Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

Plane down Overbury, Tewkesbury.

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

Plane down Overbury, Tewkesbury.

Old 16th Jan 2018, 15:59
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 879
Images of PA28s that have hit trees shows same curved "indent". This is from G-LUSH incident. It went through trees at speed, wreckage all ended up together and both wings came off.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
Untitled.jpg (205.1 KB, 179 views)
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2018, 17:27
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY View Post
Images of PA28s that have hit trees shows same curved "indent". This is from G-LUSH incident. It went through trees at speed, wreckage all ended up together and both wings came off.
What is not evident in that picture of LUSH is that it has just hit a brick hangar and wooden shed during the braking phase of a landing. Speed and therefore inertia was correspondingly low. The solidness of the obstacles hit was sufficient to pull the wing off but due to the low speed none of the wreckage went far at all, hence all being in the same place in the pictures. You can see the cowling lines are still all straight with the fuselage and no apparent deformation (there will have been plenty but severe enough to see in this picture) on the fuselage. Very different kettle of fish with WAVS. Still just my opinion though!
PeteMonty is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2018, 18:27
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20
So... I flew over the site today. Really struggled to find it, mostly because it was nowhere near where the media said it was (surprise?). It actually WAS right at the top of the hill (I may have to revisit my stance on CFIT after more inspection as it is much more plausible here). Open Google maps and stick 52.054096,-2.043463 in the search bar (and put it on 'satellite' layer).
The dry stone wall that runs across the NE of the field looks unscathed but I was at 2000ft aml (~1000ft agl) and running in a new top end on a Navion in lots of turbulence so was a tad distracted and couldn't see many ground features that clearly...
Had they been flying from the north this point of this field is (I think...) just lower than the tops of the trees past the dry stone wall to the NE.
I want to try and have another look from slightly lower and when I'm not trying to wrestle an aeroplane to try and pick out any other clues... I did take a picture but it is phone quality so no actual detail to see...
PeteMonty is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 01:13
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYYC (Calgary)
Posts: 5,395
PM,

Thanks for your update of the location. The previously reported locations didn't make any sense.

Attached are images from GE and Streetmap.
Attached Images
File Type: png
Bredon GE.png (1.10 MB, 136 views)
File Type: png
Bredon 50000.png (617.1 KB, 125 views)
File Type: png
Bredon 25000.png (542.2 KB, 115 views)

Last edited by India Four Two; 18th Jan 2018 at 05:16. Reason: Spelling
India Four Two is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 07:59
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 625
A bit of misreporting re G-LUSH I think.

Accident 1, 2003 involved a hangar.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...pdf_023902.pdf

Accident 2 when the picture in the above post (#67) was taken was in 2017 and didn't involve a hangar but did involve trees.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...LUSH_09-17.pdf
smarthawke is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 09:59
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,334
The location pictures and maps above point to CFIT in my opinion (and that's all this is). Looks like they were flying low from the Evesham direction in IMC and hit the trees on top of the ridge. The ground rises very steeply just up-track of where the wreckage came to rest.

This does not explain why such an experienced pilot who knew the area was that low in IMC. Simple altimeter mis-reading (would be far from the first time that's been done), or engine problems perhaps?

I still think the wreckage shows every sign of impact with trees before coming to rest in the field. The lack of vertical deformation makes stall / spin unlikely in my opinion.
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 18:39
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Thanks smarthawke, I had assumed that the G-LUSH pic was of the earlier incident as I thought it got written off at Meppershall.. I have googled and found other pics of the 2017 incident from other angles. I would still argue that the 2017 incident happened at low speed. As previously stated there is next to no deformation to the fuse and AAIB report (thanks for the link) states that the single occupant walked away with no injuries whatsoever. The energy involved in G-WAVS was astronomically more. The firewall and forward fuse on the PA-28 is the strongest part of that structure and so to be as disfigured as WAVS was took it being stopped very rapidly from a high velocity.

Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver View Post
The location pictures and maps above point to CFIT in my opinion (and that's all this is). Looks like they were flying low from the Evesham direction in IMC and hit the trees on top of the ridge. The ground rises very steeply just up-track of where the wreckage came to rest.
I'm not picking on you SSD, honest! But we may just have to agree to disagree! If just simply flying low they would have hit the trees first as I'm pretty sure (although not 100%) they are higher than the point of impact. IF the trees are what removed the wings there is NO WAY they would have ended up where they are in the media pictures. That is a long distance to travel and the energy absorbed by the trees in taking the wings off would have meant they would be dumped in that first field. OK so the wings could have been moved before the media shots but why move them to a difficult to place to recover them? There are far easier routes from the tree line to the vehicular access than to traipse them across this sticky field...

If the aircraft was simply descending and just missed the trees and then CFIT into the field it rested in (remember, it hasn't hit the stone wall at the field edge) then unless it was in a steep decent then it would have glanced the ground taking the landing gear off and travelled a long way in the field OR flipped on its back, neither of which have happened...

Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver View Post
This does not explain why such an experienced pilot who knew the area was that low in IMC. Simple altimeter mis-reading (would be far from the first time that's been done), or engine problems perhaps?
Coventry is the least likely airfield to depart with a miss-set altimeter. The reason being that Birmingham's controlled airspace sits 1500ft directly overhead. There are so many infringements from people flying in and out of there that those who call Cov home base are super vigilant and the controllers drum the QNH into you and the 1500ft climb limit into pilots before clearing (actually they have recently downgraded to A/G so no 'clearance' now!) you to line up. Then on takeoff you are so panicked about your altitude that you are watching it like a hawk and you would instantly notice if you hadn't set it right.

Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver View Post
I still think the wreckage shows every sign of impact with trees before coming to rest in the field. The lack of vertical deformation makes stall / spin unlikely in my opinion.
You are going to have to explain to me what you mean by 'vertical deformation'. What I see when I look at the wreckage is extreme deformation as if the aircraft were travelling vertically down... Same picture but you and I are seeing polar opposites!!!

So for it to be CFIT for me (and I did say a few post ago that it COULD be CFIT) they would have to have hit the trees, remained intact but lost control enough to have impacted the ground vertically (or with a large vertical component) down and broken apart then. Trouble is the eye (ear?) witness (who is named so more reliable than the witness who saw an aircraft in a tree which clearly NEVER happened as no tree near the final resting place is large enough to hold an aircraft prior to the emergency services removing it...) states a running engine and ONE loud bang. Had it hit the trees it would have been two impacts heard surely?

The other option is that the aircraft was in a very steep decent. A slight descent and it would not show the vertical impact damage it does and would most likely have flipped on hitting the ground.

The ear witness says the engine sounded off. What does a non-pilot know about how an engine should sound? It was making power at the time of impact or the blades would not be bent the way they are. It could have been losing power and therefore in a kind of forced descent. If that were me in IMC I would be at best glide and probably have full flaps. That way even if you don't get a chance to flare at the last second your energy is at the minimum and you have the best possible chance of survival. Had they hit the field they did at 60kts at a 7/1 angle they would have probably survived...

If they were descending to try and visual the ground it would surely have been a slow rate of descent? The forward speed would be high but then it would have flipped not hit and stopped with so much deformation and no apparent 'digging in'?

Still not enough fact available to proclaim it as CFIT or not CFIT methinks...
PeteMonty is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 20:45
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: N.YORKSHIRE
Posts: 859
There are some photos in this report. PA32 hit a tree and shed a wing with ease. No injuries. He was inbound to us. The impact damage from the tree is clear. https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...ownload-report
Flyingmac is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 21:28
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,334
Originally Posted by PeteMonty View Post

Coventry is the least likely airfield to depart with a miss-set altimeter.
I don't think you read my post. I said "mis-read", not "mis set". Big difference.

For the record, I completely disagree with every other point in your post. Have you looked at spin-in pictures on AAIB site? They are quite characteristic in their vertical damage (not apparent in this accident) and the wings still being in about the right place. But it's only my opinion. We'll see in about a year.

Edited to add: Is it a co-incidence that the accident occurred where the track of the aircraft intercepts sudden tree-covered high ground (it's a ridge forming the NE edge of Breedon Hill rising steeply from the relatively low plain of the Severn Valley)? I suppose it could be, but what is most likely?

Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 19th Jan 2018 at 12:24.
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 21:44
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Apologies, I did miss-read your statement!‎ You make a good point there. In the distraction of worsening weather it would be easy to see what you expect on an altimeter as opposed to what it is actually saying. Especially with two pilots as each assumes the other is making the call... There have been many cases of minor and major accidents when an instructor assumes the capable PUT has covered something and the PUT assumes the instructor is paying more attention or vice versa...

On the other points, like I say, we will just have to agree to disagree! I do keep stressing that my views are only that - just opinion and with an extremely scant amount of the facts to base it upon at that‎. Thankfully the AAIB will have all the facts and will therefore get it right. Regardless of any of our 'guesswork' this thread has still highlighted many points that we could all do with a refresher on to keep complacency at bay (such as the point above that SSD was originally making that I miss-read!).‎
PeteMonty is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2018, 17:20
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 942
Looks like it hit a tree and cartwheeled over the nose and tail.
BigEndBob is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 21:05
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver View Post
Is it a co-incidence that the accident occurred where the track of the aircraft intercepts sudden tree-covered high ground?
This is exactly why I stated that it COULD be CFIT just after finding the crash site from the air. I completely agree that the most likely occurrence is normally what has indeed happened but at the same what did happen is what did - no matter how convenient/inconvenient.

I flew to the crash site from the Coventry direction a couple of days ago and can confirm that the tree line is considerably higher than the place the aircraft impacted. So it remains possible that they clipped the tress and then pulled up, lost control and came down in the place it did but I cannot see that it flew into the ground where it did for the reasons stated in my earlier posts regarding the nature of the impact damage. Of course that is assuming it was still heading for Glos and hadn’t turned around.

BEB – this aircraft did not cartwheel. There is no damage on the fin which would get at least distorted in a cartwheel if not removed altogether. When these aircraft cartwheel they tend to actually look worse than this but the occupants often walk away. This is because the extremity structures act as crumple zones and absorb a lot of the energy. Also cartwheels normally occur in failed landing attempts and so speeds are relatively low. Look up the crash report and photos on G-COVB and you will see what I am talking about. Two elderly occupants extracted themselves and were calmly waiting for the emergency services to arrive despite the aircraft looking in worse shape than this one. It is all to do with the amount of energy and how that is dissipated.

I have been trawling through crash reports for days now trying to find one where the prop tips have been bent one back one forward and I have finally found one. It still won’t let me post URL’s on here so you will have to search for ‘N32396 NTSB’ for the NTSB report and Google image search for ‘N32396’ should get you pictures. According to the eyewitnesses (multiple pilots) it was seen to spin in. It has the same looking impact damage as WAVS. I’m not saying WAVS definitely span but it must have hit the ground with a largely vertical component in nose and wing down attitude to impact the way it has as laid out in my earlier posts. I think others have mentioned a lack of ‘vertical damage’ but what they really mean is damage along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. A spin is rarely nose down (some will be some wont) especially on PA28’s which tend to spin flatter than say a firefly or chipmunk or etc and like I say the accident report and photo above are of a PA-28 that span in so that proves that a spin accident can look like this.

So yes this COULD have been caused by CFIT but if it was then the initial ‘into terrain’ was only a contributing factor to the final impact and not the impact you see in the pictures. The end impact was a result of loss of control.

One other point of interest is that Glos ATC allegedly immediately called the emergency services. If ATC’s called 999 every time they lost contact with an inbound aircraft there would be a lot of 999 calls… So they don’t. They have overdue procedures etc that take considerably longer. This says to me that they knew more due to radio calls received – again suggesting NOT CFIT (as there isn’t time to call ‘I’m about to hit something I’m not aware is there’). The other PA-28 that was in the area does a 180 degree about face at the exact time ATC say they lost control so I suspect there was a mayday or similar call from WAVS that meant Glos ATC immediately called the emergency services on losing contact and the other PA28 turned to see if they could assist.
PeteMonty is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 21:43
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 879
"So yes this COULD have been caused by CFIT but if it was then the initial ‘into terrain’ was only a contributing factor to the final impact and not the impact you see in the pictures. The end impact was a result of loss of control."

