Firefly accident in North Yorkshire.
 

BBC reporting two casualties in an accident near Castle Howard, North Yorkshire this morning. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36176991

Reliably informed its a Firefly, but not confirmed.

Very sad. My daughter and I both did lessons out of the home field, RIP.

Relatives were at the home airfield at the time.
Dreadful time for everyone there.

Sad news. Does anyone have any facts on what happened?

It seems to look sadly very similar to this:

G-BUUD crash

Terribly bad form from Telegraph to show the reg.

Condolences to the family

A very sad day indeed, too close to home for comfort.

RIP v sad news.....

As an experienced firefly owner / operator of both the 160 / 200 & M260 along with many of the other guys on the mil forum - it is always advisable to wear parachutes when performing any aerobatic manouevres, it is also critical to have a full brief and ensure the levels and hard deck for level flight are adhered to, then if it still goes wrong - get out, float about and walk back!

The Firefly is a very safe aircraft and very safe to aerobat, however it will NOT suffer fools or anyone using incorrect techniques.... depending on the weight of the two occupants and the fuel in the 160 and depending on what direction they entered will depend on what happened but looking at photos available full left rudder is still applied possibly meaning a spin the right - going to the right if the engine was at tickover then occasionally it stops, especially if cold / carb icing potential - no real dramas at all - sort out the spin recovery first.... and then re-start the fan.

if you don't get the stick all the way forward to the stop and hold it there..... then it ain't coming out.....

AAIB are well versed and WILL give all the details in time...

Very sad day for all involved for sure and not a great few days for aviation especially after the Norway heli rotor head separation.

Dance with the clouds guys!

All the detail is out there on sites such as the Daily Mail. North Yorkshire aircraft crash sees two casualties feared near Castle Howard | Daily Mail Online

Road fatalities are the same and it is one of the aspects of having the internet and mobile phones.

A very sad day for those involved.

It is always advisable to wear parachutes when performing any aerobatic manouevres...Couldn't agree more. Having worn a chute in the Bulldog when their spinning recovery was being questioned, I was horrified when a later civilian instructor decided to spin a PA28 in a shirt and tie. I made my thoughts very apparent. RIP people.

AK7274 is it anyone I know? The train driver.

No mate. No one you know.

As a member who was at the airfield at the time of the accident, I can categoricaly state that no one knows what happened. When the press tried to speak to me, I tried a diplomatic answer that didn't work, so as someone who was brought up in an environment where if hungry we ate our own young, resorted to stereotype and made my answer clearer.

I wouldn't expect anything less dude

BTDT. Scared the living daylights out of me the first time that happened. Not enough seat padding to comfortably get full forwards and only an extra shove against the restraint of the straps got it to come out. FULL and free.

Not saying that this was the issue here but I did learn a valuable lesson from this aircraft type.

Slingsby Crash in Yorkshire
 

Crash plane had been "hired for aerobatics" (From York Press)

TWO men who were killed when their plane crashed near Castle Howard had planned to do some aerobatics, it is believed.

The pilot and a passenger of a yellow light aircraft died when it crashed in a field between Welburn and Bulmer at 10.40am on Saturday.

A Slingsby T67 Firefly, the plane was a two-seater built locally at Kirkbymoorside, and at least one report suggested it could have been attempting to make a crash landing.

The names of the dead have still to be released, but both were experienced flyers who had chartered the aircraft from the Full Sutton Flying Centre near York.

A spokesman at the centre said the two men had been planning to do a local flight and a “bit of aerobatics” – something the aircraft was designed to do.


And more here: Pair killed in Yorkshire light aircraft crash thought to be RAF pilots | UK news | The Guardian

I don't know the Firefly, but the Chipmunk is mandated to carry a palcarded warning that 'spin recovery may require full forward stick'. And sometimes it does.

Was it the lack of chute or the PA28 that was the problem? It's difficult enough to get out of a stationary PA28 on the ground so I don't see many people would bother with a parachute.

I don't (intentionally) spin an aircraft without wearing a parachute. That was after being given a bit of advice from the boss of ETPS some years back.

Very sad. Heartfelt commiserations to all involved.

If I read the registration correctly, I flew it back in 1988-89 when it was with Trent Air Services at Cranfield.

RIP

No comment on this accident as we don't know the facts until AIB has reported.

Done loads of spinning in the firefly (and other types) and recovery never a problem so long as the correct recovery procedure is followed and the aircraft is within CG and weight limits and fuel is balanced.

"Move the control column (centrally) forward until the rotation ceases".

If you only move the control column to a central position the a/c will go high rotational but if you then continue with forward column movement (if necessary to the forward stop) the aircraft will always recover.

