Firefly accident in North Yorkshire.
LOM, `intentional inverted spinning is prohibited` for the VampireT11,although if one enters one inadvertently,the recovery actions are given,requiring possibly `full back stick`.(PN.AL3-5, 1970.)
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I have had a JP5 (no tip tanks) in an inadvertent inverted spin after attempting to enter an erect spin on an up vertical line for a spin from a manoeuvre.
I then found myself in an erect spin because I was slow getting the rudder and aft stick off and I think it reversed direction, too. I lost a lot of height. I flew straight and level for quite a while afterwards while I recovered my composure then went back to base!
When I trained with the USN we started out on the T-34 (piston), and an inverted spin was a demonstration only exercise after we had about ten hours total in the logbook. Crewroom had a board recording the instructors who had reached the one thousand inverted spins. Didn't seem much different to the erect, other than being upside down of course.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A read of the Beggs/Muller spin recovery technique would have done wonders for these unfortunate chaps. It works in ANY spin mode of ANY aircraft. Period.
So sad
Edited to add....maybe not swept wing....but this was a straight wing aeroplane
So sad
Edited to add....maybe not swept wing....but this was a straight wing aeroplane
Last edited by SFCC; 14th May 2017 at 05:13. Reason: afterthought
215 hours (of which 3 were on type)
I admit I just stumbled upon this thread but as a former ( civilian) instructor with 100's of spins in 4-5 SE types I don't like the looks of that.
Statistically in a "dead" zone of high accident probability experience wise and only 3 hrs on type.
That's too little to be doing aerobatics in that type.
Were aero's part of the checkout procedure? Verbal warnings about the stall/spin characteristics?
No offense intended but was the fact that he was an RAF cadet pilot enough?
I admit I just stumbled upon this thread but as a former ( civilian) instructor with 100's of spins in 4-5 SE types I don't like the looks of that.
Statistically in a "dead" zone of high accident probability experience wise and only 3 hrs on type.
That's too little to be doing aerobatics in that type.
Were aero's part of the checkout procedure? Verbal warnings about the stall/spin characteristics?
No offense intended but was the fact that he was an RAF cadet pilot enough?
Last edited by B2N2; 14th May 2017 at 20:31.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my experience of the Firefly and the Bulldog I don't think Beggs Muller would work. Both aircraft took full rudder and positive forward stick for a turn and a bit to come out of a developed spin. The technique worked great on a Pitts which popped out of most spins in a quarter turn. I stand to be corrected by a more knowledgable source , has any one tried bm in a firefly?
I haven't been keeping up with this thread for a while. Dan Winterland commented on a previous post of mine:
Dan,
I didn't make myself clear. The point I was making was that all the types I have spun (light SE or gliders) have a recovery technique that is some variation on "full-opposite rudder, pause, move the stick forward". I had never heard of type that required centralized stick during recovery.
It is tragic that these two pilots had only flown types that required this technique and that the PIC had not done any dual spins in the Firefly.
H PEACOCK and LOMCEVAK subsequently explained why that technique was required on the Tucano but I haven't seen any discussion on the reason for requiring it on the civil Tutor. Can anybody explain why?
Similar, but not the same. There is no 'standard spin recovery' for all aircraft as some people of this forum claim. They vary from type to type, some slightly - some massively.
I didn't make myself clear. The point I was making was that all the types I have spun (light SE or gliders) have a recovery technique that is some variation on "full-opposite rudder, pause, move the stick forward". I had never heard of type that required centralized stick during recovery.
It is tragic that these two pilots had only flown types that required this technique and that the PIC had not done any dual spins in the Firefly.
H PEACOCK and LOMCEVAK subsequently explained why that technique was required on the Tucano but I haven't seen any discussion on the reason for requiring it on the civil Tutor. Can anybody explain why?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that this aircraft also has the small rudder installation.
As a pilot who is quite experienced in flying various small aircraft but inexperienced in aerobatics and any recency for spins, I would recommend that anyone not very familiar with aerobatics avoid doing so in an aircraft unforgiving of errors.
I have a bit of Slingsby time and intend to get more but don't intend to get past doing stalls with an instructor in the machine as I know that I don't have the experience to accurately get things right every time in a disorienting situation.
