Tiger Moth incident at Brimpton
 

Staying very near this airfield where there has been a fly in.
Have just been told a Tiger Moth, on take off, has struck a parked car.
Hope all is ok.

Tiger Moth crash
 

A Tiger Moth crashed on take off at Brimpton airfield Berkshire on Sunday. It ended up in a car park where a woman was badly injured. The pilots were ok.

Pilot incompetence is the cause. Use a checklist and once it is complete, check your killer items(one of which is trim) prior to takeoff. A 20,000 hour pilot should be able to do better.

ACCIDENT
Aircraft Type and Registration: DH82A Tiger Moth Tiger Moth, G-ANMY
No & Type of Engines: 1 De Havilland Gipsy Major 1H piston engine
Year of Manufacture: 1942 (Serial no: 85466)
Date & Time (UTC): 5 June 2016 at 1345 hrs
Location: Brimpton Airfield, Berkshire
Type of Flight: Private
Persons on Board: Crew - 1 Passengers - 1
Injuries: Crew - None Passengers - None
Others - 1 (Serious)
Nature of Damage: Propeller, wings, airframe, fencing and three
parked cars
Commander’s Licence: Light Aircraft Pilot’s Licence
Commander’s Age: 67 years
Commander’s Flying Experience: 20,852 hours (of which 115 were on type)
Last 90 days - 4 hours
Last 28 days - 2 hours
Information Source: Aircraft Accident Report Form submitted by the pilot and AAIB enquiries

Synopsis
Directional control was lost during takeoff and the aircraft collided with parked cars. Its wooden propeller shattered on contact with a safety barrier and a member of the public sitting in one of the parked cars was seriously injured by flying fragments of wood.

History of the flight
The aircraft had been participating in a ‘Fly-in’ at Brimpton Airfield, Berkshire, and had a pilot and passenger aboard. For departure it was manoeuvred to the grass Runway 07, using wing walkers because of the proximity of other aircraft. The weather conditions were good for flying, with a light north-easterly wind, and the grass strip was dry.

The pilot was using an extra seat cushion for the first time, because he found the view from the rear seat of the Tiger Moth “extremely limited” and wanted to achieve the best possible lookout. While taxiing he positioned the elevator trim fully aft, which is the normal position for ground manoeuvring of the aircraft. He recalled that, having reached the holding point, he completed some of the before takeoff checks but could not recall resetting the elevator trim.

Acceleration during the takeoff appeared normal to the pilot and he applied forward pressure on the control column to lift the aircraft’s tail off the ground. It then ran over a prominent hump in the in the runway surface, and became airborne.

Concerned that the aircraft might land again and pitch forward onto its nose, the pilot relaxed the forward pressure on the control column, intending to accelerate the aircraft close to the ground. However, the aircraft pitched up in a manner that the pilot found sudden and surprising. Shortly after becoming airborne, however, the pilot began to have difficulty maintaining directional control and, after attempting to regain control, aborted the
takeoff and closed the throttle. Almost simultaneously the aircraft’s right wing contacted a safety barrier approximately 15 m from the runway edge, and the aircraft swung to the right, through the barrier, and collided with parked cars. The wooden propeller shattered
on impact with the barrier and splinters of wood were scattered up to 35 m. A member of the public, who was sitting in one of the parked cars with the door open, suffered serious injuries when struck by fragments of the propeller. The pilot turned off the fuel and electrical switches and he and his passenger vacated the aircraft normally. The emergency services were quickly on scene.

When the AAIB inspected the aircraft shortly after the accident the elevator trim was found to be in the fully aft position.

The fly-in event
The fly-in is an annual event organised by the airfield to raise money for a local charity. The organisers consulted Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 403 – ‘Flying Displays and Special Events: A Guide to Safety and Administrative Arrangements’, and identified ‘Runway departure during take-off or landing and collision with people or static aircraft’ as a hazard.