The rate of rotation increases due to conservation of angular momentum - as the a/c starts to spin in a smaller radius the rotation rate increases to maintain momentum. Assuming you are following the correct recovery procedure this is an indication that the a/c is in the process of recovering.

Dr Jekyll, it wasn't planned. He just decided to spin it, all I kept thinking was get ready to jettison , release harness, then I realised that wasn't going to happen. It was all over fairly quickly.

WTF have spinning or Pipers got to do with this tragedy? Get a grip and show some respect.

I know at least one of the characters on this Thread - and believe me he will have the greatest of respect for the people involved and for what has happened.

It's incomprehensible to imagine the situation at the 'home' airfield that day.

Any discussion relating to flight safety is never out of place - and spinning, whether applicable to this case or not, is well worth considering.

I used to spin every glider and light aircraft I flew (if it was so cleared) until I spun the PA38, had an engine cut on me, and decided I was too old for that s**t!

There was a reason why spinning was deemed too dangerous to be included in the PPL(A) syllabus and I learned from personal experience why that was the case.

Those of us who are pilots understand the situation here and please don't for one minute imagine we don't sympathise with all concerned. It's just how pilots are and how they deal with these tragedies ...

I have to agree with you spanner.

The PA38 Tomahawk nearly stopped me flying during the mandatory spin part of the ppl 36 years ago.

The Slingsby has a bad record for killing pilots.

snapper1,in all my years on pprune you are the first person to have sworn on forum, congratulations!

The deceased have now been named as two RAF students.

They pair have been named, both RAF students, aged 21. and 25. Very sad

Ryedale light aircraft crash: RAF student pilots named - BBC News

Very sad.

My son is a UK military officer and I would never want him to fly in a Slingsby.

They have taken too many lives.

Respect after an accident
 

Anyone who works with the bereaved and the dying knows that the one thing they absolutely hate is people going round with long faces and hushed voices, avoiding mentioning the d- word. Having respect for these unfortunate young men, neither of whom I know but am as sorry as anyone to learn of their demise, does not mean avoiding discussion about their deaths. Whilst it is fresh in our minds, speculation on a pilots’ rumour network about how a crash may have happened is absolutely appropriate. The most likely scenario for an airframe to arrive in such a state is from a low forward velocity and a high downward one – i.e. in a spin , and I am also aware that Fireflys have form in this regard. So let’s continue to have respectful speculation about the crash whilst it is still high in our consciousness and someone may learn something useful from this tragedy that will one day save their own lives.

The military spec M200 and M260 aircraft have an excellent safety record.

Virtually all of the fatalities - and yes, there have been a significant number - have been in the smaller engined civilian models.

I don't think that the aeroplane is a death trap, but nor do I understand why civilian clubs routinely aerobat T67s without parachutes. Mind you, I would rather not aerobat anything without a parachute or equivalent safety device, regardless of what it was.

G

The only variant of the T67 which I've spun is the T67A. It was critical to ensure that the weight limits were strictly observed and we had to be VERY careful when refuelling the aircraft to ensure that the actual weight of the crew was taken into account.

The T67A fuel tank is well forward, so with a chubby student the maximum fuel load was quite low and the CG was correspondingly aft, which made the spin less pleasant, but still entirely predictable. I never doubted that the aircraft would recover using the correct technique. Later versions of the aircraft have totally different limitations, but there is no reason to doubt that the spin recovery would be anything but predictable if carried out in accordance with the POH technique

However, some versions of the T67 do seem to have had rudder control restriction issues, hence ADs were raised to ensure that the rudder pedals weren't obstructed in any way. Of course the normal taxying check should be sufficient to ensure that full and free rudder movement is available - does everyone still do that though? I hope so..

Currently, there is no requirement for a PPL holder to hold an aerobatic rating in order to conduct aeros on the T67. But proper training is very firmly recommended - and will become mandatory after Apr 2018.

As with the G-BLTV accident, I suspect that the cause of this sad accident will never be established beyond all reasonable doubt.

Worth looking at the wiki page before forming an opinion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingsby_T67_Firefly

I would be cautious of any public information about the USAF track record. It's rather more complex than is portrayed, particularly by the residue of the pressure groups who successfully campaigned for those aircraft to be destroyed. (Or those who disagree with their position, who can also be less than balanced in their accounts.)

Wikipedia is also basically the document last amended by whoever chose to amend it. Mostly it's very good, but it may sometimes be biased or misleading.

G

Jay Sata,

I was the person that facilitated the sale of the majority of the T67's 160/200/260 from Babcock (military to civilian including BONSO) on behalf of Lombard and took along G-ZEIN to Cambridge to ensure prospective owners were not offered the ability to bid on aircraft they had not flown.....we sold (26) aircraft that weekend - many will remember......... The T67 of all variants are safe - its typically the crew that might occasionally forget an item from either pre-departure or in flight memory action......

