Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Tiger Moth Crash

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Tiger Moth Crash

Old 13th May 2015, 16:37
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Step turn

Like it or not, we are all human. I know you would like to programme us all to fly 'your way' but it is just not going to happen.

Welcome to earth, where some-things don't always go to plan.

Don't tell me, the last rocket launch wasn't as per the Flight Manual.


Anyway, as flying-saint has asked, what's your bright suggestion for a jammed left rudder?

Last edited by Jetblu; 13th May 2015 at 16:44. Reason: add
Jetblu is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 16:48
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What do you recommend as better airmanship for a stuck left rudder, which has resulted in a violent fully developed spin
Well, as you have asked...

Allowing for the moment that the rudder was obstructed (of which I remain skeptical), as the pilot, I would avoid the slow flight which would result in a spin. I struggle to believe that there would be an obstruction to full rudder deflection, and a partial rudder obstruction might be manageable to an unhappy, but injury free landing. With some rudder, a Tiger Moth can be slipped right on to the ground, inevitably to ground loop, but who cares about that compared to a worse outcome.

Yes, a Tiger Moth is among the many types I have flown.

Legal Approach has told us:

As an example the retired airline pilot who it was claimed had seen the fatal 'loop' had clearly seen the first loop and not the fatal manoeuvre as the timings simply did not fit. She had seen the aircraft perform 3/4 of a loop before trees obscured her view without it having departed from controlled flight. This could not have been the failed loop claimed by the AAIB and the prosecution.
Honestly, if a retired airline pilot saw 3/4 of a loop - it was a loop, you don't have to see the last 1/4 to know it was entered!

From the AAIB report:

The pilot discussed plans for the first flight with his passenger, which included the possibility of the pilot flying a couple of loops.
I continue to assert that the pilot did not have the experience nor planned the flight with good airmanship to consider executing a loop under the conditions he chose.

Loops are in this discussion. The pilot is not described as having near the minimum experience to fly loops (at least by specific Canadian standards). If the pilot flew a loop, with inadequate experience, and not meeting the minimum requirements, that pilot is guilty of at least very poor airmanship for that, regardless of the outcome. A pilot who summons legal assistance to later evade prosecution where flying a loop under these conditions has been authoritatively asserted, does not rate well with me.

Also from the AAIB report:

The passenger took with him a camera which he wore around his neck on a strap
Of course, I can't say if the passenger took the camera strap off his neck, but I do know that getting a camera moving from place to place in a cockpit is even more easy during aerobatics, particularly poorly executed aerobatics.

I'm reading and considering, but remain unconvinced. The outcome is what it is, and will not change. In my opinion, the best that can come of it is learning and refreshing our minds that responsible pilots fly so as to not be caught in these situations.

I do not fly however I like, thinking I can hire a crack legal team to get me out of it later. I fly the best I can to avoid/prevent occurrences which could ever result in the need for that crack legal team.
9 lives is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 16:52
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jetblu,

I agree with one of your observations, and have edited my post to remove an unfair remark I made.
9 lives is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 16:54
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,169
Received 133 Likes on 60 Posts
Originally Posted by flying-saint


What do you recommend as better airmanship for a stuck left rudder, which has resulted in a violent fully developed spin (other than what the pilot did, which was to look himself and ask the passenger whether he could see the cause / obstruction)?
I recommend a minimum of 3000 feet of altitude before attempting aggressive maneuvering. The lawyers can obfuscate all they want but I see no way to change the fact that a lot of very aggressive maneuvering was occurring at very low altitudes.

In the end it doesn't matter if the actual mode of failure, whether it was a deficit of pilot skill, or the alleged rudder jam, or a combination of the two, what matters is that there was insufficient altitude for the pilot to recover from an aircraft upset. This was a direct result of the altitudes the pilot chose to fly at.

I find it very hard to make the mental leap from a "not guilty" verdict to "this pilot bares no responsibility for the accident"

It appears positions on this issue have already hardened so I will finish with a some general comments as applicable to somebody with the experience level of the accident pilot.

