Ardmore Flying School Crash

[cloudcover]

Does anybody have any information? All I heard was it was a flock of ducks.:rolleyes: Sounds more like typical ardmore showing off gone wrong. At least they werent badly hurt so they've probably learnt their lesson. Anyone know who was involved?

[mattyj]

Yes everyone knows who it was..hes a stand up bloke with plenty of experience and there are ducks out at the low flying area and you are allowed to fly at extreme low level cause it is a low flying area..nothing to see here really..I have issues with AFS like many people but I doubt if theres any conspiracy this time!!

[1279shp]

Low level max rate to 'avoid a flock of birds'.

Thing was though, from accounts, birds kept on flying, plane didn't!

Glad all walked away.

:ok:

[cloudcover]

"stand up bloke with plenty of experience" That wouldnt be the same guy who has a reputation as a risk taking cowboy....would it? He who sets a bad example will be made an example of..

[Kermit 180]

Everyone's okay, and thats what matters most.

Kerms :zzz:

[Wombat35]

Glad to hear that Pilots and Ducks are okay.

Brings a new meaning of "Low TAX" ;)

[REILy]

Doh!!
you know you've had a bad day when it makes the front page of the paper, especially when it is a rather large colour photo.
Onwards and upwards boys.

[Cloud Cutter]

cloudcover

Don't assume too much mate. It is very easy to second guess what went on in this sort of accident, but in my veiw it is totally inapropriate to do so in a public forum.

I will also testify to the experience, character and skill of the instructor involved. We all make mistakes or have lapses in judgement, fortunately most of the time we get off with a bit of a scare. Lets just all be thankfull that nobody was seriously hurt. I have no doubt that this incident will have a positive effect on the future judgements of both pilots - perhaps we can all use it as a learning tool or little reminder.

[LocoDriver]

The low flying area is just that, and is also a transit lane for assorted birds feeding on the mudflats.
Low flying is a calculated risk, lets hope that the PC brigade dont
try and deem it as 'unsafe' and take it away.....


Accident or not, low flying training has helped many a pilot
get out of, or stay out of difficulty.



Glad the instructor and student are OK.



:ok:

[123567]

Cloud cover - pull you head in son.... Nobody likes a wise guy....

It would appear you knew all along who was involved but decided to stirr things up a bit.

Not very professional !!

[masseygrad]

So what actually happened please?

Stall? Engine failure? How/where did they land?

[mattyj]

Just seen the wreck..back at Ardmore now and looks terrible. Apparently the front end was so heavy with mud and oysters that the tail came off during the lift out..and the Hiab has wrecked the wings too, sorry Mike your superb forced landing is a bit irrelevant now..plus 2 nights in salt water!!

Anyway, its up for tender..be in to win!!

[haughtney1]

What was the A/C type?...and did this happen in the low flying area at the end of the clevedon valley?

I trust MattyJ..from your comments that the standard of instruction..and oversight has improved since I had dealings with Mr Saddler..and the Needhams in the mid 1990's.

Great news that all are ok by the way.

:}

[mattyj]

from your comments that the standard of instruction..and oversight has improved since I had dealings with Mr Saddler..and the Needhams in the mid 1990's

..I wouldnt go that far;)

..I just know the instructor involved and hes top shelf..one of the few left with any experience

(type 172..1998 model..yes in low flying area)

[Sqwark2000]

I liked the article in the Herald quoting the AFS General Manager "....whilst avoiding the flock of [insert breed of choice], the aircraft stalled and made a gentle descent onto the mudflats"

S2K

[cloudcover]

"top shelf pilot" gimme a break. What are you basing it on? I base my opinion on the fact he's nearly killed me twice and probably many others aswell. What happened my have been an accident, we'll never know. All I'm saying is I wasnt suprised he was involved.
The problem is that many guys look up to him and think his behaviour is 'cool' and acceptable.:yuk:
But hey, cloudcutter thinks he's skillful with great character so it must be untrue:rolleyes:

[flyby_kiwi]

Cloudcover,

In my days of instructing ive had licence holders of various experience levels 'nearly kill me' too but i wouldnt go as far as to comment on these people as individuals on a pulic forum when the facts are unknown.
As far as im concerned cloudcutters comment sums up my thoughts and im sure many others........

I will also testify to the experience, character and skill of the instructor involved. We all make mistakes or have lapses in judgement, fortunately most of the time we get off with a bit of a scare. Lets just all be thankfull that nobody was seriously hurt

[MOR]

The facts, according to the AFS spokesman, were that the pilot saw some birds, tried to pull a max-rater just like they teach you at pilot school, promptly stalled (in an aircraft that gives you plenty of warning) and did a face-plant into the mud. In other words, this one is going to be down to pilot error. Feel free to ignore the obvious, and wait for the eventual report if you so desire.