As a pilot who is quite experienced in flying various small aircraft but inexperienced in aerobatics and any recency for spins, I would recommend that anyone not very familiar with aerobatics avoid doing so in an aircraft unforgiving of errors.
I have a bit of Slingsby time and intend to get more but don't intend to get past doing stalls with an instructor in the machine as I know that I don't have the experience to accurately get things right every time in a disorienting situation.
Folks have come to grief spinning the Chipmunk, and the aircraft has something of a reputation, though undeserved IMHO, just do it per the book and all is well. One cautionary tale.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/576808...nal_report.pdf
Know your type seems to be the lesson to take away. ie a checkout by someone with the requisite experience, both in type and intended role - aerobatics, formation etc.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/576808...nal_report.pdf
Know your type seems to be the lesson to take away. ie a checkout by someone with the requisite experience, both in type and intended role - aerobatics, formation etc.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, seeing as you mentioned the Chipmunk. I used to give rides in Chipmunks. I think I was a reasonably safe pilot. On one of my last flights which was just a pleasure flight, I went flying with an experienced aerobatic pilot.
We decided to do some stalls which in each case led to a wing drop. No problem for recovery using an appropriate rudder input but....the aerobatic pilot wasn't happy with my inputting some aileron as well. I wasn't aware that I had done so. We all know that aileron input can make the roll in a stall worse and even lead to an unintentinal spin.
So we did several more stalls and all recoveries went well but each time, despite reviewing to keep the ailerons neutral, I always instictively made an aileron input. Perhaps if I was doing this all the time it would be different but I don't.
Conclusion: It is unlikely that if I do aerobatics that I will do them properly and exactly when the critical moments happen. So, for myself, why not just avoid such activities in aircraft that require exact, proper recoveries, because I know that I will likely make a mistake. No aeros for me in the Slingsby and I suppose the Chipmunk is the same. Only to be done in an aircraft foregiving of mistakes.
Guys like me are probably the ones crashing these unforgiving aircraft. I don't plan to be one of them.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Waiheke Island new Zealand
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slingsby Firefly Accidents
Hello there,
I own and operate a T67M200 and I love it to bits. But being retired early, I have little income so have decided now to get a homebuilt with foldable wings to put in the garage rather than run a certified aircraft that needs a hangar. I put the aircraft up for sale and hit a problem..
The ability of google to bring together accident reports and scare people witless whilst they "skim" the headlines without reading them, is preventing anyone wanting to buy it - they google "Slingsby aircraft accidents" and then go no further, failing to differentiate that there are many models with very different capabilities.
The problem is that when it comes to accident reports, the devil is in the detail - you have to carefully read each accident report and then it becomes clear the multiple reasons there have been accidents. When you actually read the USAF accident reports for example, its is no wonder that the man in charge of the training school was "removed overnight" - but of course you cannot sue a officer in the air force, so of course you sue the manufacturer... they were flying a longer larger 260hp variant with and air conditioner under the cowl (dissipating heat) in the heat of texas (Hondo) taking off at high altitude and getting fuel vapour lock problems and then gaining altitude to practice spinning in an aircraft where the USAF wrote their own flight manual, NOT the one that was written by Slingsby with the special notes about spin recovery in it - NO it is NOT the same as a piper cub - hmmm.
The UK accidents each make sorry reading, with one being a case of pilot WITHOUT having completed his aerobatic training and NOT having been signed out for solo aerobatics, just deciding to do aerobatics to show off to friends - watch this ! . Even the accident where the most qualified pilot killed himself, he had practiced the aerobatic routine in a 260hp aircraft and when it would not start on the day of the airshow, hops in an aircraft with a 200hp engine and flies the routine in this aircraft instead for the FIRST TIME, then fails to recover from an inverted low-level manoeuvre during the display - what is it they say about never doing anything at low level you have not practiced at altitude (in the same aircraft type) ?
