they should be definately be banned from
Active airfields or their approach paths as well as many other places where they destroy the visual Beauty of our countryside!
Do not send them
Out to sea as they also destroy our marine life
Far far from
Green other than the colour of the notes in the fat cat wallets

Pace

[Back at NH]

In my experience, 'professional' pilots not uncommonly regard the private pilot as a not very competent dabbler with minimal training whose skills are always going to be suspect.Why? Lets's have a look.

.... It's not a short, rough strip with obstacles on the approach, it's a nice long tarmac runway with an unobstructed approach to the displaced threshold. Then why the displaced threshold? Quote from the AIP - "Runway 26 landing threshold displaced by 89m to allow 1:20 approach over trees and HT cable."

Never flown in there but based on what i can see on google earth it looks like a fine airfield:ugh: There are better briefing mediums

.....I used to ignore the displaced threshold at Enstone, knowing why they painted it in the first place, to lure pilots from London Airport (Oxford) !!! into doing some training at Enstone. Being familiar with the local scenery, there were no hazards on approach to merit a displaced threshold.So hazards on approach are the only reason for a displaced threshold?

Doing my IMC has proved invaluable, only last week fresh in the saddle again did I find malfunctioning instruments in mostly crap weather. All worked out well because im confident. I'd fly with you if that read "All worked out well because im(sic) competent"

In this case, from the pictures and comment, it seems to hardly need detailed investigation, .:=

It looks like a stall/spin accident caused by low speed back of drag curve with maybe a does of shear ito the equation.
:ugh:

A 3° approach wouldn't put you anywhere near those caravans or trees...Trees are about 210m from the displaced threshold, assume another 100m for landing in from the threshold, so over trees at 310m from touchdown. 3 degree approach is 320ft/nm, nm =1852m.

So 54ft above threshold elevation over the trees, how high are the trees?

Oh and for those querying the sun causing visibility problems. 2 mins searching show it happened at 1030UTC, on an approach to RW26 in May, the sun is not an issue.

[Pace]

BackAtNH

You seem to rubbish everyones opinion so would love to know yours :ugh:

Pace

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Not only that, but he's also a bit thick:


Quoting me:
.... It's not a short, rough strip with obstacles on the approach, it's a nice long tarmac runway with an unobstructed approach to the displaced threshold.

He asks...

Then why the displaced threshold? Quote from the AIP - "Runway 26 landing threshold displaced by 89m to allow 1:20 approach over trees and HT cable."


Because, you nitwit, the presence of the displaced threshold MAKES IT AN UNOBSTRUCTED APPROACH! That's what it's bleedin well for!

Jeesh! :rolleyes:

[piperboy84]

Back at
Quote:
Never flown in there but based on what i can see on google earth it looks like a fine airfield

:ugh: There are better briefing mediums


Yes, in-depth briefings are an excellent safety item when available, whether they be notams/AFD/ATIS etc. However you should not assume that everybody has the same flight mission/profile and too the same types of facilities. Over half my landings are in fields where the preflight destination telephone briefing goes something along these lines of:

Me: How’s the field looking today?
Field”Manager”: Which one?
Me: The one oot the back o’ the shed you had tatties in last year and its now in winter wheat.
Field “manager” Aye the tramlines are dry, it’ll dae fine.

That is why I said Caenarfon “looks like a fine field” to me it looks like a Heathrow!!

[mm_flynn]

Because, you nitwit, the presence of the displaced threshold MAKES IT AN UNOBSTRUCTED APPROACH! That's what it's bleedin well for!

Jeesh! :rolleyes:

As a note, the displaced threshold gives 1:20 clearance, IF you land per specification, which is crossing said displaced threshold at 50 feet AGL.

So back NH's question should have been 'at 104 feet how high are you above the trees.' However, most people are probably not going to aim to be 50 feet at the threshold so it will remain a somewhat obstructed approach.

[maxred]

Not only that, but he's also a bit thick:

Really, where are the mods when you need them?