As for the ability of the pilot in command... well the aircraft eneded up in the mud, didn't it?

Now of course, if the spokesman was wrong, and the aircraft suffered serious structural damage before the heroic instructor managed to force land it (with quite a lot of force) in the mud, I will be the first to retract and applaud his efforts.

Doubt it, though. As neither pilot was badly hurt, I'm sure what happened is known to the investigators. It'll still take year to get the report, though.

[haughtney1]

A 172 stalled in a turn???...is that possible? Cos a 172 damn near slaps you on the back of the head and says "HEY DUMBASS I'M GONNA STALL EASE OFF A LITTLE !!!!!"

(even from a mere 1500hrs of 172 experience I noted this subtle handling trait)

Cheers H




:ok:

P.S. Mor have you ever done a max rate in the "queen of the skies?":}

[Cloud Cutter]

If I may speculate, I think you'll find the aircraft hit a post (the ones used for slalom practice), and managed to limp upright into a reasonable ditching. The large gash in the underside of one of the wings would back this up. I certainly don't believe the talk of stalling or anything to do with birds.

cloudcover - I appologise if I have offended you with my continuos web of lies:hmm:

[NZDP]

Anyone know the rego ?

[MOR]

haughtney1

Yes I have, as it happens, and not in the sim either. Hairy stories, all three of them.

She goes round pretty well considering her size. You have to watch the G though.

If this instructor was low enough to actually hit a post, he needs his licence removing from him.

Reminds me of the two Palmerston North-based aircraft that were out training at the same time, many years ago... several people heard over the radio "dagga dagga dagga..." not sure if they both crashed or not, but people died. Bloody idiots.

[27/09]

MOR, Two points



If this instructor was low enough to actually hit a post, he needs his licence removing from him.

Have to agree with you there.


Reminds me of the two Palmerston North-based aircraft that were out training at the same time, many years ago... several people heard over the radio "dagga dagga dagga..." not sure if they both crashed or not, but people died. Bloody idiots.

Not sure we are thinking of the same event, but I am guessing it was an air to air collision. The radio transmission may well have taken place. You post infers that the accident occured during certain manouvres which of course no pilot on this forum would have ever been involved in.

I don't have first hand knowledge of this event so my recollection may be flawed.

If we are talking about the same event, it was my understanding that the accident occured while the two aircraft were flying in formation. I think the formation was inpromptu and had not been briefed prior to the flight. Something occurred, (There was a suggestion that one aircraft may have suffered an engine failure thru fuel starvation.) which caused one of the aircraft to come in contact with the other.

Yes, people died, and there was a court case brought against the other pilot by a zealous police officer. The pilot was found not guilty.

[flyby_kiwi]

If this instructor was low enough to actually hit a post, he needs his licence removing from him.

Lets not forget that he was legally operating the a/c in a low flying area, the fact he may have taken a post is another matter. Although as CC mentions its - pure speculation

[MOR]

flyby_kiwi

Lets not forget that he was legally operating the a/c in a low flying area, the fact he may have taken a post is another matter.

No, it really isn't. It doesn't matter where you are flying, you have a responsibility to operate safely and that includes not hitting the terrain, things on the terrain, or people. If you are low enough to hit a post, and you are not landing, you have absolutely no excuse whatsoever. There is no manouver in the CPL syllabus that calls for such a low altitude.

27/09

It was an air-to-air, the call was recorded by CH information, and it was absolutely obvious what was going on. Of course nobody saw it happen, there was therefore no evidence, and no way you could find either of the pilots anything OTHER than "not guilty".

My point is, that is a sad fact of aviation life that there are quite a few instructors out there who are downright dangerous. This will always be the case while instructors are generally taken from the least experienced commercial pilots available. When I was instructing back in the '80s, I saw many, many examples of instructors doing stupid things - for example:

-Filing an IFR flight plan when the instructor had no instrument rating, and it was IMC;

-Unathorised aerobatics in a non-aerobatic aircraft (AA5);

-Running out of gas on a club trip, carrying out a forced landing on a road, and then filling the tanks with pump gas from a service station and taking off again;

-Taking off out of Wellington so overweight that they had to go around the end of the Miramar Peninsula, and still hadn't passed 500' by the time they were downwind abeam the field;

-Carrying out a "home-made" instrument approach into a small South Island strip using a nearby broadcast station;

-Taking off progressively further down the runway in an attempt to see who could get the closest to the fence without actually hitting it ("chicken" with a fence);

-Taking off with the fuel caps unsecured - lost both on takeoff;

-Landing back at the club and filling the aircraft up, to find that the amount of fuel pumped into the tanks was slightly more than the total usable fuel stated in the POH;

-Landing wheels-up at Woodbourne whilst instructing a new multi pilot in what not to do;

-Carrying out multi-engine instruction whilst not operating under anybodys AOC (completely illegal);

... and that is only a few. It amazes me more instructors don't get killed.

