Tiger Moth Down - Compton Abbas
 

Sad news:
http://http://www.bournemouthecho.co...Compton_Abbas/

That link isn't working. Two killed. :uhoh:

Two men die after Tiger Moth crash at Compton Abbas near Shaftesbury (From Bournemouth Echo)

Very sad news. Condolences to their families.

Crash east of Compton Abbas
 

BBC just giving reports of a light aircraft crash east of Compton Abbas. Two killed. No further news yet. RIP.

awful - sad news 2 chaps killed
my local airfield -

another tiger moth went down near wimborne a few years back 2011?

moth crash near compton
 

According to an overheard conversation at Henstridge this PM, it suffered an engine seizure at 300' and spun in.Not sure how they knew as Compton was reportedly in lock down pending the AAIB investigation - the non arrival of expected aircraft from Compton was (we were told) because of fog?! and was closed.Very very sad RIP

Did they try to turn back ?

Never works - 30 degrees either side is the only 'safe' way to go - or into any cross wind.

Actually it will work BUT you need to react immediately, know your parameters exactly, fly very accurately and AVOID THE STALL!!!

Not an evolution for an inexperienced or unpractised chap or chapess.

A turnback will work IF you have enough energy (speed/height). Therefore, in theory the turnback option switches from 'No' to 'Available' at a set point in the climb out. Once 'Available' you do need to ensure you react promptly, turn the correct way (wind dependant) and as Mogwi highlights - avoid the stall. If you're not sure, don't risk turning too tightly too near the ground.

Unless over 'inhospitable' terrain, a correctly handled engine failure should result in nothing more than injury and not death, even if the airframe is never going to fly again!

The change of attitude required when going from the full power 'climb' to the no power 'glide' is more than most folks realise. We don't practice 300' engine failures (much) because it's obviously more dangerous than 500-750' ones. Throwing a turn back into the mix is demanding a very high level of skill and zero errors - don't do it from 300ft! Terrible news nonetheless and condolences to the Families.

I have survived a turn back after an engine failure, but as is stated, it all depends on energy. Interestingly enough, I have practiced it many times and what comes out is not just energy; wind and runway length play a part. If the wind is light and the runway short, if the engine fails at 600 feet, one loses about 500 feet in the turn-back which puts you a long way from the runway. If the runway is long and/or the wind strong, one reached 600 feet even before the end of the runway. Hence one rolls out of the turn-back over the upwind threshold at circa 100 feet. Of note is the angle of bank required; about 45 deg is optimum. But that requires a lot of speed to avoid a stall/spin and thus a very steep nose down attitude. Mind you, though a good wind helps with the turn-back, it will seriously increase your ground speed on landing. If you have a long runway like Kemble, that may be ok. A small grass field like Compton Abbas will be problematic. If conditions are not right or you are relatively inexperienced, landing ahead is the only option. Better than a spin/crash. Sorry, off subject, and mega condolences to the families concerned in this terrible crash.

On my EFATO skills test, the throttle was pulled at around 200 feet. Only option was a 30 degree turn left to a small field to which I headed. I passed. It could not have been more than a few micro-seconds. No matter how much you plan for it, there is precious little time. My examiner was is one of the best. So sorry for the outcome of this one.

Compton is not that small as grass strips go BUT it is on top of a hill which makes it very high risk to turn back at low altitude. If you are the slightest bit short it is going to be unfriendly uphill terrain.

Though I have no idea of the circumstances of this sad event, Sometimes pilots climb away at a more slow airspeed after takeoff, sometimes that speed can be slower than a relaxed glide speed. That means that in the case of an engine failure, it could actually be necessary to dive to accelerate to glide speed. Couple that with the fact that the Tiger Moth is not streamlined - it does not carry its energy well after reducing power.

My last flying in a Tiger Moth was the maintenance check flying following a ten year restoration project, the possible need to glide was always on my mind during those flights, and I stored energy the best I could in the 'Moth...

Turn backs can work in certain aircraft. I have practiced it at 400 feet. But....I would not recommend this in a Tiger Moth or similar aircraft with its huge amount of drag. Maximum concentration should be spent on just lowering the nose significantly just to prevent stalling(plenty of pilots have stalled a Tiger even without an engine failure).

A Tiger at a museum I fly at had a loss of power at a couple of hundred feet(or so) and stalled it in because his action was to go for the fuel selector instead of lowering the nose. Fortunately....no one was in the front seat.

While the Tiger in this video had extra drag due to a wingwalker, it shows what can happen in a turnback.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFWMBT1zDlI

I saw this thread about this sad accident this morning, shortly before heading to my gliding club for a towing shift. It reminded me that I had been meaning to practice some EFATO turn backs.

