PDA

View Full Version : Crash/collision near Boscombe


Jackonicko
29th Jun 2004, 17:48
Perhaps involving a USAF aircraft?

Anyone know owt?

Nige321
29th Jun 2004, 19:15
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/3851737.stm

Uncle Ginsters
29th Jun 2004, 21:18
"It was a Tutor aircraft on a routine flight. "

Routine? A Tutor still working at 1808 BST?

I'd heard the Boss was a bit of a taskmaster down there! ;)

Good to hear all are OK though, :ok:

Uncle G

bpster
29th Jun 2004, 22:00
SUAS is on Summer camp at the moment, they are working late everyday as I understand. Sounded Nasty

Man-on-the-fence
30th Jun 2004, 08:05
According to the Beeb this morning it only suffered a broken propellor blade. Im surprised they didnt mention "bravely steeing aircraft away from school for disbled ethnic minority females...muppets:*

So the oil laying on the top of the cowling meant nothing then.

A lucky / well trained for escape for all involved.

Edotted fur spooling

aviate1138
30th Jun 2004, 16:38
Just so long as local NIMBY's Tantric Sting and Moanin' Madonna were not in danger.

Aviate 1138 - an Old Sarumite

Bigtop
30th Jun 2004, 18:17
Just a rumour but heard it was a Navy Grob (727 Sqn??) - seems to counteract the good news of the Merlin making its maiden voyage today post its grounding after the crash earlier this year.

ACW 335
30th Jun 2004, 18:21
Was an RAF Training A/c therefore Grob 115e

Guido
30th Jun 2004, 21:40
Heard a rumour that the aircraft shed a prop blade, nearly shook itself to bits and was landed after a foced landing following the shutdown. Fleet grouded in symapthy for the Merlins

whowhenwhy
30th Jun 2004, 21:52
Heard a different rumour that guys on board thought that they'd had a mid-air with a glider!! Anyone able to shed any light?

PIElotMAN
1st Jul 2004, 07:54
I have it on reasonably good authority that it looks as if the a/c did indeed shed a blade.

The reason that rumours about a mid air were going around is because the guys onboard initially assumed that is what had happened. This rumour was ruled out fairly quickly.

Both Instructor and Student walked away unharmed after a safe Forced Landing.

Slow-Rider
1st Jul 2004, 15:15
Fleet is grouded as a result apparently

cobaltfrog
1st Jul 2004, 16:35
For the record it was NOT a 727 Grob 115E

Hummingfrog
1st Jul 2004, 17:53
Seems that the Prop Hub fractured releasing the blade. Hubs now need examining so does anybody know when the grounding may be lifted as I am due on AEF Summer Camp soon!!

HF

Squadgy
1st Jul 2004, 19:00
Does this 'grounding' only effect the UAS Grobs? A civvie one has just flown passed my VCR window :uhoh:

Miles Magister
1st Jul 2004, 20:55
This could be interesting as the G115e allegedly has had fatigue cracks in the hub since it was introduced into service, and moded to reduce problem.

A and C
1st Jul 2004, 21:19
I have to ask but do any of you think that this very unusual hub failure may be connected to the RAF policy of never using the pitch lever and flying the aircraft with the prop at max RPM at all times ?.

Hueymeister
1st Jul 2004, 21:21
I flew the Grob with the RAF and always used the pitch lever!!

Hummingfrog
1st Jul 2004, 21:56
A & C

What a load of tosh you write. The RAF policy is max RPM (iro 2700) for take off and climb then 2400 (used to be 2500) for aeros and fast cruise with a reduction in RPM for range/endurance iaw tables in flight ref cards.

HF

AdLib
1st Jul 2004, 22:00
A'n'C,

1. Very unusual ALLEGED hub failure.
2. 'Pitch' lever used to vary rpm pre take off - some kind of CSU banter here - and to set rpm to 2500 (ish) after take off (max 2700 +- a bit I think).
3. er ... that's it.

4. No it\'s not. HF, you beat me to it! (insert rueful icon here - I don\'t know how to make that bit work).

jayteeto
2nd Jul 2004, 07:21
Hummingfrog, Thank You!!!
I flew at the AEF this week and used 2500 for aeros. I had forgotten about the change to 2400. Slapped wrist for jayteeto...

Hummingfrog
2nd Jul 2004, 07:32
Hi Jayteeto

No problem the boys from 12 AEF are always ready to help those unfortunates who have to live in England!!!!:p

HF
:D

A and C
2nd Jul 2004, 07:34
It would seem that I have been mis-informed and that the prop pitch control is used in the normal way.

I suspect that my informant may have an anti noise axe to grind with the RAF and this was one of the things that has been put about to try to influence public opinion.

From an engineering point of view IF and only IF the RAF was running the engine at max RPM all the time this could well have an effect on the fatigue life of the prop hub an the inerta forces rise at the square of the RPM.

