Light aircraft crash IWM Duxford
 

LBC radio reporting light aircraft crash at IWM Duxford.

Live updates as plane crashes at Duxford Airfield and emergency services called to scene - Cambridgeshire Live (cambridge-news.co.uk)

A bad crash involving a visiting light aircraft.

Edit: actually does appear to be based at Duxford.

Reported as being SR-22T G-RGSK

Based at Duxford.

Just seen a video supposedly of the accident and it is incredible not just what happened but how it came to be in the position to do what it did! Was there a prior issue?

It was doing circuits, ADSB seems to show it was OK during the third approach.

Pics appear to show that the CAPS deployed, presume may have been triggered by impact?

Just seen the video. CAPS deployed after impact.

Just seen it also. Bloody hell.

Yeah not good. I'm surprised by the logic of the CAPS as it seems kind of irrelevant once impact with ground? OR we think just the level of energy in the crash disrupted things?

Would appear CAPS deploys using a pyro rocket of some sort. So maybe the impact set of the ignition.
Cirrus Airframe Parachute System - Wikipedia

FYI: The Cirrus CAPS is cable actuated. If the aircraft experiences a high impact load that distorts or breaks the airframe along that CAPS cable run from the T-handle in the ceiling to the actuator in the back, it can effectively "pull" the cable and initiate the CAPS rocket to fire. And just to add, the primary reason why the CAPS is mandatory in a Cirrus is its a spin certification requirement.

IWM Closure
 

Following the accident, IWM have announced that it will be totally closed today and tomorrow, hoping to reopen on Good Friday.
I totally get that the airfield closure is as a result of the unfortunate accident and the AAIB presence and activity will drive its eventual reopening. However, since the airfield to all intents is totally separate from the IWM for everyone who arrives by road, why would it need to remain closed, particularly during the school holidays. Surely the obvious thing to do is to screen off the crash site from view and carry on as normal.
Comments or views ?

I imagine they don't want hordes of children/parents gathered round the parameter fence all trying to get a look at the crashed plane. It's not the sort of image of aviation they want to promote. The AAIB will recover the wreckage soon enough.

It’s not school holidays in this part of the world yet.

It would be hard to screen it off on such a large site, and why bother wasting time and effort.

I hate to say it, but there will probably be small parts of plane where the crowd (and it would be a crowd) would stand, and they may need those small parts.

They don’t need to be covered in press photographers.

Why not let them tidy it up and investigate with some dignity. The press are already all over Facebook asking for exact details.

When people go to Duxford, they enjoy seeing some aircraft flying, there will be no flying till Friday.

My honest view, what a self entitled sort of post, someone has died, they can find out why with minimal inconvenience and intrusion this way.

Agreed.

Well you're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I maintain that just because you can shut the entire site - is it justified?
The people at the museum will have zero interference with the investigation. Intrusion is admittedly more difficult to control but the police now regularly use screens at motorway accidents without inconveniencing their investigations, and nobody is going to stand staring at screens for hours while walking between the hangars.
Several people on here have already commented on having seen a video of the crash. It's not been released by any of the regular news sites, why search it out. The people who posted it and those who searched for and viewed it are guilty of intrusion, albeit not in person, but its a bit rich to then suggest that a blanket closure needs to be in place just in case the public might behave in the same way.
Ultimately, how far do you have to ring fence a site. I presume the M11 isnt shut ?

I think it's appropriate to close Duxford out of respect just unfortunate that the accident happened on one of it's busiest weekends. Duxford is just a museum at the end of the day and the accident, recovery must take precedence.

A general question regarding Duxford as an airfield. Does Duxford operate like any local airfield i.e. you can base your aircraft out of there? I always thought the airfield was just to facilitate the museum and the operations based therein?

No need to discuss this as we're not the ones making this decision. I can think of several reasons to keep the site closed for a bit, including the museum wanting to provide some relief to their staff and volunteers who may have been involved or saw the accident. But nobody has asked me for advice...

See my earlier post about the accident aircraft being based at Duxford.

While many of the based aircraft are connected to the museum and restoration activities, residents also include a number of assorted Cessnas, Pipers, etc.

Has been confirmed that the pilot did not survive..

Pilot named.
First picture of pilot who died in crash at Duxford aviation museum (telegraph.co.uk)

You’re right, the M11 isn’t shut, but there are photographers with cameras on top of long poles on the A505, “public land innit, we can do what we like”, and you think people would know how to behave !

Don’t worry. It’s open on Friday, only shut for 48 hours, so your very pressing need to visit can happen then.

The only problem is they’ll have taken the debris away, so I suppose there will be nothing for you to try and see.

Really? You can’t wait 48 hours to visit?
What are you a press photographer?

I don't think anyone on here is suggesting that they personally have a selfish reason to visit Duxford this week, least of all to rubberneck the scene of this tragedy. I certainly don't and, if I lived in East Anglia, I could/would probably reschedule my visit anyway.

However, I don't live in East Anglia; I live in Cumbria. If I'd planned to visit the IWM this week it would have comprised a 600 mile round trip, reservation of at least 2 nights hotel accommodation and scheduling of other domestic arrangements. With the greatest respect for the victim and their family I might have found that closure of the entire Duxford site was a little extreme. Would this not be a fairly localised accident site? Would a fatal RTC on Exhibition Road justify a 2-day closure of the Science Museum?

I’m pretty sure it would if it was in their foyer.
Yes.

This didn’t happen on the road outside.

You are right but it took place in a small part of a very large airfield. Really did not need to affect the Museum....

The owner or custodian of private land (IWM in this case) can do as they please. If a temporary closure due to a tragic, fatal accident annoys someone planning on a hot date, hard luck. :rolleyes:

Museum faff aside anyone closer to understanding what happened? It looks a bizarre accident for someone still alive at the controls!