I think the failing of the Slingsby it is that it is a really easy aircraft to fly, much easier than the trainers I learnt on BUT it is a very capable aerobatic aircraft - not a snappy roller, but excellent all the same. This DOES NOT MEAN that flying aerobatics is easy and safe unless you are qualified and current. Now if you are interested in the Slingsby READ THE PART OF THE MANUAL ON SPIN RECOVERY - it is simple, safe and reliable BUT DIFFERENT to most aircraft. Most notably "if the stick is held forward whilst applying opposite rudder, the aircraft will remain in the spin" This is very important and warranted Slingsby issuing a special note to owners to pay attention to this. How many of the dead pilots read this and practiced it ?
SImilarly, I am now looking a buying a Europa aircraft and notice the many crosswind landing accidents - they are all in the Monowheel variant - now think about it - how tricky is it going to be to land a mono wheel aircraft in a crosswind that has sticking out OUTRIGGERS on each wing - very very tricky, whereas the tri-gear would be conventional. It does not put me off, I just know I need to have a tri-gear as my airfield is most often has a cross wind and I am not Houdini...
I really wish Slingsby had named the aircraft models differently, as they really are very different from each other - The T67M200 is SHORTER and LIGHTER and has a different C of G than the T67M260 and flies very differently meanwhile the 160hp model is much harder to fly aerobatics as it has WAY less power, but is still a nice aircraft.
Best wishes all
Regards
Trevor
I own and operate a T67M200 and I love it to bits. But being retired early, I have little income so have decided now to get a homebuilt with foldable wings to put in the garage rather than run a certified aircraft that needs a hangar. I put the aircraft up for sale and hit a problem..
The ability of google to bring together accident reports and scare people witless whilst they "skim" the headlines without reading them, is preventing anyone wanting to buy it - they google "Slingsby aircraft accidents" and then go no further, failing to differentiate that there are many models with very different capabilities.
The problem is that when it comes to accident reports, the devil is in the detail - you have to carefully read each accident report and then it becomes clear the multiple reasons there have been accidents. When you actually read the USAF accident reports for example, its is no wonder that the man in charge of the training school was "removed overnight" - but of course you cannot sue a officer in the air force, so of course you sue the manufacturer... they were flying a longer larger 260hp variant with and air conditioner under the cowl (dissipating heat) in the heat of texas (Hondo) taking off at high altitude and getting fuel vapour lock problems and then gaining altitude to practice spinning in an aircraft where the USAF wrote their own flight manual, NOT the one that was written by Slingsby with the special notes about spin recovery in it - NO it is NOT the same as a piper cub - hmmm.
The UK accidents each make sorry reading, with one being a case of pilot WITHOUT having completed his aerobatic training and NOT having been signed out for solo aerobatics, just deciding to do aerobatics to show off to friends - watch this ! . Even the accident where the most qualified pilot killed himself, he had practiced the aerobatic routine in a 260hp aircraft and when it would not start on the day of the airshow, hops in an aircraft with a 200hp engine and flies the routine in this aircraft instead for the FIRST TIME, then fails to recover from an inverted low-level manoeuvre during the display - what is it they say about never doing anything at low level you have not practiced at altitude (in the same aircraft type) ?
I think the failing of the Slingsby it is that it is a really easy aircraft to fly, much easier than the trainers I learnt on BUT it is a very capable aerobatic aircraft - not a snappy roller, but excellent all the same. This DOES NOT MEAN that flying aerobatics is easy and safe unless you are qualified and current. Now if you are interested in the Slingsby READ THE PART OF THE MANUAL ON SPIN RECOVERY - it is simple, safe and reliable BUT DIFFERENT to most aircraft. Most notably "if the stick is held forward whilst applying opposite rudder, the aircraft will remain in the spin" This is very important and warranted Slingsby issuing a special note to owners to pay attention to this. How many of the dead pilots read this and practiced it ?
SImilarly, I am now looking a buying a Europa aircraft and notice the many crosswind landing accidents - they are all in the Monowheel variant - now think about it - how tricky is it going to be to land a mono wheel aircraft in a crosswind that has sticking out OUTRIGGERS on each wing - very very tricky, whereas the tri-gear would be conventional. It does not put me off, I just know I need to have a tri-gear as my airfield is most often has a cross wind and I am not Houdini...
