Display Aircraft Fatal Crash in Cambridge
Recidivist
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Display Aircraft Fatal Crash in Cambridge
A Slingsby Trainer, owned and piloted by Steve Cowhan, crashed in Hoxon, Cambridge during a display put on for a friends birthday. The fatal crash was witnessed by the pilot's family - condolences to them.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Met Steve only once, quite recently. Also met his father and wife. The sort of guy you could take to instantly. An awful tragedy compounded by having been witnessed by both wife and parents. He will be sorely missed by all who knew him. The aircraft was based at Old Buckenham.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Banbury
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slingsby crash
Which model of Slingsby was this? I ask because I was one of the owners of the Slingsby G-FORS that crashed last year near Towcester and the description of the accident sounds a little familiar.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown in G-BUUD as a passenger with Nick Heard and was thinking of doing the short aerobatic course with him in the aircraft later in the next few months.
As already said,a really tragic accident,and all our thoughts are with the family.
Lister
As already said,a really tragic accident,and all our thoughts are with the family.
Lister
My condolonces to his family and friends. What a terrible experience.
Isn't that the Slingsby Firefly? Let me add the caution that I never flew it, therefore my questions might have no validity on Pprune-among the many armchair experts.
The same trainer which caused a tragedy or two with the USAF Air Training Command, and was then rejected and replaced by the Pilatus T-6 "Texan" II ?
The Firefly supposedly had serious problems during spin recovery, unless my memory is fogged again late at night (not a Cat 3 memory, at best possibly RVR 1800 with bright ALSF).
Isn't that the Slingsby Firefly? Let me add the caution that I never flew it, therefore my questions might have no validity on Pprune-among the many armchair experts.
The same trainer which caused a tragedy or two with the USAF Air Training Command, and was then rejected and replaced by the Pilatus T-6 "Texan" II ?
The Firefly supposedly had serious problems during spin recovery, unless my memory is fogged again late at night (not a Cat 3 memory, at best possibly RVR 1800 with bright ALSF).
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that the American versions were operated hot and high by ex-truckie instructors who weren't as up to speed on spinning/aeros as others might be.
T67s spin. So do a lot of other aircraft. Let's not start a 'T67s are dangerous' thread, particularly as the facts on this tragic event are unknown.
T67s spin. So do a lot of other aircraft. Let's not start a 'T67s are dangerous' thread, particularly as the facts on this tragic event are unknown.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ...back of the drag curve
Age: 61
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done lots of spin training (and spinning!) in a T67, I can personally say that it's no worse or better than any other aeroplane in a spin. However, if you reverse the spin recovery actions, it can take longer to recover.
As always, by using the proper techniques for the type (by this I mean what's written in the flight manual), it will recover predictably every time....
As always, by using the proper techniques for the type (by this I mean what's written in the flight manual), it will recover predictably every time....
Guest
Posts: n/a
There is an excellent explanation of the USAF Firefly incidents here:
http://www.cessnawarbirds.com/articles/index.html (The Wichita Mescalero & York Firefly)
Having flown, aeroe'd and spun a T67M I can say it is a superb aeroplane but it does need the correct spin recovery technique. Mis-apply the spin recovery and it won't come out.
I have no comment to make on the accident itself.
http://www.cessnawarbirds.com/articles/index.html (The Wichita Mescalero & York Firefly)
Having flown, aeroe'd and spun a T67M I can say it is a superb aeroplane but it does need the correct spin recovery technique. Mis-apply the spin recovery and it won't come out.
I have no comment to make on the accident itself.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No idea how the stats stand, but I also get the impression that people think the T67 is problematic in spins because it's a popular aircraft for FTOs to do the compulsory spinning bits of ratings, particularly FI's. E.g. a couple of instructors were killed near Oxford doing just that. The problem is, this skews the perception of how dangerous they are, since these people are not in current practice for spinning, for the most part. So they make the headlines disproportionately often.
It's a theory...
Tim
It's a theory...
Tim
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-FORS%203-06.pdf is probably worth the read particularly page 47 & 48 which includes an evaluation of spin characteristics of the T67c (much the same as the M variant) and an extract from the Pilots Notes.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should an aircraft require any special technique to recover.
All aircraft should be certified to recover from a standard technique with a bit of tolerance for the inexperienced or out of practise.
All aircraft should be certified to recover from a standard technique with a bit of tolerance for the inexperienced or out of practise.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by BigEndBob
Why should an aircraft require any special technique to recover.
All aircraft should be certified to recover from a standard technique with a bit of tolerance for the inexperienced or out of practise.
All aircraft should be certified to recover from a standard technique with a bit of tolerance for the inexperienced or out of practise.
I'd agree with this for purely leisure aircraft - such as a 172. However, most aircraft are built for a working life, and as such their performance characteristics are tailored to their role. Operational Pilots should fly aircraft to the limit of their performance safely, and be aware of any specific requirements.
So do you build a benign trainer that will flatter all pilots, or do you build the best aircraft for the purpose, and publish comprehensive pilot's notes?
I don't know the history of the Firefly, but I think it was built to be a military ab inito trainer. As such, it is exceedingly good at the job it was designed to do (albeit not as comfy as a Grob 115 - which is a lot softer and does have a benign spin recover).
I suppose we are getting off thread. The accident is despately sad and as a father of two I can't think of anything worse. All I can hope is that the AAIB report contains some information that will help this kind of thing not happening again.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I live in the area of the accident and it received considerable well balanced coverage in the Diss Express,our local weekly paper today.
The pilot receives a great ovation from his family and many local friends,he did a lot in the local community and is fondly remembered.
Of course it is an incredibly tragic loss,but the family seem to be bearing it with great fortitude at the moment.
Lister
The pilot receives a great ovation from his family and many local friends,he did a lot in the local community and is fondly remembered.
Of course it is an incredibly tragic loss,but the family seem to be bearing it with great fortitude at the moment.
Lister
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: England
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ignition Override
Isn't that the Slingsby Firefly? Let me add the caution that I never flew it, therefore my questions might have no validity on Pprune-among the many armchair experts.
The same trainer which caused a tragedy or two with the USAF Air Training Command, and was then rejected and replaced by the Pilatus T-6 "Texan" II ?
The Firefly supposedly had serious problems during spin recovery, unless my memory is fogged again late at night (not a Cat 3 memory, at best possibly RVR 1800 with bright ALSF).
The same trainer which caused a tragedy or two with the USAF Air Training Command, and was then rejected and replaced by the Pilatus T-6 "Texan" II ?
The Firefly supposedly had serious problems during spin recovery, unless my memory is fogged again late at night (not a Cat 3 memory, at best possibly RVR 1800 with bright ALSF).
I have flown with instructors who used to fly the Firefly in Texas for the USAF. They all loved it, and I know two of them who wanted to buy an example fron the US government. Politics and US product liability laws put paid to that idea, as the aircraft remain intact but dusty, never to be sold.
I fly a T67 regularly and have done spins left and right up to 7 turns. There's no problem with recovery if you use the correct procedure, which seems entirely conventional to me.
I refer anyone interested to the G-FORS AAIB report, which thoroughly re-examined the spin performance of the T67.
Many aerobatic aircraft obtain reputations as "beasts" in a totally unjustified way, as it's a statistical fact that doing more extreme manoevres, like aerobatics, is more likely to result in loss of control and an accident. Those aircraft approved for more extreme manoevres are therfore more likely to be involved because they are the only types doing this type of flying.