The risk assessment determined that the distance between the crowd line and the active runway was not ideal, so the organisers mitigated this by moving the runway as far from the crowd line as the available space allowed, fencing the crowd line with safety barriers. These actions, they considered, reduced the risk to an acceptable level. In addition the organisers distributed posters to advertise the event around the local community, including a warning that, whilst appropriate safety measures had been taken, ‘active airfields can be hazardous’.

Pilot’s assessment of the cause
The pilot considered that the elevator trim was probably not set for takeoff. This may have caused the pitch-up when he relaxed the forward pressure on the control column as the aircraft became airborne. He considered another factor may have been his use of a cushion, which changed his perspective on takeoff, giving him the impression that the tail was higher than it actually was. The result was that the right wing stalled and directional control was lost.

'Incompetence' is a bit harsh - but a reminder to me not to be so quick to rush to judgment in future myself.

Knowing the pilot, which I do, I can see that would be hard to see written about oneself online.

He decided following that incident that the time had come to retire from flying, a decision which I respect.

I'm more interested to hear about the injured spectator and their recovery. I hope they are ending both physically and mentally.

Agree with your sentiments.

Given that a written checklist in the cockpit of a Tiger would be uncommon and that all checks would be done by memory, I can sympathise with the pilot. There but for the grace of whoever...

The lead up to take off was not standard, tight taxi requiring wing walkers and with him sitting at a new seat height (for a tail dragger TO where attitude perception is far more critical than aircraft with a front propeller protection strut, that can be a big issue) etc all meaning his normal rhythm and preparation would be interrupted and he would be distracted.

Failing to trim correctly for TO was an error yes but I can't throw stones.

I have made similar oversights on more than one occasion - fortunately the bits of swiss cheese didn't line up for me like it did for him.

I read that report and think - if that can happen to a high time pilot then I need to be very aware of things that can put me out of my rhythm. Like him, I am human and make mistakes.

How do I avoid that? (and chanting from a paper checklist in the cockpit of a Tiger Moth would unlikely be the answer). My answer would be hearing stories like that and humbly reminding myself I could have be the bloke in the back seat. So thanks to the Tiger pilot for his honesty. Pilot error yes. Show me a pilot that isn't capable of that.

JammedStab, I'd have expected better from you. Irrespective of hours flown, you're only as good as your last flight. Too many high houred pilots have come to grief, even dying in the process. In full agreement with tmmorris and jonkster, a little humility, and hopefully the spectator is OK.

I struggle to imagine beginning a take off with an aircraft out of trim becoming a reason for a crash. My time flying a Tiger Moth is limited, but I do not remember the trim being such that it could not be overcome by simply flying the plane, while you retrimmed it. The pilot's statement seems fuzzy to me.

Indeed, there but for the grace of god go I, and I have certainly had my share of self induced " 'should have checked that" moments, but happily none have been high risk OMG moments. In aeroplanes as simple as a Tiger Moth, there is little for a competent, current pilot to forget, that should raise the risk to that of accident before that pilot could make the required correction.

In my opinion, newer pilots who learn from these unhappy events, must first and foremost learn to fly the 'plane! Very few GA type cannot be flown for at least a brief time, safely, while horribly out of trim. That is primarily because most do not have a C of G range large enough to require enough trim to be able to make the control forces too high. It is the pilot's responsibility to learn to manage precise control while an aircraft is briefly out of trim, and retrim.

40+ words for the pilot and 6 for the spectator. If it was your wife or daughter that had their face chopped up because of what happened that day, trust me, you would be saying things differently.

If you are crashing a plane because your seat is a little higher than normal then it really is time to retire.

I have flown two types of Moths and used a checklist every time. And on top of that, like in all aircraft, I check the killer items that might get you after the checklist is complete and prior to takeoff. Why? Because I am smart enough to know that I am stupid enough to miss items. On a Moth, trim, mags, fuel selector and controls still free should pretty much cover it, along with a final peek down the runway prior to adding power.

Seeing as I am hurting feelings today, I might as well continue. This has to be one of the stupidest statements in aviation when it comes to accidents caused by pilot error. Maybe understandable for a midair, or a mechanical failure that could not have been anticipated, etc, but not for an obvious screw-up.