Woe betide anyone aerobating the T67 that feels they can ignore what the POH procedures - heights, recovery, weights, equipment or any other element that played a part or briefed...

Re USA and anything from Wiki - you really need to see where Hondo is and the DENSITY altitude of that airport and area are and the height that the manoeuvres where entered and the full reports...

I do not work for Slingsby or ever have but I started life as a glider cadet, instructor and worked my up plus served in the military. Like Alan Wade and many others I have a substantial time on the T67 all variants - The T67 is not an aircraft that is docile or forgiving in the sense that you can be lazy and not operate it as per the POH - thats why the military bought it - it teaches you lessons and will bite you if you are lazy - if you're son is taught as per the POH it will be a pussycat - it will not throw surprises, the military will never teach you to "kick the tyres and light the fires" in any situation which is why we rarely have accidents of this nature.... Plan, Brief, Demonstrate, Execute, De-brief and then do again as required if required. We also ensure currency in all aspects of the flight envelope especially high energy manoeuvres or aerobatics. The T67 is not a C152 Aerobat which is why the C152 aerobat was never used as military EFT aircraft.

Please remember flying itself is not inherently dangerous, but to an even greater degree than the sea, it is, however terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.

I know BONSO as she was affectionally known.... please don't bash the T67 - and I openly offer anyone that has fears of the T67 to come and fly her with me or any of the military instructors....

The fact remains 2 young souls were lost and may they rest in peace....... Sincere condolences to all involved both family and at home airfield....

Oh! they have slipped the surly bonds of earth,
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward they've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds, --and done a hundred things
you have not dreamed of --Wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there
They've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
they're eager craft through footless halls of air...
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
they've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark or even eagle flew --
And, while with silent lifting mind they've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

Modern single seat gliders mandate chutes.

In a CG critical situation having the occupant(s) that extra 2-3" forward may be what keeps you within limits.

That extra 2-3" may be what's needed to get the stick to the forward stop.

One small pilot I know had to loosen his straps to recover from a spin.

This looks to me like some sort of mutual flying where neither pilots are instructors and it may be somewhere unclear exactly who is in control regardless of who is defined as PIC/P1.
One or indeed both would have had a civilian PPL to hire the a/c and presumably had checkouts/qualifications for the T67 to the hiring out club's satisfaction.
Both will be at the same standard of flying, aerobatics etc in the RAF.

In the gliding world this is regarded exactly the ingredients for an accident should an emergency occur- which is why mutual flying where both pilots are at the same level tends to be frowned upon and the instructor i/c the day's flying are reluctant to give approval for.
Less of a problem where one pilot has vastly more experience or say one is the owner of the aircraft.

dsc - whilst you aren't the only person to think in those terms, may I politely suggest that given the uncertainty of information right now, and that there will be bereaved families looking for information - that a public discussion along those lines right now isn't wise, nor courteous to the memories of the two young men who have just died. There's a time for that discussion, but not I'd venture, right now.

G

The P1 at least had a Civilian PPL. He was checked out in Bonso. He trained for at least 60 hours on a Tutor(Grob 115).
I am a member of the Club and was there all day. Unfortunately there were family members there too and I for one am most grateful to "V" the off duty Copper who took on the duties of informing and caring for the family. Thanks mate.
There is no more to tell. Except I agree with airpolice and GTE.
BTW there is absolutely nothing wrong in mutual flying. The expert remarks made DSC810 are not made by an expert.

Hi DSC,

Mutual flying will be a moot point here I'm afraid, they would of both known it had gone pear shaped long before "terra firma" jumped up to grab them and open the pearly gates.... and I'm sure they would of both been crystal clear to each other as to actions and inputs to try and recover the situation.

The aircraft would only have entered an erect flat spin for one of two reasons, the first being intentional spinning that either they couldn't recover from due to weight and balance or incorrect recovery technique as well as insufficient height to recover from, or a high energy aerobatic manoeuvre that resulted in a flick to spin resulting in either disorientation of direction of spin rotation or again incorrect recovery technique, along with height to recover.

This is a terribly sad, bad flying accident with two young souls that were obviously keen enough to go and hire an aircraft whilst serving in the RAF undergoing flying training.. whatever they were doing and trying to do or practice, it went wrong and they paid the ultimate price... It was an accident and a terrible one... Lessons will come out for sure, but with no CVR or data recorder it will not be exact it will be approximate - either way we will all learn and adapt...

I don't believe that "we" even know if it was a spin.

G