Light Aircraft lands on the A40 in Gloucestershire

[blind pew]

It was paragliding winch course “BHPA sign off on my kiwi paragliding license” is the clue. (Instructed at Wormingford and did a couple of seasons of interclub comps so we probably met..phoebus C.

[Uplinker]

I agree with Albert Ross and Nick H; we weren't there, and we don't know the exact circumstances. The fields either side might have been too small, or had power lines, or trees/hedges. Or non existent, e.g. housing.

The road might have been relatively empty, and landing with the traffic flow at a similar speed might have seemed the best course of action to the pilot. Perhaps the 'plane unintentionally veered over onto the central reservation after touching down, for whatever reason.

Lessons to be learned for sure. A revision of engine failure landings in fields; (Size, Shape, Slope, Shade etc). Revision of Air Law for flying over built-up areas at sufficient altitude to be able to land clear with engine failure. A 'sub-routine' in every single engined pilot's head to constantly have in mind the most suitable field visible in the area if the big fan at the front suddenly quits. And the best range gliding speed and config for your aircraft.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Originally Posted by Wickerbill

Engine failure on finals, couldn't make the runway.

Perhaps the worst possible engine failure scenario; low, slow, likely in a high drag configuration, and focusing on the landing - the surprise factor must have been considerable, the time to react negligible, and the options extremely limited.

The pilot did a lot of things right; in particular, they kept flying the airplane. Many others in this scenario have tried to stretch the glide, stalled, and become a passenger.

I'd call this a controlled forced landing into hostile terrain, not a crash.

[pilotmike]

Here are my thoughts.

1st, we don't know, we weren't there.

2nd, my 1st reaction was 'why the hell would anyone choose to land on a road?' I would drill my students to fly with sufficient height and care to have landing options available whenever possible. Landing on a road is a very last resort.

3rd, (and again…. we don't know…. but if the intrepid pilot was on short final for Staverton / Glos RW 04, these might possibly be pictures of:

A) a reasonable approach, with engine producing some power, for a powered approach, and…
B) the vexed position as the engine fails, leaving nothing but a line of trees ahead which cannot be flown over, with the only escape route, being the A40 which was thankfully sufficiently uncluttered as to allow a safe forced landing.

If so, kudos to the pilot. I'd be proud if you were one of my ex-students pulling off a safe landing like that!

Apologies, I don't know how to place / position the 2 images, but I'm sure you can determine which one is which.

[Expressflight]

It looks like the wind would have been something like 160/10 around the time of the accident.

[matspart3]

Originally Posted by Wickerbill

Engine failure on finals, couldn't make the runway. Only had limited time to decide where to put it. Aircraft professionally recovered by Air Salvage International - it had to be done fast as the accident had blocked the A40 arterial road.

Not that professionally recovered it seems. Fell off the lorry during recovery and now definitely a total loss.

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by Sillert,V.I.

Perhaps the worst possible engine failure scenario; low, slow, likely in a high drag configuration, and focusing on the landing.

What would force a pilot to be in that situation? Isn't it usually a choice?

[Andrewgr2]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

What would force a pilot to be in that situation? Isn't it usually a choice?

As a glider pilot and tug pilot I cannot understand why so many light aircraft pilots voluntarily put themselves into a position where an engine failure on a base leg, and especially on final will result in an off airfield landing at best, and a crash at worst. I accept that in IMC there may be no alternative but on a normal VMC approach it shouldn’t be necessary.

[lightonthewater]

I don't suppose that there was anything voluntary about that landing. If the propeller stops turning when you are set up for landing, purposely low, slow and close to, but too far from, the runway, no-one would have any choice but find the least bad area to land. However skilled and experienced you may be, even you might not have had much choice of where to put it down. The old adage that 'any landing you can walk away from is a good one' would seem to apply here.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Originally Posted by lightonthewater

If the propeller stops turning when you are set up for landing, purposely low, slow and close to, but too far from, the runway, no-one would have any choice but find the least bad area to land.

It's already been said, but you don't usually have to set up for landing that way. Keeping close to the field and flying a glide approach pretty much guarantees you're going to make the airfield boundary, if not the runway.