Yup, me too! Somewhere, there is a fine line between genuinely trying to mentor better than [whatever we're discussing], and seeming to profess personal perfection. I also have not reached the point where I have 20,000 hours flying experience. Maybe it's different when you get there, I don't know. I did know several 20,000+ hour fly everything pilots, who killed themselves missing something. So by that measure, I still have 12,000 hours of opportunity to forget/screw up.

So I'm posting here, to inspire newer pilots to fly better than I did when I was a newer pilot, and, still to avoid posting something which will be thrown back in my face when I finally have that stupid accident (which I hope to prevent forever). I don't take sole responsibility for the many things which I have done which could have resulted in an accident, but did not. I'll share the credit for a safe outcome, if I can figure out who with...

That has to be one of the stupidest statements ever made by an aviator, or indeed, a human. := Humans are not automatons, and it's part of human nature to err. That's why much study has gone into human nature, and processes put in place to try and obviate their limitations. Even checklists have their limitations, but are an attempt to address human limitations. A study of what occurs on airline flight decks showed over a series of 60 flights that hundreds of mistakes were made, many of them involving checklists.

Obviously you are a skygod JammedStab, and I bow to your supreme status, depth of knowledge and wisdom. I'm thinking the only time you ever made a mistake was the occasion you thought you had made a mistake. :E Or are you really a human, like the rest of us error prone individuals? :ok: Step Turn, personally I can tell you from experience (20,000 hrs) it's no different. You make mistakes, the severity of them is what kills.

Indeed I would. I am not though and am looking at it as someone who hopes I never cause an accident like that to happen.

Personally I think simply saying 'pilot error' does nothing to improve the situation or make the horrible outcomes of similar events any better.

In my opinion, trying to understand why pilot error occurs and working at ways to prevent future episodes is a far more honourable way to treat people impacted by past tragedy so to reduce the likelihood of things repeating.

One of the things I think aviation (at least in past times) can teach us is how it tends to look less at blame and punishment for individuals making mistakes and more at acknowledging those mistakes and learning from them.

If someone I know is hurt I can understand a desire for vengeance and punishment for the person whose error caused it (and would probably be at the front of the crowd asking for punishment) but if I am looking dispassionately at an event I am more interested in knowing how I can avoid it ever happening again because of my human frailty.

I will defer to your Tiger Moth experience - I have only a little time in Tigers but I recall I found like many older taildraggers there was not much to see directly in front of them from the rear seat before getting the tail up and none of them had a written checklist in the cockpit. It was all mental check list.

A piece of paper or laminated plastic though can be a trap as well though. I have watched many pilots run through checklists more as a magic incantation to ward off evil than to really think about what they are doing and why.

Like most pilots though I do something similar to you in the way of mental checks prior to take-off however I know from my experience that is not foolproof when there are unexpected distractions to my normal rituals. If you are immune from that I am envious of your ability.

Feel free to hurt my feelings, you are entitled to your opinion and I am sure there are many who would agree with you. I don't. In my opinion (based on my experience) one of the stupidest statements in aviation is saying I will not make that sort of a mistake.

There is another statement I would put up there with it (although I would not say stupid, just often unhelpful) is "the accident was due to pilot error" as if that is all we need to know and resolves the situation.

Of course it was pilot error! most accidents are!

Humans (well at least humans like me) make mistakes. Systems sometimes do not catch those mistakes. People get hurt.

A far more helpful explanation is how similar mistakes can be avoided and consequences mitigated in the future.

Simply saying 'pilot error' is more an observation than an explanation and doesn't help me.

I wonder about your ability to comprehend a short statement. If I thought I was a Skygod, would I have said...Maybe the skygods are the pilots out there that according to other posts on this thread, are not using checklists. After all, why do we even have them in the first place? Perhaps for the non-skygods who do make mistakes. I believe that lesson was supposedly learned some 80 years ago in a B-17 crash where the flight controls were locked.

Very nice. But you have provided absolutely no info on what you do to compensate for this which could save lives. I have provided some info on what I do to compensate for having the same problem. Check your killer items for that particular type just prior to takeoff. You will find that it is something that is a redundant procedure for years and thousands of flights until it possibly(or possibly not) saves the day.