1) It is human nature that taking a friend flying will lead to a temptation to spice up the flight a little. This is in itself not bad but should lead to the mental double check of "would I be doing this if no one was watching". Sadly many accidents have been preceded by the words "hey watch this"

2) It is human nature to want to fly low. All of the visual pleasures of flying are magnified at low altitudes. However, obviously the risks are magnified as well. I am not saying never fly low, but I will say that those risks must be proactively mitigated before you drop down and in general low altitude aggressive maneuvering should never be attempted

3) There is no such a thing as "starter" aerobatics. That is maneuvers that you can teach yourself. All introductory aerobatics courses will have a significant portion devoted to recovering from botched maneuvers and dealing with aircraft malfunctions during aerobatics as even simple maneuvers like loops and rolls can go badly wrong. Students will not be allowed to solo, let alone carry passengers, without mastering this aspect of aerobatic flying
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 17:22
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So, let's get this straight, you're suggesting a problem with a simple steep turn in a Tiger Moth at c.2,000ft - really?

And yes, we are talking about a fully deflected immoveable stuck rudder, (not that it needs to travel far in a Tiger Moth to be in that condition). There are a number of possible causes for the stuck rudder.

We are also talking about a PPL doing the best he can in an unfamiliar situation in the matter of seconds before the inversion and high rate spin to the left.

Again, I invite the expected recovery action from the spin for anything less than the Test Pilot, (under the assumption the obstruction / jam cannot be cleared)...

Last edited by flying-saint; 13th May 2015 at 17:41.
flying-saint is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 17:23
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Step turn - Thank you for the correction and edit.

Leading on.....you are just clearly manipulating the factual evidence as you see fit to suit your own ends. Perhaps that is why you favour the AAIB and why we normal pilots are very fortunate to have highly skilled barristers like legalapproach to clear the muddy waters that people like you churn up.

Read the evidence......The airline pilot did NOT see a fatal loop. The times did not tie up - remember?

Big Pistons Forever - I concur. 3000ft is good. 6000ft may have been better, but at the end of the day even aerobatic display pilots get it wrong, unfortunately. Whatever, no criminal offence would have taken place whatever the height, unless deliberate. This was not deliberate, it was an unfortunate accident.
Jetblu is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 17:32
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,169
Received 133 Likes on 60 Posts
Originally Posted by Jetblu
Big Pistons Forever - I concur. 3000ft is good. 6000ft may have been better, but at the end of the day even aerobatic display pilots get it wrong, unfortunately.
I disagree. Even if you describe the sequence of events, including the alleged rudder jam, in a way most favorable to the accident pilot, you still in my professional opinion, have situation where any fully qualified display pilot would have been able to effect a recovery.

The difference, of course, is that the accident pilot did not have the training, skills, or experience to deal with a low level aircraft upset. The fact that the aircraft was at a low level was as I emphasized earlier, wholly his choice.
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 17:39
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I invite the response to my last post...
flying-saint is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 17:51
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Big Pistons Forever - we'll have to agree to disagree as we're just going around in circles. Please tell me where any pilot gets the training skills for a jammed control surface. What happened in the preceding minutes before the dreadful event is neither here nor there. The pilot clearly knew how to perform a loop as evidence was heard thereof.

Come on, we've got ATPL's here who can't even find the right airfield and you are having a pop at a ppl for not being able to cope with a jammed rudder.
Jetblu is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 17:58
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,169
Received 133 Likes on 60 Posts
OK

Assuming a fully deflected jammed rudder, something that was as far as I can see, never conclusively proven; requires the aircraft to be in a maneuver that needs full rudder to be applied. I see no way this does not therefore imply aggressive maneuvering which given the pilots skill level and low altitude represents poor judgement.

A stuck rudder is obviously a significant in flight malfunction but occurring at altitude and during maneuvers that are "appropriate to the pilots training and skill level" should not automatically lead to an accident.