I really wish Slingsby had named the aircraft models differently, as they really are very different from each other - The T67M200 is SHORTER and LIGHTER and has a different C of G than the T67M260 and flies very differently meanwhile the 160hp model is much harder to fly aerobatics as it has WAY less power, but is still a nice aircraft.
Best wishes all
Regards
Trevor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trevor, it's not just the big engined Fireflys that are having trouble. Have you seen this?
The Firefly is now up to a total hull loss of 13% of the fleet.
The Firefly is now up to a total hull loss of 13% of the fleet.
Last edited by robrob; 21st Jan 2018 at 21:25.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Waiheke Island new Zealand
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conclusion
Thanks Rob,
I have read every one recently when a potential buyer pointed this list out to me last week; there are lessons to take from each one, most of which have nothing to do with the aircraft type but clearly the fuel stoppage is focussed on the vapour lock confined to the large T67M260 with under cowl air conditioner, flown in hot and high conditions.
Example of not related to this aircraft specifically - the pilot having never flown the display in the different 200hp machine, just getting into one and flying it low level and crashing - darwin award.
I lost a friend in a Vampire Jet who did exactly that - someone was sick, so they offered to take their place and flew a routine not practiced at altitude and crashed - he was retired military with thousands of operational hours in props and jets including harriers plus huge aerobatic hours but fell foul of the golden rule... doin't do anything at low level you have not practiced at altitude (I guess except landing!) it will kill you .. and it did.
However, I do understand why myself and perhaps others are safe - I READ THE SLINGSBY FLIGHT MANUAL including the section on spin recovery which is simple and specific and NOT the same as other aircraft.
Then I went out and practiced what it said in the manual with an aerobatic instructor and it worked.
Since I am not a test pilot, I have no plans to get into a spin and try alternative methods of spin recovery ... would you ?
Clearly from reading the detail, that is what some people did, including a survivor who explained what they had done, still not understanding why the aircraft would not recover.
The USAF went one stage further with the T67M260 and even wrote their OWN flight manual thereby sealing their fate....
I went flying in the T67M200 yesterday and if I could afford to keep it indefinitely, I would not sell it, it is fabulous. It has full IFR panel, enough comfortable room for 2 side by side, will fly cross country further than my bladder will and I can roll about the skies doing loops and rolls like it is at a fairground on rails - ahhh - and I know how to avoid a spin, know how to recover a spin and know how not to botch a spin recovery - it is in the manual.
If you are interested - the key points for spin recovery are this - it says "a high rotation rate spin may occur if the correct procedure is not followed" - this is pretty dammed clear would you not say ? "particularly if the control column is moved forward, partially or fully BEFORE the application of full ani-spin rudder" - which is exactly what is known to have happened to one survivor and if you screw-up it even tells you the botched recovery er recovery ....
a. Check that FULL anti-spin rudder is applied
b. Move the control column FULLY AFT - then SLOWLY FORWARD until the spin stops.
c. Centralise the controls and recover to level flight (observing the G limitation)
I would add one more thing from reading the accident reports, although it should be obvious if you are learning aerobatics.
When pulling out of a dive, do it gently and make sure the rudders are central.
If the rudders are not central and you pull like buggery, you are executing a snap roll and guess what, it does a snap roll whilst pointing vertically down.
From the evidence, it looks like some people did exactly that.
The Slingsby is made of rust-free composite before the days of carbon fibre so it is HEAVY and from what I read, the 260hp version T67M200 spins very nose-low (the T67M200 does not from my experience)
This could be very scary if you have not practiced it and if the trainee panics and just yanks hard at the stick, they will do some more aerobatics pointing vertically down.
Today, I have decided that I will not sell my aircraft to anyone until they have have conducted a spin training session at my cost with my flight school A cat instructor and demonstrated not only that they can recover from a spin repeatedly, but that they know what is the incorrect spin recovery to avoid for this aircraft. I discussed this with the CFI there yesterday and unprompted he spelled out the CORRECT spin recovery for this aircraft and explained why. "most aircraft with the horizontal stabiliser placed low down relative to the rudder will suffer some blanking of the rudder in a spin. Keeping the stick back while applying opposite rudder ensures that the the rudder gets maximum airflow" yes he speaks like this. Interestingly, I have read that T tail aircraft suffer blanking by the fuselage in a spin - no controls will fix this - so are not certified for spinning for that reason like the DA20s that the USAF bought to replace the Slingsby.... here endeth the first lesson.