I think saying pilot error does something to improve the situation if it can be combined with something to help prevent OR compensate for it. I have provided the compensation based on the reality that pilot error is going to occur. Check your killer items just prior to takeoff.

Regardless of whether you fly something big or small, check the various items that if not properly set can cause an accident. Imagine if the several jet aircraft that crashed due to flaps being retracted for takeoff, had pilots that were checking their killer items just prior to takeoff(ie Spanair-Madrid, Delta-DFW, Northwest-Detroit). Literally hundereds of lives saved.

Nowhere have I made any statement hinting at vengeance or punishment(although many are charged for dangerous operation of a car when there is an accident). I think having a statement made on your piloting ability after something like this happens is hardly unfair although it seems to have raised the ire of one or two folks who likely never posted a word of compassion for the victim(or the owner of the aircraft).

There is no need to defer to my Tiger Moth experience. It is not that much but I do know that this is a type that crashes a lot and demands respect.

Some posts have made it sound like it is accepted reality that most Tiger Moth pilots are not using checklists which may be the case. But it need not be accepted reality. Perhaps it is an acceptable standard for someone who is experienced overall and very familiar on type, flies it on a regular basis, is not bouncing among various different aircraft types, or actually is the so-called "Skygod". But if you end up taking off without doing something that would be an important checklist item, it is not acceptable.

I flew several old warbirds like the Moth a few years back. All had checklists. I personally made the one for the Tiger and others had made checklists for the other aircraft, so one need not accept that relatively simple aircraft like this don't need a checklist. More so for the prior to takeoff portion of flight rather than prior to landing in my opinion.

When I began flying in the early '60's nobody used a written format checklist. You learnt the checklist by heart, and I can still recite them verbatim, even though I've had no use for them since '66. At the time flying Auster, Chipmunk, Tiger Moth, Victa and all Cessnas up to the 182. The vast majority of my time has been single pilot and the only time I saw formal written checklists used was during USN service. US Army no, Australian Navy no, offshore oil no. Having said that I recognise their benefit if used properly. The below shows no guarantee when using them though. They are not a panacea if not used properly.

https://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/p...010-216396.pdf

The lesson to take away is that the average crew makes 15 errors/deviations per flight. Just hope the outcome is not as serious as that of the Helios 737 on your flight.

G-ANMY had a previous accident with a 16,000 hr pilot (29 on type)

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ANMY_10-08.pdf

The vast majority of accidents are due to human error in one form or another, and is why the study of "Human Factors" is now part and parcel of gaining a certificate - at least where I am.

Interested to see that the UK Tiger checklist calls for full aft trim whilst taxiing. Not done in my time. Trim was left central and the aircraft "flown" whilst taxiing, being cognizant of where the wind was relative to the aircraft, and positioning the controls accordingly. Taxiing downwind nose down elevator for example. Perhaps the RAF had their reasons for full aft trim when drawing up the checklist, but can't fathom why, unless it was to enhance the braking action of the tail skid. Some things get lost with the passage of time.The fact that people err is little reflection on their ability, but a reflection on the nature of the human condition, and is why Human Factors is of so much importance. The saying is youre only as good as your last flight. The next one you make may be the one where you right royally screw the pooch.

Compassion for the victim and owner? You are severely lacking in compassion for the poor pilot who has found himself in this position. How do you think he feels? Do you not think he would like to wind the clock back?

Not nearly as much as that poor lady. I'm sure if some guy ran over your loved one due to poor driving technique, you would be thinking about the poor driver as well.

Anyways, I think we have clarified clearly where our compassions are and there is no point discussing it any more.

On a much more important note, you said....

I have never heard of this before. Is there some sort of benefit to it?

It sounds like an incident waiting to happen.

The earlier accident you provided a link to was also poor piloting technique. If you have pools of water on areas of the grass runway, you better make sure to check the area you will use(and some extra area) thoroughly. It is not a bad idea even if the field is dry as animals have a tendency to dig holes in runways.

