Haydock Races Ground Incident
 

Yes just seen it on ITV Racing, a bit scary and very fortunate no injuries but substantial damage to a parked aircraft.

Firstly, here's a link to the news article

https://www.racingpost.com/news/rich...haydock/345295

Looks like this particular PA-32 has been "in the wars" before.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...32r-301t-n88na

Its uphill when you land that way and the ground was very very very very wet on Saturday. The weather was absolutely pants in the local area to the NW of Barton

The picture of the Baron is not a stock shot but, in fact, taken at the end of the incident. The PA32 was the innocent party; the damage was the result of being clipped by the Baron which veered left at some point in the ground roll (I didn't see the touch down point), hit the PA32 and did a ground loop which is when the photo was taken. There was no obvious damage to the Baron although the mark on the fuselage could be caused by the impact. I didn't see the collision as it was obscured by an advertising hoarding (as per ITV Racing's footage).
I walked some of the ground run and the ground didn't seem too bad although it was a few hours after the worst of the rain. It was fortunate that the the Baron managed to miss the heli in the background otherwise things could have been a whole lot worse.

FilterPhil

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...ourse-15127626

Further to Filterphil's post - the article has pictures of both aircraft immediately after the incident.

Much too wet
 

Unfortunately that's the third mangled Saratoga in a row for the same pilot. One mangled in forced landing near York. Replacement mangled on Fair Isle. Replacement for that one mangled while the poor guy was in the stands having his lunch.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=199170

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=211094

Quite surprised it was rebuilt after the Harrogate one......

N414AG and N517FD have different C/Ns.

N517FD Fair Isle AAIB report is in this month's digest.

Owner must be on first name terms with the accident inspectors!

...and the sales representatives at Piper.

It is a fundamental part of every pilot's training to asess whether the runway offered is suitable for use. It's nothing to do with anyone else, let alone some geezer with a radio.
I am really surprised there is any doubt as to where the cause of this incident lies. A pilot landed on waterlogged grass and groundlooped. How can the radio man have any part to play in that?
A description of their necessarily home-made IMC approach into Haydock would be interesting too, I expect.

I have given up flying into race meetings. People walking along the strip on final approach, taking off at dusk after an evening meeting and having another aircraft trying to land on the same heading, vehicles parked on the strip and finally a wet and long grass take off which added about another 30% or so to the t/o run on what was a very short runway and it should have been closed before arrival. I agree with other posters on here, it needs to be policed better

It is the responsibility of the pilot to assure that the runway proposed for use is suitable, aircraft type, and conditions considered. Information from "the ground" can be helpful, though sometimes has originated from a source which may be more enthusiastic, than formally familiar. The pressure a pilot might feel to "get to the event" can be an influence in decision making, but, at the end, it it still the pilot's responsibility go operate the aircraft safely, and within any limitations. It is correct that generally, there is little to no performance data for GA aircraft for unusual grass or very wet runways. That does not prevent operation from these surfaces, but certainly imposes upon the pilot an added layer of decision making, perhaps with less than ideal data with which to make that decision. Then, the familiarizing ends up happening in a small, congested area. Would the pilot take that aircraft and practice on a waterlogged runway just to gain skill? For myself, a waterlogged runway is a big AVOID for most aircraft types I fly, as the water spray/splash from the nosewheel into the prop(s), can be very damaging to the prop(s). Though not as damaging as losing control of the plane could be! Sometimes, saying "not today" is the decision which is better in the big picture.....

Having read that report and from my own experience of going into short fields and I am not criticising, just making observations. He would still have been heavy 6 up on landing. The distance of 489m doesn't leave much room for error. Why did he raise the flaps?