I have yet to see any problems on the prop hubs fitted to the Lycoming AEIO-540 engines that I maintain and would have expected to see this long before the RAF did in the Grobs due to the higher power of the engine and the greater areobatic loads imposed by the airframe.

HUMMING FROG

All I asked was a question based on information that I had been given and I think that a simple "to run at max RPM is not RAF policy" would have been a more apropriate reply.
Some of us have the job of ensuring the safety of this engine/prop combination on a day to day basis and will leave no stone un-turned to try to achive this goal.
PPrune is a very un-offical information sorce but reaction time is a lot faster that "normal" channels and so points raised on these pages may well be something that I should look at today before the system has had time to react.

Capt Scribble
2nd Jul 2004, 11:21
Jayteeto, you were well within your right to select 2500 rpm for aerobatics! The selection of 2400 rpm has indeed replaced that of 2500, however 2500 MAY be used, if required, at any time and specific times were highlighted as AEROBATICS and LOW LEVEL.

airborne_artist
2nd Jul 2004, 12:33
Come back Bulldog and Chipmunk - all is forgiven - we didn't really mean all those rude things we said about you both....

Navy_Adversary
2nd Jul 2004, 13:49
When I saw the topic heading I thought someone may have some new information about the accident a few years ago(Aurora?) :mad:
Now i know officially there was no incident or maybe there ws a contrived tornado GR1 incident:8
But some of us know different don't we?:O

Megaton
2nd Jul 2004, 14:08
I think you're talking about the incident involving an F3 and a TRD when the cutter failed to operate. Road was closed to prevent cars being thunked by bits of radio frequency transmitter. Not really what you wanted to hear, Navy_Adversary, but never let the truth etc etc

Hummingfrog
2nd Jul 2004, 14:13
A & C

It may seem a little harsh what I said but I do have to question why you post on the Military Aircrew forum alleging that the RAF uses non standard SOPs when your info comes from such a source as a noise protester!!

Again in your next post you say that "if" the RAF is using max RPM all the time then this may cause a problem when you have been informed that we don't use max RPM all the time - so why bother saying "if"

I agree that this is a good site to find out what is going on before officialdom deems to tell us. I found out about the Tutor grounding, from this site, before my Boss told me. However, it relies on informed opinion to be successful.

HF

A and C
2nd Jul 2004, 16:35
Not all noise protesters are stupid and know nothing about aircraft ( one of the worst that I have heard of is a BA captain ) and this came from a sorce that in the past has been quite well informed.

The "if and only if " was so as you could see my reasoning as to why high RPM might have an effect on the hub fatigue life.

As I have said my only reason for posting on the apparently hallowed ground of the military forum is only flight safety and I have no other axe to grind but I have to wonder if this is being misunderstood.

Hummingfrog
4th Jul 2004, 10:07
Anybody know when the grounding order may be lifted? Is it days /weeks/months.

HF

Skylark4
4th Jul 2004, 20:46
Days. Maybe Thursday, maybe before, maybe not.

Mike W

Hummingfrog
4th Jul 2004, 21:49
Thanks. I had visions of every AEF pilot going out of 28 day currency and the mayhem that would cause at this time of year!!:ok:

HF

EESDL
5th Jul 2004, 13:31
Blimey, at this rate we'll be asking the Adj for more 'bumf' to do!!

basuto72
8th Jul 2004, 17:32
As a user we were told and I quote " a team will be visiting the units starting on Monday to NDT the hubs, they (that know best) will hopfully let us fly them again on Weds all being well"

I don't think that any body really has a clue about time, if they do they are not telling the user units.

Fliesty
8th Jul 2004, 18:11
The latest news, that I have heard, is that they have still not come to any conclusions but there will be no flying for the next 10 days!

IF they get themselves sorted by that time then you may have a NDT team coming to visit you in the next 1-2 months (If you operate tutors obviously).

Anyway, in the mean time may I suggest taking some leave and kicking back while all of the various agencies work out a plan.

:bored:

tornstorm
11th Jul 2004, 10:30
So much for my going solo any time soon then! :{

Flashdance9
6th Mar 2005, 21:02
Yeah well, some of us were attempting a first solo take-off when that crash happened! My heart has never beaten so fast when ATC called 'Abort take-off, there's a mayday coming in'

and yeah it was a summer camp so we were working upto 6ish

Unfortunatley cant give any more details than that. Apart from to say the next day we found a propeller in a field!

Mr Grob & Mr VT were not impressed!

Smudger
6th Mar 2005, 21:30
Flashdance9, welcome to the wonderful world of aviation! Hope your first solo went well, I'm sure it did, many congratulations. Enjoy your flying, it won't all be as stressful as that! (I hope!)