A little bit of paranoia can go a long way in aviation.

JammedStab
Simple, the pilot made an error, compounded by getting airborne a touch early/slow, due to the large bump in the Brimpton runway.( I was present at the Event)
100 hrs. or 20000 hrs, it can happen to any of us.
I'm glad you are perfect and trust you never do the same.

At my gliding club's airfield, there are ground squirrels and pocket gophers, which dig burrows. They are not generally a problem, but occasionally badgers will dig them out, which leaves a mainwheel-sized hole in the runway! So a morning inspection is called for.

Concerning checklists, for the SE aircraft I fly - mostly Scout and 182 towplanes these days - I use memorized checklists. I will admit that I occasionally miss something but nothing that would kill me.

The most embarrassing one recently was that I didn't notice the previous pilot had turned the fuel Off and was surprised when the engine stopped after starting. Of course I should have twigged that something was wrong when I didn't get the usual resistance when operating the primer.

I know the made an error, I am posting here to try to pass on an idea of how to compensate for inevitable errors.

Aside from the full nose-up trim which could be prevented by checking your killer items just prior to takeoff, you bring up another issue; a bumpy runway that can bounce you up in the air early at a slow airspeed.

I had this exact situation just two weeks ago at White Waltham(not exactly the smoothest of runways). Prematurely airborne at too low an airspeed on a soft field takeoff on an undulating runway. These things happen and one should know what to do. Lower the nose and accelerate in the ground effect. The aircraft may even touch down again as happened to me. It is not particularly pretty but if you pull back(or maybe if you have taken off with the trim fully aft and don't compensate), you will stall. And stall he did.

I'm afraid that a large bump on the runway should not be leading to a loss of control for a high time or even a private pilot. There is nothing wrong with touching down again. Unless you are taking off on a grass runway with pools of water on it as the previous accident pilot on type did. If your background experience has little or no operations from grass fields, getting instruction from an experienced instructor(along with finding information on-line, in accident reports, books, forums etc )would be good airmanship. There are many gotcha's as we have seen just on this thread. Holes, soft runways, undulations.

Here is another one...Landing on a nice sunny day on a short grass runway where braking will be needed. Best to wait for a while until the dew has dried before attempting it. Otherwise, you might just slide right off the end. Used to face this situation in a twin Cessna that I would take down to a 2000' runway for maintenance. I would plan for a mid-day arrival. And, I took off for the return flight home in the early morning when it was cool. The aircraft had long range tanks so I tried to deliver it with min fuel and pick up lots of return fuel at a nearby airport for the return flight.

Perhaps your pre-takeoff procedure works well for you but I would strongly recommend checking your killer items just prior to takeoff and after setting yourself up for takeoff. In a 182 that might be: trim, flaps, fuel selector, mixture, carb heat(if installed), primer, mags, and fuel pump. Any of these can cause grief, especially on a runway requiring max performance.

Due to whatever issue it might be, some posters here seem to feel that I think I am perfect but I know much better than them. I know that I make plenty of mistakes. Your fuel selector off and not clueing in that the primer had no resistance as a result reminded me that I have come to the conclusion that, when in the process of making a significant mistake, there is usually a warning or clue of some sort that is brushed aside with some kind of excuse made up for the out of the ordinary hint.

Example: even though I am perfect;) as other poster have repeatedly stated, I nearly landed in a field beside a runway once(and not that close to the runway either) instead of on it. It was winter and the runway was snow covered along with most of the surrounding area. I sighted from quite a few miles back what appeared to me to look very much like the runway. A long, narrow dark area that jumped out of the whiteness, it was so obvious. So I lined up with it. My hint later on was the two white PAPI lights that I saw off to the left. A passenger actually asked about them and I made some silly statement that perhaps they were snowmobiles.

At about 100 feet or less, it did become obvious that I was lined up with a long thin dirt field(which somehow didn't have snow on most of it) and did a go-around but what if it had been poorer lighting such as in the evening. Maybe I would have landed in the field.