Play the ball SSD, not the man.........:*

Remember...Bah, Bah:mad:

[Pace]

The fact is displaced threshold or not obstacles or not you have the mark1 eyeballs and do not fly into obstructions.
Get too low or too slow over those trees and ????

Pace

[mary meagher]

Excessive use of the "Smilies" on this and other threads should be banned.
IMHO indicates a negative attitude towards others, and all too easy to use instead of a reasoned contribution.

[maxred]

And so should rudeness, name calling, and spouting gibberish about everything, when knowing very little, and yet threads are full of it...(Resist using a smillie).

The issue with internet forums is that in certain circumstances, from the comfort of an armchair, with a gin in tonic in one hand, it can be easy to get carried away with ones own importance in the overall scheme of things.

If you read through this again, the usual suspects belittle, and bully one or two posters, simply because they do not agree, nor view the differing opinions stated. Whether they are right or wrong, that in turn stifles useful debate, IMHO.

Because, you nitwit, the presence of the displaced threshold MAKES IT AN UNOBSTRUCTED APPROACH! That's what it's bleedin well for!

A case in point:O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O

[Bluebear1872]

Has the AAIB report came out yet for this accident?

[The_Observer]

Nope, hasn't keep a look out for G-ATRR on the AAIB bulletins.

[flyalotbob]

BBC News - Ice blamed for Caernarfon plane crash which killed man (http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-27799342)

[bartonflyer]

Here's the link

Air Accidents Investigation: Piper PA-28-140 Cherokee, G-ATRR (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/june_2014/piper_pa_28_140_cherokee__g_atrr.cfm)

[Fox Four]

I think the carb ice theory was always going to be the most obvious cause. I have to say the pilots action of using carb heat on the downwind leg only seems quite bizarre. I have met several instructors through the years, and every single one has used similar methods. Carb heat on throttle reduction to 1700rpm when on the base leg, that carb heat only being stuffed back in on short finals, thereby giving full power if you need it.

[Mikeod]

Although it looks like carb ice was the main cause, it really scares me to think I took my family flying in g-atrr with the wings rear bolts missing. Not to mention the rest of the safety issues brought up in the report

[mad_jock]

come on you can hardly be surprised with the reputation that the owner has.

Must admit all I saw was blackpool, dodgy maint along with suspect procedures taught by an instructor.

Looked up G-INFO and low and behold my suspicions where correct.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Misuse of hot air control looks like being the primary cause, but what about that approach profile for a SEP? 4nm? Long, low...

Don't today's flying instructors know that hot air needs to be applied for quite a long time be effective, and should only be de-selected on short final in case a late go-around is called for? Or de-selected with power application in the event of an earlier go-around? Otherwise it should be ON in the circuit!

Whack on the hot air, wait a few seconds, whack it off... You probably make matters worse by doing that!

And those bomber approaches. ...Why?

We're not flying an airliner on an instrument approach - it's a light single in VFR! Keep it tight! Keep your height as long as you can!

[piperboy84]

Is there any downside whatsoever (other than a slight reduction in power) of having the carb heat on upon entering the pattern and leaving it on all the way till short final every time regardless of air moisture/temps?

I ask because back in the day when i was training one instructor advised to put carb heat on on the downwind to "test" to see if it was needed and if not return it to cold, another said just leave it on till just prior to touchdown or go around.

Its pretty hard to expect a pilot to have a mental picture of that carb icing envelope chart in his head and decide if conditions apply, so why no just leave it on all the way round?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It's theoretically possible for carb heat raise the inlet temp into the carb ice range, but pretty unlikely. Generally, the only downside is a reduction in power.

On the dHC1, warm air (as opposed to hot air) is generally always selected 'on' except at take off. RAF Chippys had it hard-wired to 'warm', with no 'cold' option. But then Brenda's Boys operated from nice long runways!

[Cows getting bigger]

A quick look at the POH for a Cherokee 140 reveals a bit of advice which conflicts with 'best practice' - "carburettor heat should not be applied nless there is an indication of carburettor icing" - this is standard POH guidance for PA28s.

