SASless
Did it have an effect or not?
(1)
While the Cessna was on the runway:
Extract from the AAIB Report:
The plot constructed of the relative positions of each aircraft considered in conjunction with the rotor downwash trial established conclusively that the rotor downwash from the Sea King did not play any part in the Cessna leaving the side of the runway.
The pilot expert hired by the Claimants (a retired Group Captain now CFI at a flying school) claimed it did, and considerable pressure was put on the AAIB suggesting the finding of their investigation team was wrong on this point. The AAIB considered his various theories and arguments and, having done so, stood by their findings which were then published in the final report.
In due course, (and in very brief summary), three independent experts (1 pilot, 2 wake vortices) all came to the same conclusion as the AAIB on this point.
The only difference between the three on this point was the (theoretical) difference between the rotorwash never reaching the Cessna at all - or reaching it but being dissipated to such an extent by then that it was so weak it could not have caused the Cessna to go out of control and off the runway.
(2)
After the Cessna had careered off the runway:
It became airborne again very briefly as it went off the left side of the runway. Opinions/theories differ about whether it bounced into the air while passing from tarmac onto the grass or the pilot was trying to do a go-around at the time.
The Cessna may have flown through rotorwash at that point, but would have passed through it in a fraction of a second. Bearing in mind that these are press reports of proceedings, it may be the AAIB witness was answering a question about that stage when he gave the answer you've quoted.
If the pilot was attempting a go-around at that point, then it is fortunate he did not succeed. He was heading straight towards the Tower/Fire Unit area at the time and it is highly likely there would have been more fatalities.
If it did not cause the accident....what did?
The Cessna crashed following a loss of control during an attempt to carry out a 'go-around'.
The AAIB report concerning what the pilot did and when makes sad, but interesting, reading. As is so often the case, a series of errors/misjudgments.
Why was the RAF so quick to settle if there was a chance the Sea King did not cause the accident?
The MoD was not quick to settle. Accident in May 2001; settlement in November 2005.
The Claim was for almost £10 million. (The deceased pilot was an exceptionally high earner in his early 40s with 2 children.)
The settlement was £5 million.
I can't say any more for professional reasons.
airborne_artist
My reading of the AAIB report, coupled with the inquest evidence, reinforces my view that Paton was spooked by the Sea King while he was already having difficulty with the landing and possibly considering a go-around. There's a telling piece of evidence in the AAIB report about him behaving similarly during a landing previously, when ISTR he carried out a go-around.
You may be right about that the spook aspect. No-one will ever know.
If he was, then whether or not he should have been is a debatable point. St Mawgan has one of the longest and widest runways in the country - it was a diversion airfield for Concorde although never used - and the Sea King was hover taxing (high hover) to the left of the runway a very long way from the threshold.
AAIB: If the pilot had been concerned about any potential conflict with the Sea King his best option would have been to stop on the runway. By closing the throttle after landing and applying the brakes the aircraft would have stopped some distance before the point at which the Sea King might have entered or crossed the runway. Even from the point where the aircraft was seen to accelerate, there still remained some 200 metres of stopping distance available.
Having spent many hours going over every detail of the experts' reports (for both sides) and the AAIB report, my lowly PPL opinion is that things started going wrong even on the approach - where he was hot and high. The Cessna landed shorty after the RAG and then taxied at virtually flying speed along the runway before first veering right and then left and off the runway.
Curiously, for an aircraft landing, the throttle friction nut was found to be fully tightened power on.
All losses of life are sad, but this one was in some ways even more tragic because the occupants of the Cessna survived the impact without life-threatening injuries. The pilot got out and began to help his family from the aircraft. A fire started. Fuel from a disconnected fuel hose in the left wing root had contaminated his clothing and caught alight. He sustained substantial burns from which he later sady died. Firefighters had two appliances at the scene in 35 and 40 seconds of the aircraft striking the ground.
AAIB Report -
here