I made up a silly excuse and brushed aside the good hint that I was doing something wrong.

Try to recognize a situation like this when making an excuse to explain something out of the ordinary. There was no resistance to the primer....ahh, it must be not working. Really? How likely is that? What other reason could there be?

It does have a benefit - taildraggers being directionally unstable mean you should be taxiing with stick back (at least with headwinds) to give maximum tail skid/wheel effectiveness. Trimming back will make that easier to hold.

Some people will teach that as a method to assist you taxiing (I personally don't).

Re aircraft staggering airborne at low speed being easily corrected, again a taildragger is a different kettle of fish. With low airspeed (and low rudder effectiveness) staggering into the air followed by nose down (and then another bounce and nose up and the stick jockey getting their movements out of sequence with the bounces) is a great way to get it yawing - when directionally unstable that yaw can progress into the classic tailwheel ground loop on take-off.

It is not that uncommon. Usually most runways don't have cars parked along them and normally a takeoff ground loop results in embarrasment and sometimes minor damage not injury to innocent bystanders.

Having cars parked close to the runway is another bit of the swiss cheese in this incident - that should've been a simple ground loop with no injury.

I really don't think so("easier to hold") as a general statement about taildraggers. But perhaps it does make it easier to hold the stick back for aircraft with the bungee elevator trim on the DH.82A and some other de Havilland products. Can't seem to remember now as it has been a while since I flew such an aircraft.

That has never been my experience in taildraggers of which there have been quite a few. With full power, there is plenty of air over the rudder and by the time one gets airborne, even if close to a stall, there is plenty of rudder control due to airspeed and propblast. One can see this during an in flight stall where rudder is still very effective at lifting a wing to prevent a spin(and that is usually practiced with the power at idle).

I wasn't at the airshow but I suspect that this was not a groundloop incident but a loss of directional control due to a stall. Perhaps once the aircraft touched down again in an out of control situation, it did groundloop. But a stall was the initiating problem. As we know, groundloops typically happen as speeds far below the stall speed.

You can see in the following two videos what can happen to an aircraft in terms of lateral displacement from the centerline when the lift off in a stalled/semi-stalled condition. Especially in the second video, it can be quite significant. I'm not sure how far the car was from the runway at Brimpton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ga603WA68

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffxh7f6tr_k

An incompetent pilot? Just askin' :E

yes.

I'll defer to your tailwheel experience. I just instruct on them.

In my experience I sit in the back seat and on take over when pilots get it all wrong with low speed and badly timed pitching movements when they try to correct either bounces on landing or after staggering into the air too early at the back end of the curve and then instinctively pitch forward a little too earnestly to try and rescue things. That includes very otherwise competent, high time pilots who are new to tailwheels.

It would hardly be the measure of competence if I had landed in a field. Then again basic flying skills include being able to do a relatively simple pre-flight procedure and actually fly an aircraft on takeoff on a nice day without crashing it. It is required for your first solo...and hopefully still doable after 20,000 hours.

If not then an admission of not having this skill would be to give up flying, which apparently is what happened. But this should be done prior to the accident through harsh analysis of one's skill and being one's own toughest critic.

No different than all these old drivers out there still driving away when they should have given it up long ago. They create huge risk.

If you instruct on them, you have probably seen a lot of this sort of thing in terms of bounces and staggering into the air too early. Admittedly, I have not seen much of it compared to you. After my initial checkout on a tailwheel aircraft(an Aeronca 7CCM Champ) and seeing all the issues I had, I knew that I wouldn't want to be checking out pilots new to tailwheel aircraft.

I would think that pitching forward a little too aggressively when airborne in a semi-stalled condition after "staggering into the air too early" would affect tricycle gear aircraft in a similar manner to taildraggers as both a airborne at the time and handle somewhat similarly, although I guess when you touch down again and the taildragger versus tricycle issue perhaps appears again...I don't know. Is it when you touch back down that things become problematic? No doubt, it is not a pretty situation.