A few years back I used to frequent a leaky hangar at the West end of Aodergrove. Hidden towards the back was GATRR, covered in guano and obviously not flown, for a long time. To think that someone declared this aircraft airworthy and, somewhere along the way, it 'lost' a couple of rear spar bolts without anyone noticing is shocking. As for the 50/150 confusion - outrageous.

Of course, the crash most probably wasn't caused by slack engineering procedures but, to me, this event highlights that we appear to be happy to launch into the sky in rubbish we would never consider driving down the road.

[cockney steve]

I'm with SSD on this, purely from a mechanic's perspective.
Heat will tend to soak back from the cylinder to the manifold , therefore, other than carburettor -ice, I'd expect any formation to be part-way along the induction-tract....but the carb. venturi would tend to freeze the moisture out first......add carb heat, -FUNDAMENTAL TEACHING, - If engine runs rougher, it's carb ice melting LEAVE HEAT ON !!!! A carb with fixed-mixture may actually run better, as the heat will lean the mixture slightly .. the effect of the warm-air blast on ice is probably only a few seconds before it starts to melt, However, As SSD suggests, It would probably take in excess of 10 minutes at lowish power-settings, to heat-soak the Carb. body to any useful degree.
For my money, carb heat in the circuit if there's the slightest chance of ice formation....bung it in on short final and you can be confident a clump of ice is not going to spoil a sudden decision to go-round....On a short strip, that sudden cough and splutter could be a really bad thing.
The loss of power with heat is not that big-a -deal, IMO, as the aircraft is not taking -off, so it's got less drag and needs less power (also may be in ground-effect) It's by far the lesser evil. momentary application of carb heat can be dangerous, as explained above...a monimum of 30 seconds should be about right. to be certain..

The only downside, other than the small power-loss, is the fact the warm air is unfiltered, but the air is relatively clean aloft, compared with ground-level and tyres and turbulence stirring up dust....carb heat still makes sense as a wise precaution.

[piperboy84]

Another thing I noticed looking at the track was it appeared to be a a non standard approach, the join made on the "base" leg was more like a 45 degree join for final, not that this caused the accident but I wonder if joining on a definitive part of the circuit either downwind or base with the standard 90 degree turns would afford a better and more familiar judgement of altitudes and speeds needed in case a dead stick landing had to be made, also check list sequencing based on pattern location me be thrown off with non standard pattern entry and approach.

Just a thought about entering the pattern in general and not criticizing the pilots in this accidents airmanship in any way.

[CaptainChairborne]

I'll criticize his airmanship. The pilot had 90 hours accrued between January 2005 and and May 2013, and as I read it, hadn't revalidated/renewed his licence which had lost its validity on 14th April 2012. I think inexperience and lack of currency could have been a contributing factor. Looking at the track on final in figure 5 of the report, he seems to have been aiming for the end of the runway rather than the displaced threshold - though I'll grant the photo may not be accurate

[flybymike]

A carb with fixed-mixture may actually run better, as the heat will lean the mixture slightly .
Warm air is less dense than cold air, so application of carb heat will enrichen the mixture.

[Pull what]

and 3 degree approaches are not appropriate for light VFR singles except under unusual cirmstances.

This is the sort of grass airfield Tiger Moth folk lore that has been around for far too long.

If you can fly a 3 degree glidepath in a large transport aircraft why can you not fly similar in a light aircraft?

VFR? So its OK to fly an ILS while IFR or in IMC at 3 degrees were you may not be able to see any approach obstructions but its not when you are VFR, how ridiculous.

So its OK to take a 747 over obstructions on the approach on a 3 degree glidepath but you need to be higher in a light aircraft?

(This is where they usually trot out that old chestnut about if the engine fails you wont make the airfield on a 3 degree glidepath but even that has been proved wrong at Heathrow)

3 degrees is generally the minimum approach angle were clearance above obstructions in the approach funnel is guaranteed. 3 degrees is perfectly acceptable in any aircraft were a 3 degree glidepath can be flown. Its amazing how many instructors quote this 3 degree myth but then go out and teach use of 3 degrees with VAPI and PAPIs at NIGHT!