It would automatically lead to an accident if it occurred during aggressive low level maneuvering. Or more simply a situation where the accident pilot deliberately put the aircraft into a position where in the event anything went wrong, he did not have the skill or training to recover. Again my point is nor so much the actual accident sequence, but the bad choices the pilot made prior to the accident and the lessons that can be learned from those choices.
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 18:10
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Age: 60
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seems to me that the very well respected fully qualified fixed wing test and display pilot that flew the pilots version of events and subsequently explained all this to the jury for the defence after a shameful performance by the prosecution 'expert' must have got it wrong then? The jury returned the correct verdict here. The departure from controlled flight took seconds, the pilot has maintained his story since hour one, despite opportunity to provide a different tale- if looking for an out then why not have said that the pax had his foot stuck and told me so, so many easy outs but being an honourable man he has told the truth and even agreed to a police interview against legal advice whilst medicated. I was a cynic at the outset but having reviewed all of the data and thought long and hard about things soon realised that huge and important portions of the AAIB report are unsupportable- ask them where the camera battery pack was found, where was the camera lens found, which way and by how much were the forward two engine cylinders and engine bearer displaced ............ There is so much more
Midlifec is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 18:10
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,169
Received 133 Likes on 60 Posts
Originally Posted by Jetblu
Big Pistons Forever - we'll have to agree to disagree as we're just going around in circles. Please tell me where any pilot gets the training skills for a jammed control surface.
I explicitly deal with this exact event in my introductory aerobatics course. I discuss options available which are mostly contingent on which control surface is jammed the extent of the jam and the attitude of the aircraft when the jam occurs. Admittedly most scenarios where a jam occurs during an aerobatic maneuver are addressed by bailing out. Of course this requires parachutes, bail out training and sufficient altitude to effect a successful parachute decent, all of which I make a prerequisite for the commencement of aerobatic maneuvering.

I also emphasize the dangers of low altitude maneuvers and insist that all maneuvers be planned so that the aircraft will never be lower than 3000 feet AGL.

I truly believe that none of my students would ever place themselves in the position that the accident pilot did because they have the training, experience and knowledge to appropriately manage the risks of aerobatic flying, something the accident pilot in my professional opinion as a Transport Canada licensed aerobatic instructor; did not .
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 18:11
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The jammed rudder does not need to be proven. It's not a criminal offence.
The pilot said it was jammed. The end.

Next...... this pilot could clearly not control the aircraft with the jammed rudder. That does not mean to say that either you or I couldn't with our experiance, but again, at the end of the day an unfortunate 'accident' took place and 30 years from now the same types of accidents will be happening. We were even talking about these events in the 1980's.


Midelifec - I have read what you have said. You need not convince me. I agree with you.
Jetblu is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 18:17
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,169
Received 133 Likes on 60 Posts
Originally Posted by Jetblu
The jammed rudder does not need to be proven. It's not a criminal offence.
The pilot said it was jammed. The end.

.
How convenient

Yup no lessons to be learned here, could have happened to anybody, I mean who could have predicted a low hour pilot with no aerobatic training aggressively maneuvering close to the ground could have come to grief........

This was no "accident"
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 18:25
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
you are just clearly manipulating the factual evidence as you see fit to suit your own ends. Perhaps that is why you favour the AAIB and why we normal pilots are very fortunate to have highly skilled barristers like legalapproach to clear the muddy waters that people like you churn up
Happily, I have no "ends" here, just the transparent light of day, as it might be seen to promote flying safely. I gain nor loose nothing, no matter what the outcome of this event or discussion. Our industry and pastime can loose something - public credibility and economical insurance if accidents continue. As a pilot, I gain a tiny amount, if the public, and the insurers have more faith in pilots in general.

I'm not manipulating anything - evidence is evidence, I have no access to it. I am asking questions though... I'm very inclined to trust the AAIB or other authoritative investigation group. They have no self interest in the outcome, they just report what they can determine. Their report may not be fact, but is what the pilot reported any more a fact?

