Crash on Bute today 9th August 2014

[swopiv]

I've just read about this on the BBC Two people injured in Isle of Bute light aircraft crash (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-28723034).

Bute is one of my favourite places to fly to. I hope both people make a quick recovery.

Edited to add: I had a scary moment taking off from Bute last summer, when I was caught out by rotor from the trees. Hearing about an accident there does give me that 'what if..' feeling.

[fisbangwollop]

Fingers crossed everyone OK.

[Newforest2]

BBC News - Two people injured in Isle of Bute light aircraft crash (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-28723034)

Rumour is a cropduster? With two people?

[xrayalpha]

BBC - and others - got it wrong.

It was a Strathaven-based Sportscruiser.

We have no further news on the cause of the crash or the injuries to the two POB.

An unhappy end to the day.

[swopiv]

I'm really sorry to hear that Colin. I hope your guys are OK, and the injuries aren't too bad.

[suraci]

BBC reporting 63 year old dead, 52 year old critical. Both male

[gordonquinn]

The accident report was released today, see below.

Fatal crash plane 'was overweight', says air accident report - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-32732607)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/427299/AAIB_Bulletin_5-2015.pdf

[worldpilot]

At least the pilot survived to tell his story.


Is it normal to retrofit homebuilt with modifications without certification and then fly with passengers onboard?


WP

[Rod1]

"Is it normal to retrofit homebuilt with modifications without certification and then fly with passengers onboard?"

You cannot certify modifications on an uncertified permit to fly aircraft. You can get the LAA (in this case) to approve uncertified modifications and other aircraft of this type have had VP props and autopilots approved. I suspect that this was a paperwork error.

Rod1

[piperboy84]

The report says there was no traditional vane type stall warning installed but there was an EFIS stall Warning that was intentionally disabled due to false alarms. Why in the hell would you not have a stall warning unit or AOA indicator that was independent from the glass panel stuff

[airpolice]

If ever there was a reason for having Licensed Aircraft Engineers being the only folk who can sign off an aircraft, this is it. I am not in favour of that approach, but this kind of thing will make a case for it.

Of course, no changes will get around the Pilot/Owner who will modify the aircraft between inspections.

I've seen car owners who take off their non compliant number plates when going for an MOT, bit that's not life threatening.

How can you square away the photographic evidence with the Pilot's story and LAA inspections of the Prop?

Shades of the Colin McRae crash in this report.

I await with interest, the decision by the COPFS into the question of an FAI and potential prosecutions.

Why the AAIB have not made more out of the weight situation on departure from Trumpton is unclear. How it could fly to Bute and be too heavy on departure but not when it set off is a mystery. The AAIB reckon the aircraft was almost 20 Kilos overweight when it departed Bute, so by how much was it too heavy on leaving Strathaven?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Fact is, the LAA system is pretty robust. IF it is followed.

Mods go through Turweston for approval before you fly with them, aircraft have a W&CG report, and pilots should stay within limits.

If people work within the system, not many accidents happen.

G

[dublinpilot]

The AAIB reckon the aircraft was almost 20 Kilos overweight when it departed Bute, so by how much was it too heavy on leaving Strathaven?

I read that differently. I understood that they reckon it wa 20kg overweight leaving Strathaven, and lighter leaving Bute (due to fuel burned off). So it might or might not have been overweight leaving Bute, but certainly was lighter than it was leaving Strathaven.

At least that's how I read it, but admit it could be read differently.

[xrayalpha]

Airpolice,

Any reason for the use of the word Trumpton?

[airpolice]

Dublinpilot wrote:






I read that differently. I understood that they reckon it wa 20kg overweight leaving Strathaven, and lighter leaving Bute (due to fuel burned off). So it might or might not have been overweight leaving Bute, but certainly was lighter than it was leaving Strathaven.

At least that's how I read it, but admit it could be read differently.


DP, the AAIB report is very clear:



Weight and Balance

Aircraft empty weight and balance
The last documented weight and balance of the aircraft was dated 18 January 2010. While
the documentation did not record which propeller was fitted, the initial flight test report,
dated 30 June 2010, stated that it was a Woodcomp Klassic. LAA inspectors who undertook
the inspection for the issue and renewal of the Permit to Fly between 2011 and 2014 all
recorded that the Klassic propeller was fitted. However, there is photographic evidence that
shows that G-EWZZ was fitted with the Woodcomp SR/3000/3 variable pitch propeller on a
number of occasions between 2011 and the date of the accident. The pilot also stated that
when he purchased the aircraft in September 2013 it was fitted with the Woodcomp variable
pitch propeller and that he had at no time removed or replaced this propeller. The fitment
of the heavier variable pitch propeller would have an effect on the weight and balance of
the aircraft.


The Maximum Takeoff Weight of the SportCruiser is 600 kg and the operating Centre of Gravity (CG) range is 405 to 507 mm aft of the aircraft datum. The aircraft weight and balance report, dated 18 January 2010, made no reference to an autopilot having been fitted to the aircraft and recorded the empty weight and position as:

Empty weight 373.70 kg
Empty CG 441.64 mm aft of datum’
Following the accident the empty weight and balance was calculated by the LAA, with the
Woodcomp SR 3000/3 variable pitch propeller and autopilot fitted, as:
‘Empty weight 393.7 kg
Empty CG 368.3 mm aft of datum’