In my White Waltham takeoffs on their particularly large undulation runway, I ended up "staggering" into the air and pitched down. It was quite possibly too much as we touched down again(possibly more than once). There was no directional issue. Admittedly a rare experience as I mostly fly from relatively smooth runways. Tricycle gear aircraft.

One thing you notice is the gyroscopic precession and p factor effects with pitch changes on takeoff and landing. Adding that to the directional instability of conventional undercarts and it can make things quite lively. :)

Seriously - if you are ever in Oz on the eastern seaboard, PM me - I would be happy to arrange to fly with you and look at how it can happen. Genuine offer.

I actually enjoy teaching tailwheel flying more than anything. I think most instructors with time on them do. It keeps you on your toes and is very rewarding.

Thanks for the helpful input.

It's a pity you come out with the "incompetent" endorsement without bothering to understanding the circumstances.

From the report.
So the public had been warned of the risk they were accepting, and the woman knowingly accepted that risk.

The car was parked near enough to the red marking.



It's interesting that you determine a level of compassion by word count. Are you really for real? Hate to tell you, but life means accepting risk, and that's the prime reason hospitals have trauma centres. The woman accepted the risk, and unfortunately paid a price.

Thanks for your thorough analysis of this accident. You have convinced me to change my mind and now declare that the woman was incompetent and not the pilot. The aircraft owner likely is as well.

I really don't think there need be any more discussion. I have been corrected.

Does it not occur to you that the incompetent statement(whether it is right or wrong) has nothing to do with whether a bystander was hurt or not but what happened to the aircraft? Take a look at the picture on this post of the final result, read the report and imagine that you were the one who loaned the aircraft to the guy.

I suppose you think that all the tourists killed by terrorists in the UK have themselves to blame because the warning level is high. Your thought process is very questionable.

I think that the capacity of a person to assess risk as a spectator is limited. Sure, if you've chosen to watch a sporting event, and you select a seat right behind the goal, you should realize that you have increased your risk of being hit by the ball. I don't think that extends to operations at aerodromes. People seem unusually confident that aircraft will follow a precise path, as guided by a skilled pilot. The modes of loss of control of an aircraft, and the danger areas around aircraft are not well understood by the public, so they are poorly informed as to how to assess risk. Unless person public knowingly moves into the path of an aircraft on their own, or passes a security barrier, I don't see them being too accountable for what might happen when something goes wrong.

It certainly makes aviation professionals look weak when someone from within the piloting community tries to project assumption of risk outward into the public. We assess and manage aviation risk, "the public" does not.

I don't think the report is fully complete. To have sufficient energy at that point of the runway means a highly unusual acceleration and deceleration profile OR the airfield was totally unsuitable for operating this type of aircraft. It was stated by the show's operator that the distance bewtween the crowd line and active runway was not ideal and that was about it. It very fortunate the injured person was protected, if that is the word, by the car's structure. But for a better understanding of this incident it would also be interesting to know more about this pilot's hours on type. Blaming cushions and a poorly set trim on very simple, basic aircraft like this just sounds too convenient. I would like more information.

Written checklists? I presume someone is joking. Simple measures are required for simple aircraft. TMMPFF and its cousins should do the job for most piston engined aircraft. A Moth one would be simpler TMMF and it looks like 25% of that was omitted! Virtually all of my piston flying (10 years, two professionally) was performed without a written checklist and was probably better for it because you had to think where knobs and buttons where meant to be.

Returning to the injured lady - I believe nobody should be injured at an airfield, whether they attend to fly or watch. Notices do make make an unacceptable distance between a flightline suddenly acceptable. You either atttend knowing what you are doing is bloody dangerous or have the option of being nowhere near.

PM

54 years after I had it rammed into me I still remember the take-off check list I learned for an Auster, or indeed any other small single-engine aircraft.

It started with Trim,Throttle nut, Mixture, Pitch, Fuel, Flaps etc etc.

Not all the items were needed on every aircraft. But the training was such that it would have been, and still is, impossible to turn into wind and go without going through the checks.

Leaving the ground with insufficient flying speed is a feature of take-offs on many bumpy grass fields.