The AAIB quotes the pilot (perhaps more close to fact about the pilot's knowledge):

When the pilot was asked what the spin recovery
technique should be, he commented that he had only
previously spun in a Cessna 172 and stated that you
should centralise the rudder, to stop the spin, and then
apply back pressure gently, due to the high speed.
Cessna says to "Apply and hold full rudder opposite to the direction of the spin". I don't have access to a Tiger Moth "manual", but I bet it is not far from that.

The pilot was unfamiliar with spins, so should have kept his flying a long way away from spinning, until competent. Did the pilot conduct the flight so as to avoid regimes of flight in which there was an increased risk of a spin? Was the previous flight, with the stated loop a flight avoiding an approach to spin risk?

AAIB says:

but reported later that he had encountered a problem with a restriction of the left rudder pedal
during the left turn to the north. He recalled the aircraft
being in a spin to the left and stated that although he
had pushed hard on the right rudder pedal, it would not
move and he could not recover from the spin.
And:

A detailed check on the continuity and integrity of the
controls to the ailerons, rudder, elevator and autoslots
was made from each point of control input to each
control surface, including checks for any restrictions;
nothing significant was found.
These two statements are not in harmony. Is one more "factual" than the other? If so, Why?
9 lives is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 18:26
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Big Pistons Forever

So on that note, you agree that the next low time inexperienced pilot that wanders out and accidentally flies into IMC and wipes out his/her passengers should be criminally prosecuted? Get real.
Jetblu is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 18:40
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Posts: 611
Received 58 Likes on 29 Posts
Step Turn, if you are going to quote from the AAIB, you should quote the complete segment, which goes on to say:

Witness marks from any restriction would have been difficult to detect, even without the significant damage from the ground impact. Thus it was not possible to determine if there was any damage or witness mark that might have arisen from a control restriction in the cockpit.
In the summary at the end, the AAIB then states:

The pilot stated that he had a rudder control restriction. The inspection of the wreckage, and in particular the flying controls, revealed nothing conclusive to suggest that there was a control restriction. However, given the level of damage sustained by the aircraft, the possibility of a control restriction could not be eliminated.
FBW
Fly-by-Wife is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 18:50
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
if you are going to quote from the AAIB, you should quote the complete segment
Yes, I agree, my quoting the full passage would be more objective. My error in "searching" for the term, rather than reading the entire document through again. My assertions hold less vigour, but are not entirely withdrawn either...
9 lives is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 19:11
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,169
Received 133 Likes on 60 Posts
Originally Posted by Jetblu
Big Pistons Forever

So on that note, you agree that the next low time inexperienced pilot that wanders out and accidentally flies into IMC and wipes out his/her passengers should be criminally prosecuted? Get real.

You raise a very good point. As a general rule I would suggest that involving the legal system in the determination of the cause of an accident is not a good path to follow. The pitfalls of this approach are all too evident in what has happened in various French and Asian accident reports.

If the only question is "was it appropriate to pursue a criminal proceeding against the accident pilot" then I admit you have forced me to closely examine my motivations.


At what level does such reckless disregard for generally accepted standards or airmanship and aeronautical decision making rise to the criminal ? On further reflection I am now leaning towards the opinion that while the acts of this pilot where egregious and deliberate violations of good piloting practices they are close to but not above the bar meriting criminal prosecution.

However I remain adamant that this accident was directly caused by the numerous poor decisions made by the pilot that fateful day.

The only good that can come from this accident is if someone else out there that is perhaps contemplating having some fun with a bit of low level whoop de do's to impress the admiring passenger, remembers what could happen and thinks better of it.......
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 13th May 2015, 19:41
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
However I remain adamant that this accident was directly caused by the numerous poor decisions made by the pilot that fateful day.
I agree.

Maybe the rudder was jammed, maybe it wasn't. If it was, it didn't get to full deflection by itself.

Maybe being charged with manslaughter was harsh, maybe it wasn't. But being found not guilty doesn't change the fact that his airmanship prior to the accident was poor to say the least.
booke23 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.