The aircraft was a lightly-loaded C182 (me plus half tanks). I lined up on a straight road at about 3000’ AGL (density altitude 7000-8000’), flying at 70 mph, with 20 degrees of flap.

I then closed the throttle, raised the flaps while lowering the nose to increase speed to 80 mph and rolled into a 45 degree banked turn. I lost 500’ while turning through 180 degrees and then another 300’ while lining up on my “runway”!

After that experience, I shall definitely not try a turn back.

Good job practicing the turnback maneuver at 3,000 AGL! If more pilots did that, there would be fewer sad events.

Westhawk ;;;;; You are quite right the turnback needs to be practiced at height, afterwhich you will probably conclude it is not a good idea. Having said that, a number of years ago an ex RAF pilot who was an instructor on instructors seminars was promoting the turnback. This technique is more approprate to say a high energy aircraft such as a Hunter at large military airfield.

A turnback at low level in a light aircraft is on the whole simply madness at low level, because of obstructions, tailwind, tightening of the turn and in general pilots not knowing what the height loss will be.

Infact I asked what the instructor who was promoting the turnback what height loss would be. He quoted to height loss for a bulldog. Not only did he quote the wrong height loss for a 180 degree glide turn but failed to understand that in order to land on the recipricol runway you need to turn through 210 degrees.

EXCEPT IN VERY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN EFATO YOU SELECT AN AREA AHEAD AND 40 DEGREES EITHER SIDE.

Well said, sir!

I42, I've not flown the C182 in a long time, but I'd suggest that keeping an intermediate flap setting is a good thing for a turn back. While you don't want any addition high-drag, the increased stall protection of a 'take-off' flap setting is rarely going to worsen the situation.

HP,

I did think about that when planning my test, but I decided that I wanted minimum drag rather than stall-margin protection.

I'll try the same exercise next week without touching the flaps and report back.

The bottom line remains the same though - any power loss during climb out or the crosswind leg, and I'll be looking ahead for somewhere to land.

I wasn't there, and have never flown a Tiger Moth. I also would treat anything heard so far as hearsay.

But, 300ft on take/off from Compton Abbas? If the engine did stop, you're on top of a hill, and a gentle northerly turn should take you down into a valley with a reasonable number of options. Most days you are taking off on 26

http://www.swallowcliffe.com/Neville...Optica_std.jpg
(Convenient photo found on the interweb. 9 years old, but looked pretty much identical when I flew in there last month).

Yes, turnbacks from low level are highly hazardous - although actually seldom fatal. The vast majority I have investigated have written off the aeroplane, and caused significant injury, but usually not loss of life.


G

I think the incident was to the east of the airfield.

Looks like plenty of options ahead heading West. Anyone got any pics heading the other way? Being on top of a hill does give a little more time though - all suggesting a 'straight ahead' landing below approx 1000'AAL when turning back becomes an reasonable possibility. Not familiar with the Tiger's glide performance but not great I would think compared to PA 28 or similar. Anyway, important to do some serious thinking about such catastrophic failures before they happen. RIP chaps.

Options climbing out on 08 are better than 26.

http://www.airport-data.com/images/a...031/031273.jpg


Again, qualifying any thought on what happened as wild conjecture - I've not flown a Tiger Moth but have flown quite a few microlights and a few biplanes. With lots of profile drag and a big wing, but relatively little inertia - an engine failure gives little time to respond before losing speed and control. On the other hand, presumably the Tiger Moth, like most other aeroplanes pitches up with power - so a sudden loss of power is likely to create a nose-down pitching moment, helping to maintain flying speed (albeit at the expense of height).

Not conjecting however - a very well known characteristic of that airfield is that any significant southerly component to the wind tends to create substantial amounts of rotor in the vicinity of the runway. A quick look at the two photographs above, make the reasons for that very obvious. I have several times had significant difficulty maintaining control of lightweight microlights on approach or departure at CA with a southerly component.

G

Tiger Moth crash
 

As a very high hour, one-time Tiger Moth experience flight pilot, I would go 100% with homsap on this.

Turnbacks are only for aircraft with high surplus energy in the climb. The dear old Tiger is so draggy that you won’t stand a chance with trying to turn back. The height loss in the turn and the steep nose down attitude to maintain a safe speed to prevent a stall/spin are prohibitive.

So sad that, once again, two lives have been lost along with a valuable airframe.

Even on 08 the options ahead look tastier than turning back. What we're basically saying is DON'T TURN BACK- unless you can make a ' low key' of at least 500 ft pointing at the out of wind runway you're 'turning back' to.
DON'T TURN BACK!!!
Land ahead as slow as you can.

I could not disagree more. This is negative training at its best.

First you know in advance what is going to happen and so the shock factor that will be present on the for real EFATO is absent. Worse however is you don't get any ground rush. This is how people die in the real world.