This isn't always practical - what works at a gliding site might not work at a busy commercial airport. And for some higher performance types, there may also be the risk of shock cooling the engine to consider.

I'd agree that following the PAPI in an SEP isn't usually necessary or desirable, and isn't going to leave you many options if the donk quits on final.

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by lightonthewater

If the propeller stops turning when you are set up for landing, purposely low, slow and close to, but too far from, the runway, no-one would have any choice but find the least bad area to land.

But why put yourself in that position? Who can make a good case for dragged in approaches that have no safe options if the fan stops? Even when forced to make a "two counties" circuit because of other (usually student) traffic I maintain traffic pattern altitude until I have an engine fail glide to the runway.

[Asturias56]

Big Car park just up the road at GCHQ - but might be a long time explaining yourself if you landed there

[OldLurker]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

But why put yourself in that position? Who can make a good case for dragged in approaches that have no safe options if the fan stops? Even when forced to make a "two counties" circuit because of other (usually student) traffic I maintain traffic pattern altitude until I have an engine fail glide to the runway.

As a humble light aircraft pilot, I totally agree that a glide approach is ideal. Yet I notice that heavy aircraft routinely drag in, often for many miles, and we're told that anything nearer to a glide approach is inconceivable. Of course that's completely different, isn't it: those have two or more fans, and two fans never stop at the same time – except when they do, notoriously the 777 whose pilot only just made it over the fence (and a very busy road, and an ILS antenna) onto the grass at Heathrow in 2018.

[Mowgli]

Although we don’t know the exact position and energy state of the aircraft when a loss of power occurred, it is evident that the pilot did not lose control; this could so easily have become a LOC-I statistic. The priorities are: Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. There may have been very little time for “navigate” (we don’t know at the present time, an investigation would reveal more information), but the pilot kept with the “aviate” whilst no doubt in a very difficult situation.

[procede]

Originally Posted by OldLurker

Yet I notice that heavy aircraft routinely drag in, often for many miles, and we're told that anything nearer to a glide approach is inconceivable.

Two reasons for lots of drag on approach are speed stability and engine spool up time on modern turbofans being more than 10 seconds from idle.
When an engine fails, you always have the option of retracting the flaps slightly, as was done with the BA777 at LHR with dual engine failure.

[Uplinker]

@OldLurker; Approaches 'clean' are not inconceivable, but large heavy airliners need to be slow to land - otherwise they may run out of runway in which to stop ! Flap-less landings can require double the 'normal' runway length to land.

Nor can you fly in clean, then stick full flap down at the last minute with just a mile to go, because it takes a while to slow down and settle the aircraft in its new config, so as not to destabilise it or the approach. It has to be configured in a controlled and gradual way.

Airliners increasingly don't use full flap for landing anyway these days, to save fuel.

[blind pew]

My last lot did idle approach and landings but after a few guys got long they brought in the regulation of landing config selected by 400ft which meant that she was fully configured at 300ft and the engines had to be spooled up for the last 15 seconds ish…not a problem even with a heavy if one was properly trained as we were…helps if the training establishment were serving military, mostly fast jet flying in and out of the alps..
Not helped on circling approaches following my old lot who needed god knows how long a stabilised final approach.
Best I did as a copilot was idle from 12,000ft…configuration adjusted to not exceed max company nose down attitude for pax comfort …no brakes and intercept the glide at 700ft from above and spooling the three Pratt and Whitney’s up at same time as speed bled off..only approach into Caracas…and you tell the youngsters today they won’t believe you.

[parkfell]

Originally Posted by G-MILF

Aerodrome Fire & Rescue services at a licenced aerodrome are obliged to respond to an aircraft incident within a set distance of the airfield. In doing so, they remove the ARFF from the airfield, making it unlicenced. Rather than closing the airport completely, although they may well of done at the discretion of the airport, it was likely closed for traffic requiring a licenced aerodrome.

Technically the airfield remains licensed but without AFRS. Depending upon the ac operator, no ‘fire cover’ is required eg.private owner ac.
If the airport authority issue “Out of Hours Permits” then these holders do not require any facilities.
It is for the airport authority to decide the status of their airfield at any time…