Best wishes
Regards
Trevor
I have read every one recently when a potential buyer pointed this list out to me last week; there are lessons to take from each one, most of which have nothing to do with the aircraft type but clearly the fuel stoppage is focussed on the vapour lock confined to the large T67M260 with under cowl air conditioner, flown in hot and high conditions.
Example of not related to this aircraft specifically - the pilot having never flown the display in the different 200hp machine, just getting into one and flying it low level and crashing - darwin award.
I lost a friend in a Vampire Jet who did exactly that - someone was sick, so they offered to take their place and flew a routine not practiced at altitude and crashed - he was retired military with thousands of operational hours in props and jets including harriers plus huge aerobatic hours but fell foul of the golden rule... doin't do anything at low level you have not practiced at altitude (I guess except landing!) it will kill you .. and it did.
However, I do understand why myself and perhaps others are safe - I READ THE SLINGSBY FLIGHT MANUAL including the section on spin recovery which is simple and specific and NOT the same as other aircraft.
Then I went out and practiced what it said in the manual with an aerobatic instructor and it worked.
Since I am not a test pilot, I have no plans to get into a spin and try alternative methods of spin recovery ... would you ?
Clearly from reading the detail, that is what some people did, including a survivor who explained what they had done, still not understanding why the aircraft would not recover.
The USAF went one stage further with the T67M260 and even wrote their OWN flight manual thereby sealing their fate....
I went flying in the T67M200 yesterday and if I could afford to keep it indefinitely, I would not sell it, it is fabulous. It has full IFR panel, enough comfortable room for 2 side by side, will fly cross country further than my bladder will and I can roll about the skies doing loops and rolls like it is at a fairground on rails - ahhh - and I know how to avoid a spin, know how to recover a spin and know how not to botch a spin recovery - it is in the manual.
If you are interested - the key points for spin recovery are this - it says "a high rotation rate spin may occur if the correct procedure is not followed" - this is pretty dammed clear would you not say ? "particularly if the control column is moved forward, partially or fully BEFORE the application of full ani-spin rudder" - which is exactly what is known to have happened to one survivor and if you screw-up it even tells you the botched recovery er recovery ....
a. Check that FULL anti-spin rudder is applied
b. Move the control column FULLY AFT - then SLOWLY FORWARD until the spin stops.
c. Centralise the controls and recover to level flight (observing the G limitation)
I would add one more thing from reading the accident reports, although it should be obvious if you are learning aerobatics.
When pulling out of a dive, do it gently and make sure the rudders are central.
If the rudders are not central and you pull like buggery, you are executing a snap roll and guess what, it does a snap roll whilst pointing vertically down.
From the evidence, it looks like some people did exactly that.
The Slingsby is made of rust-free composite before the days of carbon fibre so it is HEAVY and from what I read, the 260hp version T67M200 spins very nose-low (the T67M200 does not from my experience)
This could be very scary if you have not practiced it and if the trainee panics and just yanks hard at the stick, they will do some more aerobatics pointing vertically down.
Today, I have decided that I will not sell my aircraft to anyone until they have have conducted a spin training session at my cost with my flight school A cat instructor and demonstrated not only that they can recover from a spin repeatedly, but that they know what is the incorrect spin recovery to avoid for this aircraft. I discussed this with the CFI there yesterday and unprompted he spelled out the CORRECT spin recovery for this aircraft and explained why. "most aircraft with the horizontal stabiliser placed low down relative to the rudder will suffer some blanking of the rudder in a spin. Keeping the stick back while applying opposite rudder ensures that the the rudder gets maximum airflow" yes he speaks like this. Interestingly, I have read that T tail aircraft suffer blanking by the fuselage in a spin - no controls will fix this - so are not certified for spinning for that reason like the DA20s that the USAF bought to replace the Slingsby.... here endeth the first lesson.