As you crank the airplane around you see the ground rushing up and there will be a strong instinctive reaction to pull on the control which too often results in the stall-spin-die trifecta

The AOPA safety foundation did an accident record research project into the difference in outcomes of turn backs vs landing straight ahead.

Their conclusion: A turn back was 8 times more likely to result in fatalities

I told all my students don't turn back unless you were at 1000 feet AGL. The only exception is if you had already turned crosswind. At that point consider a turn to the nearest flat part of the aerodrome.

Finally at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the accident statistics clearly show if you are flying a typical Continental or Lycoming powered certified trainer/tourer like a C 172 or Pa 28, about 80 % of the engine failures are caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot.

The best defense for an engine failure is to not let the engine fail in the first place.

BPF. If you have no info on turning back on any given type then surely its a good idea to 'sensibly investigate', and so an initial practice at 3,000ft would be worth considering. See what happens after the turn: attitude change required, AoB v RoD, reduced stall margin etc. If all goes well then try again at say 15-2000ft. If that works then try 1000ft.

I agree that shock, ground rush, excessive pull etc are all potentially present when it happens for real.

Of course the bigger the circuit flown (why do so many small piston drivers fly such BIG circuits?) the less chance of ever getting any engine failure back to the aerodrome!

I remember in my UAS day min turn back for the bulldog was 500ft and only if there were no other options, cant remember if the aob required was 45 or 60 deg. i was definitely shown several at various heights by the cfi not sure if down to 500 ft. we certainly practiced at altitude down the center line. again hazy memory but think think with practice 600ft was doable with a safeish margin. 500 would have been wings level at 50ft if you executed perfectly. most if the time i'd have turfed in.

but there have been places, such raf woodvale, were a efato at 300-400 is going to be painful! 21 at daymns hall not nice either!

A sad day for all aviators.
 

My home field. Thoughts go out to the families for both Pilot and Birthday passenger. RIP

Camargue,

The AOB for a Bulldog turnback was definitely 45 degrees. It required a very positive nose down attitude change to keep it safe, along with an increased glide speed.

As Bulldog QFIs we were required to practice turnbacks at least once a month. However, I would always prefer to land ahead, if for no other reason than to keep the groundspeed as low as possible, even though we operated off an almost circular grass airfield with a big choice of touchdown point and direction.

I wouldn't want to try a turnback in a draggy Tiger Moth.

shy torque
45 makes sense, i couldn't remember
i get the ground rush as you would be coming in at 80kts,+ low nose, rapid rate of decent and not much spare height.

ive not practiced in a moth and might just to see how much height you lose but agree its not something i'd attempt to be honest unless i knew categorically how much height was needed, then add another 100 ft for the 'oh, has the engine really stopped' thought process and another 100ft margin of error.

probably takes you to 700ft+ for most planes and landing ahead may still be better even then

Camargue, yes, it would be 80 kts IAS plus the tailwind component! I'd personally not want to risk bouncing across the ground at almost 100 mph in the relatively higher protection of a car, let alone a lightweight aircraft.

I remember about 25yrs ago a private owner at Denham who used to preach to me that turning back was a good option, I was an instructor there and was always very sceptical. A few years after I left there I sadly heard he had an engine failure after takeoff tried to turn back in his C172 and spun in and died.

At airfields with no good option in the climb out zone it must be really tempting if it happens, but in 30yrs of flying most of that insutructing in light aircraft I've never considered it or taught it, it just sets the seed for that day if it does happen, you revert to what you have been trained to do so even practicing turm backs is negative training.

My thoughts go out to the family and friends of the Moth pilots.

Instructing a couple of years ago a low hour PPL at an airfield with great approaches and a nice long runway, I had him give me his take-off safety brief. Halfway through he started going into "and if the engine stops I'll attempt to turn back".

I stopped him and quizzed him. No, he had never practiced a turnback, no he had never been formally taught to do a turnback.

He was sadly vague about where he'd got these ideas from - but I certainly went to some lengths to explain why flying a turnback was a really stupid idea for any pilot who was not trained and rehearsed in them.

G

A friend and colleague was killed, along with the new owner, on the new owner's very first flight in his new (to him) aircraft. 6000 foot runway, with a 1500 foot over run, and the engine burped at somewhere about the 5500 feet from brake release (lots of room to think, and land ahead). We believe that before my friend (10,000+ hour pilot) could intercede, new owner attempted a turn back. It was a two fatal outcome. The investigators stated that the engine was developing power when they crashed - it probably would have flown, if the new owner hadn't spun it.

So, I took over training his several waiting students, and now I've been in hospital for nearly two months - not a turn back accident though. That community will have to find another type instructor...

Never turn back during climbout!

Thanks Pilot DAR. Was that the fatal accident in Muskoka earlier this year that was the attempted turnback?

Yes, I believe we're talking about the same accident.