Caenarfon was shown in the AIP as having trees(since removed I believe) as an aerodrome obstruction on the approach to runway 26 at the time of the accident.

There is a common tendency for pilots to duck under the glidepath at any approach angle were displaced thresholds exist and this, coupled with the focus going from the approach to the touchdown point in the latter stages, means that approach obstructions are sometimes overlooked. This ducking under tendency is also seen more often at unfamiliar airfields or on performance limiting runways. Ive seen it happen in both large transport aircraft and light aircraft. Ive also even heard an instructor teaching students to always aim at the first of the two displaced threshold arrows to achieve an early touchdown, more ridiculous folk lore!

[Fostex]

When I fly SEP I don't fly a 3 degree approach for the simple reason that it means I will be lower on final than I need to be. If I fly a steep approach and experience an engine failure on base or final I will have the option to glide into the field and will have more time available to locate a site for a forced landing should it be necessary.

There is always the argument that these steep, glide approaches are bad for an SEP due to shock cooling but if the airfield is surrounded by densely populated or hazardous terrain it is the best option.

At the end of the day you fly the approach that is appropriate for the aircraft, traffic and airfield.

[OpenCirrus619]

This is the sort of grass airfield Tiger Moth folk lore that has been around for far too long.

I must disagree. I won't detail what I think of this comment :mad:

2 points:

Only having one engine IS VERY relevant
A large jet, clean, will achieve in excess of 20:1 (3 degree)glide angle. A small GA SEP around 10:1 (6 degree)

I think the 2nd FACT alone is enough to completely debunk the rubbish above.

OC619

[flybymike]

I support the rubbish above.

[Pull what]

I support the rubbish above.

Me too!!!!!

[mad_jock]

bloody hell the nursing home have let him at the internet again.

Just put him (pull what) on your ignore list and you will be happy again.

Remember

there are some sad individuals who like to play walter mittys and seem to get pleasure out of arguing the toss on here.

[piperboy84]

IMHO, the steeper the better, nice and slow, with a quick and slight burst of power upon entering ground affect, eyes doon the strip and kiss the ground as smooth as a baby's bum !!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Someone show him that super video, you know, the one with the '3 degree' captain with epaulettes all the way up each arm! It's brill and it puts ****e like what Pull What is pedaling in its place - in the toilet!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I must disagree. I won't detail what I think of this comment :mad:

2 points:

Only having one engine IS VERY relevant
A large jet, clean, will achieve in excess of 20:1 (3 degree)glide angle. A small GA SEP around 10:1 (6 degree)

I think the 2nd FACT alone is enough to completely debunk the rubbish above.

OC619

I agree also.

The only good reason I can think of to fly a 3 degree in an SEP is practicing for the occasional IAP. Any other time, it's an unnecessary manoeuvre.

Third point - staying higher longer and using less power on approach annoys the noise-sensitive neighbours less.

Fourth point - practicing low power approaches is useful practice ust in case one day you need to do one for real.

G

[Fostex]

Here we go, I show this to everyone I see flying their big jet stabilised approaches in a spam can.

http://youtu.be/f6q2VKsvQEQ

[cockney steve]

Steep approach, you have energy to spare and the means to dump it once it is no longer required.

Shallow approach, the bag's empty, if you're not carrying enough height and the donkey goes sulky :eek:

Which would appear to bring us back to the subject of the thread.

[flybymike]

Donkey more likely to go sulky with constant high approaches.

[OpenCirrus619]

Donkey more likely to go sulky with constant high approaches.

Could you enlighten me why?

A low powered (50-55%) circuit, followed by a final glide at the correct speed isn't going to shock cool anything.

Before someone throws it into the mix ...

I am talking about boxer engines here - I fully appreciate that there are some extra considerations when flying behind a round engine.

OC619

[cats_five]

I fly gliders and I find the average power circuit very scary as the thought of what if the donkey quites is uppermost in my mind...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I fly gliders and I find the average power circuit very scary
I fly powered aircraft and I find the idea of the average glider circuit very scary - get something slightly wrong and there's no go-around option, you're going down whether you like it or not.