???

Not saying this is what happened but if an aircraft flies, under control, into trees then it is CFIT (That "T" is terrain which includes trees, walls, buildings, whatever else one may encounter on the ground). What happens thereafter is in the lap of the gods.

As for ATC contacting the emergency services, what if G-WAVS was talking to ATC and mid conversation the controller hears "...shit, oh shit oh shit....(then silence)". do you think they will wait the requisite 1 hour beyond notified endurance before informing the emergency services?
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2018, 05:32
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Stratford
Posts: 4
CFIT?

If the aircraft suffered an engine problem that forced it to loose altitude, but was still in IMC conditions (above cloud base) when it hit the terrain, would that still count as CFIT?
It might have been under control but had not cleared the cloud.
Pampera10 is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2018, 05:50
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Yes SWB we agree on the definition of CFIT (not sure why the ????) and your radio example is just one such scenario I was alluding to.

Quarterback? Sports metaphors are lost on me let alone American ones! Lol!
PeteMonty is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2018, 08:17
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 942
Reason i say it cartwheeled is that the nose is offset, rear fuselage is buckled, wings off and one side tail plane is missing.

This accident reminds me of the one round here in the nineties. Mooney pilot enroute from south to Sleap, called asking what the cloud base was, told it was about 1300 feet.
I was 1100 just returning to HG airfield. Controller later asked what frequency did the Mooney change to, no one knew.
Later we found out had descended and hit the Wrekin hill, tops 1400 feet, 30 feet from it's top. Local pilots know of it, but for someone unfamillier with the area, hard to see on a map. Looks like a Volcano.

Last edited by BigEndBob; 24th Jan 2018 at 10:26.
BigEndBob is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2018, 12:37
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 879
The ???? was because of this comment "The end impact was a result of loss of control."

If it was CFIT then "The end impact was a result of hitting something on the ground a few seconds earlier."

...and likewise, sports metaphors (especially American ones) are lost on me too.

...BigEndBob. Every UK military controller is aware of the Wrekin and its sister peak adjacent to RAF Cottam ;-)
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2018, 18:05
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20
SWB - aha I see your objection. IF (I'm still not convinced but am not ruling it out) ‎it hit/clipped the trees then whatever else occurred it is still CFIT. The sentence you quote above is my attempt to point out that it did not just hit the trees and then continue out of control to end up where it hit the dirt but must have climbed (this could have been in or out of control) after said theoretical tree contact, high enough to then come down vertically (or at least with large vertical component) in the field. I was simply trying to point out the distinction as most seem to be suggesting it hit the trees and continued in more or less the same trajectory until stopping where it is shown in the media images. I argue that the wreckage and positioning make this scenario impossible.

Originally Posted by Pampera10 View Post
If the aircraft suffered an engine problem that forced it to loose altitude, but was still in IMC conditions (above cloud base) when it hit the terrain, would that still count as CFIT?
It might have been under control but had not cleared the cloud.
I would argue (and folks are welcome to disagree) that an aircraft 'forced' to lose height is no longer under control. Yes you could still have control of the flight axis but you do not have control of the engine and therefore the descent is not a controlled but a forced manoeuvre. I would call such an accident 'forced landing in IMC resulting in collision with unseen terrain'.
PeteMonty is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2018, 18:59
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,334
If the first deviation from a controlled and intended flightpath was hitting trees, it was CFIT. Anything that subsequently happened (and in my book all that in all probability subsequently happened was, seriously damaged, it hit the ground beyond the trees) is not the cause of the accident.

If it didn't hit the trees but a 'close encounter' led to a sudden climb and loss of control in IMC, then it wasn't CFIT.

Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 25th Jan 2018 at 07:07.
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2018, 16:39
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 942
Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY View Post
The ???? was because of this comment "The end impact was a result of loss of control."

If it was CFIT then "The end impact was a result of hitting something on the ground a few seconds earlier."

...and likewise, sports metaphors (especially American ones) are lost on me too.

...BigEndBob. Every UK military controller is aware of the Wrekin and its sister peak adjacent to RAF Cottam ;-)
Yes pilot's can be warned weekdays, but not weekends when this accident happened.
BigEndBob is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.