Aircraft weight and balance at the start of the accident flight

As a result of the fire damage, and injuries sustained by the occupants, it was not possible
to make an accurate calculation of the weight and balance of the aircraft at the start of the
accident flight. Both the pilot and passenger’s weights would have increased as a result of
their medical treatment and therefore the weights were estimated by reducing their postaccident
weights to give a predicted pre-flight weight of 100 kg and 110 kg.
The amount of fuel on the aircraft was unknown, but to allow for the planned flight, with a
small reserve, it was unlikely to be less than 20 ltr of fuel weighing 14.8 kg.
The minimum aircraft weight, and position of the CG, was estimated at the start of the
accident flight to have been:
‘Aircraft equipped with Woodcomp Klassic propeller
Take-off weight 598.5 kg (limit 600 kg)
Take-off CG 539 mm aft of datum (limit 405 to 570 mm)
24 © Crown copyright 2015
AAIB Bulletin: 5/2015 G-EWZZ EW/C2014/08/01
Aircraft equipped with Woodcomp SR 3000/3 propeller and autopilot
Take-off weight 618.5 kg (limit 600 kg)
Take-off CG 536 mm aft of datum (limit 405 to 570 mm)’



So..... even if it had been fitted with the "correct" propeller, the aircraft would have had capacity for just 1.5 Litres of fuel.

Best case, from the Pilot's position, would be that the AAIB have over estimated the weight of both on board, they took on fuel at Bute, and planned to stop at Prestwick for more on the way home.

This of course depends on the Pilot not knowing that the "wrong" prop was fitted, not being aware that the autopilot weight was not included in the W&B figures and oh yeah, how did they plan on getting to Bute with so little fuel when they departed Strathaven.

But..... if the Pilot hasn't been swapping Props for the LAA inspections, and I'm not suggesting that he did, how exactly did the paperwork, photographs and reality all get so confused?

[airpolice]

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/54230276e5274a1314000b23/Flight_Design_CTSW__G-CTSW_08-11.pdf

I'm wondering if there is a connection here............

[xrayalpha]

Hi AP,

Just wondered because Trumpton episodes always ended with the Fire Brigade Band playing... and, of course, we had a major fire here at Strathaven five years ago this month!

http://www.bmaa.org/files/16_inspectorate_notice_15-05-2012_-_strathaven_fire_parts.pdf?PHPSESSID=f539f9eef52695599044ab9 9aaa93046

(not for which, but to my satisfaction nonetheless, the neighbour who was the cause of it was sent to jail in January! Yes, it is a little soap opera here!)

Businessman who tried to buy Rangers is jailed - The Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/businessman-who-tried-to-buy-rangers-is-jailed-1-3655582)

[airpolice]

Nothing sinister in the Trumpton reference, although the Fire Brigade link is very relevant to where we got the nickname from.

I'm told that the Pilot involved in the subject of this thread lost an aircraft in that as well. True?

[xrayalpha]

To be honest, I can't remember exactly whose aircraft was in the hangar at that time. I am trying to put that hangar fire behind us, and having only settled the insurance claim less than a year ago am only just succeeding!

It has no relevance I can see to present days, our neighbour Mr Mackenzie admitted to the police that he moved his disposable BBQ, which was the root of the fire, "for safety reasons" and is not an associate or friend of anyone at the airfield - then or now!

I was at Strathaven Airfield the day of the Bute incident and had the duty of breaking the news of the crash to the family, even before the emergency services were aware of people's identities.

I appreciate pprune is a rumour network, and no criticism of that, but this is one case where I don't think it appropriate for me to contribute.

I just found the Trumpton description odd and had to ask!

[Fly-by-Wife]

even if it had been fitted with the "correct" propeller, the aircraft would have had capacity for just 1.5 Litres of fuel.
No, the figure of 598.5 Kg includes the 20 litres of fuel assumed by the AAIB.

FBW

[airpolice]

FBW is correct.

I had not checked the figures before posting. If the aircraft (but it didn't) have the book authorised prop, they could indeed have had 20 litres of fuel and been within limits.

So.... If the Pilot believed the figures on the paperwork to be correct, and if he had indeed only 20 Litres of fuel on board, they would have been within the W&B range for take off from Bute.

That would suggest that the LAA Inspector who signed it off (with the wrong prop and autopilot) may have to answer some questions, if that's what happened.

However, the question of W&B departing Strathaven is not so easy to explain.

[dont overfil]

Nobody (apart from the AAIB) has commented on the 20 deg pitch up on climb out.
D.O.

[Mach Jump]

That would suggest that the LAA Inspector who signed it off (with the wrong prop and autopilot) may have to answer some questions, if that's what happened.

And also, whoever conducted the last 3 Permit Renewal Flight Tests!:eek:


MJ:ok:

[Rod1]

"Nobody (apart from the AAIB) has commented on the 20 deg pitch up on climb out."

I have an aircraft in the same class (VLA). With a VP prop a CSC-1 + 100hp 20deg would be about normal. The ROC would be quite impressive with everything working. My aircraft would do 1400fpm with a fixed pitch but when I upgraded to a VP + CSC-1 I got around 1750! Yes my mod was cleared by the LAA:ok:

Rod1

[Rod1]

"And also, whoever conducted the last 3 Permit Renewal Flight Tests!"

That is often the owner. I do the occasional test, usually to help new owners, but mostly the owner will fly them. The performance with a VP prop and CSC-1 would be much better than with the fixed pitch prop, but we are assuming the prop was not being swapped about.

Rod1

[Maoraigh1]

After reading the report of the Irish accident linked to, I wonder if this is a type-specific problem with fire. The Irish pilot escaped before the fire. Without fire, this would have been a slight or no injury accident. The AAIB report mentions the document discrepancies, but does not consider them as causing the accident. The pilot seems to have been injured only because he stayed to rescue his passenger. The take-off data does not show an overloaded aircraft struggling to get airborne. The pilot had plenty of hours to be familiar with the prop and performance. Loss of some power at climb out means a gamble as to whether it will continue at that power, lose more, or improve. With the terrain he faced, I doubt if any decision could be criticised