No doubt you're going to tell me that glider pilots are all sky gods who don't screw up approaches ... in which case gliding definitely isn't for the likes of me!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that you're missing the point Gertrude.

The constant aspect glider circuit, which is pretty much also the same as is flown by the military in most countries, does make it much easier both to space different speed traffic, and to make the runway if the engine stops at most parts of the circuit. It is also much easier to accurately control the touchdown point, particularly where you are flying an approach and landing without power (which isn't a bad practice powered in an SE, but obviously essential in a glider).

When I'm not sharing it with anybody else, I fly CA circuits in powered aeroplanes as well. I wouldn't go so far as to say that powered circuits frighten me, but I don't like them and won't fly them when there's a choice.

G

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

And don't forget that glider approaches are flown with the airbrakes out. If you find yourself undershooting, just close the brakes to regain the desired glideslope. No go-around capability, but given the short field performance and slow landing speed of gliders it's enough to ensure a safe arrival.

[cats_five]

And don't forget that glider approaches are flown with the airbrakes out. If you find yourself undershooting, just close the brakes to regain the desired glideslope. No go-around capability, but given the short field performance and slow landing speed of gliders it's enough to ensure a safe arrival.



Sort of. Once one has turned off base leg onto finals then the come out but only once one has flown into the 'cone' around the 1/2 to 2/3 airbrake setting. But absolutely, reference point creeping up the canopy requires the airbrakes to be shut, and seeing it creep down the canopy means open them some more and/or sideslip.

[Johnm]

And you fly an ILS in a spam can how exactly:ugh

[Piper.Classique]

If you want to fly an ILS in a single you fly the ILS. That doesn't mean you have to fly all approaches as if they were an ILS. I for one prefer a steeper approach. Pilot's choice.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It's "pilot's choice" in the same way it's "pilot's choice" to land a spammy on the mains with the nose wheel held off.... Or not!

In other words, it's pilot choice to do it correctly or not!

[India Four Two]

But absolutely, reference point creeping up the canopy requires the airbrakes to be shut, and seeing it creep down the canopy means open them some more and/or sideslip.

Exactly!

I always taught power pilots, when teaching them to fly gliders, to handle the air-brake lever in the same way and same sense as a throttle, with the all-important proviso that once it is all the way forward, you will still be descending!

[Above The Clouds]

My powered aircraft has airbrakes :E

[Piper.Classique]

Shaggy sheep driver, a three degree approach is not invariably wrong. Landing a nosedragger on the front wheel is invariably wrong, and not pilot's choice.
Thank you.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Piper Classic - disagree re 3 degrees (unless instrument approach or special conditions), disagree about landing nosewheel first - that's not 'pilot choice' it's a BIG non-no (I hope you know why?) and not what I said at all (I said 'not held off' - i.e. 3-point landing). Thank you.

[Above The Clouds]

So flying visually in to a grass strip or a runway with no instrument approach or visual approach aids Papi, Vasi, no fancy GPS in other words using only the Mk 1 eyeball, how are you determining that you are maintaining a 3 degree approach ? now add obstacle's, sloping grass runways etc.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

So flying visually in to a grass strip or a runway with no instrument approach or visual approach aids Papi, Vasi, no fancy GPS in other words using only the Mk 1 eyeball, how are you determining that you are maintaining a 3 degree approach ?
By following the home-made GPS approach on the iThingy, innit.

[Piper.Classique]

Ssd, read what I wrote please. I am in violent agreement with you about flat landings.
And actually also about three degree approaches, but they ARE appropriate when flying an instrument approach.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

And actually also about three degree approaches, but they ARE appropriate when flying an instrument approach.

Yes, and unless the approach specifies an approach profile that differs from 3 degrees you are likely to fail an IMC or IR renewal!!!

I appreciate that keeping above the glideslope is good practice for a visual approach in VMC in a single, in IMC under instrument conditions - NO.

But that's obvious - and why it's good to fly a twin!!!