No, and I dont have a visit planned either, but as Planemike and Duncan have pointed out many people might have.
Just because you can shut something it doesn't mean you should. As I said before some people on here have already searched out video of the crash which is no less disrespectful than people watching screens on an airfield while walking between museum hangars. I doubt they all work remotely for the AAIB, so why do it and tell us.
My main comment remains that imposition of restrictions that are more severe than needed (and they obviously vary from case to case) can lead to complaints from members of the public and do not do the reputation of the organisation any good.
I would finish by saying that there has been no statement that the closure was requested by the AAIB or the Police so I stand by my view that the IWM have unnecessarily closed the site.

Does this need to continue?

Apologies for my part in it.

After 30 posts including people whinging about the temporary closure of the IWM (first world problem)…

I’d like to offer my most sincerely condolences to a family who have received the terrible news of the untimely death of a loved family member

Looks like a lack of right rudder to compensate for full power being applied on a go around.

This discussion is under accidents and close calls.If someone is offended then the best thing to do is avoid this part of Pprune.

There is an element of education from reading accident reports.That’s why they are published.

Mike, think SWBKCB is referring to the arguments about closure of the museum for two days.

Video of the accident is on ASN, which also mentions the aircraft bounced twice before the go around.

My apologies I missed that side discussion.Fatal accidents are a daily occurrence on the highways especially in this part of Asia where traffic laws are mostly ignored by drivers who have no concept of risk or self preservation. Some aviation sites are full of maudling comments from those who never knew the deceased which are pointless.

Light aviation is like riding motorcycles.Exciting but with risks.Looking at what can happen is worth a thousand briefings.

Similar accident here with a very experienced pilot who crashed his P51Mustang on his own UK airstrip https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...mustang-g-mstg

Report on a similar Cirrus accident in Oz. Post by Centaurus (a highly experienced aviator - P-51, Lincoln bomber, 737 pilot and instructor, aviation author) in reference to the accident.https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-i...und-challenges

The accident being talked about, let's not be so shy in taking a lesson to heart.

The accident Megan refers to mirrors the one being discussed.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....da52ece66.jpeg
Despite so much criticism about Australian CASA as the holder of UK and Australian licences I find their regulations and training better than the UK.

»I would hazard a guess and say that most flying school instructors (especially new graduates) teach practice go arounds from short final at 200 feet where there is plenty of time to correct mishandling. On the other hand few would demonstrate a deliberate high bounced touch down where speed is close to the stall, energy is low and the aircraft pitches up and yaws and rolls at full power. of course this would be a dual exercise and not practiced by solo students »
100%
My first solo was in a Aircoupe at Rochford aérodrome now London Stansted where I bounced along the runway due to never being shown what to do in a bounced landing especially relevant with an unusually light aircraft without the instructor. I was probably saved because of the low power and strength of the aircraft. My instructors were hour builders on PPLs and not much good.
I bounced my first jet with a training captain and pax on board..again hadn’t been taught what to do which ended with the oxygen masks out and a set of hydraulic control warning lights and the odd generator off line. Many years later I did a gliding instructors rating which included a low level winch failure called the « bunny hop » where the aircraft is flying in ground effect just above the stall speed still connected to the cable; the national coach advised that we didn’t need to demonstrate it to pupils because of the risk involved.
Maybe the answer is better briefings, flying exercises or a simulator.

Some things don't need to be included in the training syllabus, simply because any student will invariably set up the needed conditions all by themselves. Bounced landings are one example.

Sad to hear that the pilot didn't make it.

I fly an SR22T off a short runway and am obviously motivated to learn as much as possible how to avoid getting into this kind of accident. I was immediately struck by the similarity with the Bankstown, Australia crash. Both pilots bounced and made the correct decision to go-around. The execution of this apparently straight forward maneuver is where things went terribly wrong on both occasions. Both were solo flights probably relatively light and as has been pointed out the 315 hp engine produces significant yaw at full power.

Most of us are used to doing touch and goes which are pretty easy in this aircraft. So as a relatively experienced Cirrus pilot I would not have expected this outcome. Maybe the nose angle reduced the visual cues. On a normal touch and go you have a reasonable view of the runway and the rudder is pretty effective. In a high bounce and with the added pitch up from a rapid application of power obviously things are different. Whilst the video is distressing it is quite illuminating and shows the aircraft had climbed rapidly before control was lost. The Cirrus has an audible stall warning, but it is pretty easy to trigger it by rotating a little enthusiastically and I have never known our aircraft to drop a wing. This is not something I would have expected and will definitely try to be cautious in this kind of situation.

What I saw in the video is totally predictable. For those who practice stalls at altitude, most seem to practice them as a power off entry. Also practice stalls at a full power entry, and hold the control inputs through to stall break. If held well, with appropriate use of rudder and yaw control, you'll get a decent pitch down and stall recovery. But if yaw is not carefully controlled, it's going to roll on torque. Even a C172 will do this if the pilot is careless, and it is a spin entry. The evidence is that it spun to the left from pitch up, slow flight.

Sure, if the landing has gone bad, go around. During any go around, your first job is to maintain flying speed, and accelerate to Vx, the Vy as soon as possible. There is zero need to be flying slowly at altitude, if flying with greater airspeed and less altitude can be done with consideration to obstacles. Keep it low, and accelerate. Even if there are obstacles, if there is any concern about clearing them, I aim for two thirds up the obstacle, accelerate as much as possible, then sacrifice some of the airspeed to pop up over the obstacle, knowing that I can lower the nose again once clear, and continue to accelerate to Vy.

As seen in this, and many other videos, climbing slower than Vy puts the pilot at increased risk of stall/spin, and not being able to achieve a safe glide in the case of engine failure.