I have little or no sympathy with the pilot, and a great deal of sympathy with the woman injured by his carelessness.

The WWII abbreviation to "Fuel, Fan, F*** Off" was necessary at the time for scrambling fighter pilots. But no-one else.

The predictable chorus of "There but for the Grace of God....", "We all make mistakes....." and so on simply softens the lesson that when you fly an aircraft you cannot afford to make mistakes, and if you think that careless mistakes are forgiveable you should stop now.

Laughable statement. Now it's her fault.
I think LBC are looking for a new salaried troll - why not apply?

I guess you are responding to my sentiments. Fair enough.

With respect though, I think you have totally missed the point of why I say things like that.

I cannot count how many times I have watched pilots (of experience range from students to military to high time airline pilots to everything in between) making mistakes.

I regularly listen to people recite checklists and do things that contradict what they are saying (or miss recognising where a check fails). I have listened to pilots give take-off safety briefs prior to take-off and then when I simulate one of those situations see them do something different from their briefing.

I make mistakes. The day I claim I am not capable of falling for a mistake or overlooking something due to distraction or complacency will be the day I need to give it away. Being reminded of that potential is important to me.

The attitude of: "because I use a checklist" or "I am not that stupid" or "I am immune because of my experience" or "I am not a careless person" or "I learnt from the best system" or "I have flown safely for 20 years" is the exact opposite of: "we all can (and at times do) make mistakes" (or when reading an accident involving an experienced pilot saying "there but for the grace of whatever go I").

I would prefer to align myself with the later attitude. If you think that means I should give it away, feel free to think that but I would be more worried by pilots who feel themselves immune from mistakes.

Recognising my susceptibility to making mistakes is not an attempt to remove myself from the consequences of those actions but to make me more vigilant and more aware of what can happen.

A culture of simply blaming and assigning personal culpability (in my opinion) does not help remove mistakes. A culture of willingness to recognise human limitations, to uncover errors and learn from them does. Recognising situations that make it more likely for people to make mistakes is not excusing carelessness but is a way to help reduce the likelihood of errors happening.

Trying to imply that by people saying "I could have made that error" is a way to avoid responsibility or excuse errors is really missing the point.

I would think adding "I make mistakes" should be part of every checklist would not be such a bad thing...

jonkster, a great, great post.A laudable sentiment, but CAP 403 says,From the accident report,Note that both the report and CAP recognise that risk is present, and not eliminated.You must be a lawyer. ;) Of course its not her fault, she didn't instigate the event, but she did place herself in the path. She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The trouble with the H & S that pervades the community these days is the belief that life can be made risk free. Aircrew make errors/mistakes on every flight they undertake, as the previously posted NASA report suggests. The majority of the time those errors/mistakes are inconsequential, other times, on rare occasions, they create headlines.

Humans have limitations, just as any piece of machinery, and the subject of Human Factors attempts to understand why people do what they do. None are perfect, and there is not an adult dead or alive who never erred.

A pilot trying to navigate through a TS had to eject, the canopy hit and killed a road side worker who was sitting having his lunch. The pilot was found to be negligent by the court, as trying to navigate through the TS, and the resulting outcome (having to eject), was foreseeable.

Whether the Tiger pilot could be found negligent by a court is outside of my pay grade.

Would that lady have the depth of understanding to foresee that the possible path for an airplane could be other than straight the identified runway? She has probably watched airliners takeoff, without ever seeing one veer of to the side, why would she expect a Tiger Moth to be flown differently?

In the photo, I think I see a hard surfaced runway, a barricade close to it, then quite a space to where her car was parked. I presume that her car was parked in accordance with guidance/direction as to the parking area? If the judge asked her: "Ma'am, did you feel that you were safely back from the runway?", and she answered "yes", I can imagine the jury of her [non aviation] peers agreeing with her lay person opinion. Every time she waits for a bus, or to cross the street, she's much more close to traffic than that!

Step Turn
 

Hard runway at Brimpton!! Check your information Step Turn. SkyDemon, Pooleys, etc..
Wish there was, would stop us getting waterlogged in the Winter.