Best wishes
Regards
Trevor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a. Check that FULL anti-spin rudder is applied
b. Move the control column FULLY AFT - then SLOWLY FORWARD until the spin stops.
c. Centralise the controls and recover to level flight (observing the G limitation)
b. Move the control column FULLY AFT - then SLOWLY FORWARD until the spin stops.
c. Centralise the controls and recover to level flight (observing the G limitation)
‘3.7 ERECT SPIN RECOVERY
3.7.1 Standard Recovery Technique
a) Close the throttle.
b) Raise the flaps.
c) Check direction of spin on the turn co-ordinator.
d) Apply full rudder to oppose the indicated direction of turn.
e) Hold ailerons firmly neutral.
f) Move control column progressively forward until spin stops.
g) Centralise rudder.
h) Level the wings with aileron.
i) Recover from the dive.
3.7.1 Standard Recovery Technique
a) Close the throttle.
b) Raise the flaps.
c) Check direction of spin on the turn co-ordinator.
d) Apply full rudder to oppose the indicated direction of turn.
e) Hold ailerons firmly neutral.
f) Move control column progressively forward until spin stops.
g) Centralise rudder.
h) Level the wings with aileron.
i) Recover from the dive.
Almost everyone that's ever flown a Firefly and not died will tell you it's a safe airplane that "always recovers" but there are a bunch of dead Firefly pilots that would disagree if given the chance.
Look at its safety record. Read the "UK Fatal Stall or Spin Accident Summary (1980-2008) report" and see how they singled out the Firefly due to its spin-crash record. Even a test pilot instructor was killed in one. The Firefly is right there with the knife-edge Pitts Special in mishap rate and should never be considered "safe".
Having done LOC-I training in a Slingsby in the Netherlands I found it nice to fly, not that I did much of the heavy handling. The instructors were RNAF and LOC-I trained.
While this is a very specific use of the aircraft for a particular purpose, I witnessed no violent aircraft behaviour unless the Instructor was demonstrating it to me. Nevertheless each preflight included repeating the parachute mantra.
Slingsby T67M200 Firefly Aircraft at APS
While this is a very specific use of the aircraft for a particular purpose, I witnessed no violent aircraft behaviour unless the Instructor was demonstrating it to me. Nevertheless each preflight included repeating the parachute mantra.
Slingsby T67M200 Firefly Aircraft at APS
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Newick
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robrob, out of context comparison.
The first procedure is non-standard (botched) spin recovery after pushing the stick forward before rudder.
The second is, as it says, the standard technique and accords with Trevorda.
The first procedure is non-standard (botched) spin recovery after pushing the stick forward before rudder.
The second is, as it says, the standard technique and accords with Trevorda.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I missed the part about a botched spin recovery. We didn't have a botched spin recovery procedure and we didn't get any botched spin recovery training which is a crime when you're going to be teaching zero flight time cadets how to spin and recover a Firefly.
Almost everyone that's ever flown a Firefly and not died will tell you it's a safe airplane that "always recovers" but there are a bunch of dead Firefly pilots that would disagree if given the chance.
Look at its safety record. Read the "UK Fatal Stall or Spin Accident Summary (1980-2008) report" and see how they singled out the Firefly due to its spin-crash record. Even a test pilot instructor was killed in one. The Firefly is right there with the knife-edge Pitts Special in mishap rate and should never be considered "safe".
Look at its safety record. Read the "UK Fatal Stall or Spin Accident Summary (1980-2008) report" and see how they singled out the Firefly due to its spin-crash record. Even a test pilot instructor was killed in one. The Firefly is right there with the knife-edge Pitts Special in mishap rate and should never be considered "safe".
whilst the data is what it is how is it that the aircraft is used by new/novice/inexperienced aerobatic pilots without incident?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luck.
Seriously, read the "UK Fatal Stall or Spin Accident Summary (1980-2008) report".
It's not a good idea to let low experience aerobatic pilots fly the Firefly without a really good spin checkout. Even then I wouldn't let a friend train in the Firefly.
Seriously, read the "UK Fatal Stall or Spin Accident Summary (1980-2008) report".
It's not a good idea to let low experience aerobatic pilots fly the Firefly without a really good spin checkout. Even then I wouldn't let a friend train in the Firefly.