[tinpis]

........taking off with two porky pilots in a C172 off a vewwy vewwy small beach with god knows how many sacks of mussells :\

[Cypher]

The fact that many operators use that particular low flying area and still are able to return the aircraft in a usable dry state to the ramp, the question begs to be asked.....

[MOR]

Reminds me of a story, which I am assured is true:

Two hunters are dropped at a remote strip in the Ureweras by a brand-new CPL who was still finding his way in the commercial world. Goes back a week later in the 206 to pick them up, but now they have hundreds of pounds of venison and they want to take it all with them. Our hero expresses concern at the weight of the cargo, but the hunters assure our guy that they had the same load the year before and the pilot was happy to take them.

The now rather worried pilot loads everything up, holds it at max power on the brakes for a short field takeoff, and off they go. He pulls it off the strip with the stall warning blaring, mushes about a hundred meters with the nose way up and gently settles into the bush.

Everybody crawls out of the wreckage and they dust themselves off. One hunter says to the other, "how far did we get?" The other hunter replies "About 10 meters further than last year..."

[6080ft]

As for hitting a pole - don't think so as all the road cones on top of the poles are still there!!!!

[mattyj]

hehe..you guys are really a riot..especially MOR.


This post is becoming really entertaining
:} :}

[flyby_kiwi]

MOR

No, it really isn't. It doesn't matter where you are flying, you have a responsibility to operate safely and that includes not hitting the terrain, things on the terrain, or people. If you are low enough to hit a post, and you are not landing, you have absolutely no excuse whatsoever

Your right there is no excuse, hence my "may have taken a post is another matter" :hmm:

I would vouch to 6080ft's reliability so if in he/she says the post is still as it should be then lets for the time being rule this theory out. Now dont let me down ol' son :ok:

[Cloud Cutter]

Of course there are other ways a gash could have been inflicted on the wing - like during recovery, was just a thought.

[currawong]

Tee hee.

www.iflyag.com

But seriously, pleased no injuries after falling 200 ft (!) in an empty plane onto a big brown marshmallow...

[MAXRATE172]

A mate of mine tells me AFS has a lower limit of 200ft in L261.

best of luck to those involved.

[jbag3]

I think someone better ring up DOC and inform them that there appears to be a new breed of duck on our shores. Saltwater duck?

Or perhaps it would be a fitting Tui ad.

It was the ducks, honest! Yeah right -- TUI

Too low, too slow, + a coastal reversal turn? Ooooh bugger!



Neway it was good that they made it out in one piece to tell the tale. :ok:

[cloudcover]

Many instructors at AFS try and showoff how low they can get. I had it demostrated by four different instructors. It's good to see nothing has changed. The guy involved in the ''gentle descent from 30m'' has a favourite trick of trying to get the wingtip as close to the water as possible. No doubt in doing such a manouevre he uses a substatial amount his brain power and stares at the wingtip i.e not ahead...
It's already been stated here that AFS have a self imposed 200ft lower limit, probably due to insurance. However, spokesman Craig Hunter has stated they were around 100ft when he began the gentle descent...:O oh dear
If there is any evidence of a collision lets hope it's acted on. Otherwise, my condolences to the ducks.

[27/09]

MOR

When I was instructing back in the '80s, I saw many, many examples of instructors doing stupid things - for example:

Unfortunately instructors are not the only people who have done the things you mention, people with more experience than mere instructors have done them as well. It is a wonder more PILOTS weren't killed.

However probably more to the point, (and probably what you were alluding to) those instructors you mention set a bad example for the pilots they were training/supervising.

Carrying out multi-engine instruction whilst not operating under anybodys AOC (completely illegal);

I wasn't aware that multi-engine instruction required an AOC, it certainly isn't the case today.

[Don Won]

MOR That soundz like a wiiiicked place to learn to fly!! or did I miss the point?? anyways...........
So soundz like this guy is a bit of an idiot, got a heap of time instructing, comes from AFS (gay/virgin), bent a plane,........ I mean come on, thats gotta earn him a direct entry command with Eagle..................Choice

[MOR]

Don Won

Lol... yes I'm sure you're right... :p

27/09

At the time (late '80's), instructing, when carried out "for hire or reward", constituted Aerial Work, for which an AOC was required.

This particular instructor rented a plane from a mid-North Island club, and told them he was operating under the AOC of a Wellington charter company. When they bailed him up about it, he changed his story and claimed he was operating under the AOC of a Wellington flight school. They objected too, and he had to give the aircraft back and discontinue the training. I was the sucker caught in the middle. Of course, during this "training", the insurance was void as the aircraft was not being operated under an AOC.

It all came about because the guy was so desperate for multi time, he would have done anything for another 10 mins in his logbook.

He died shortly afterwards in a nasty car accident. Very sad.

[currawong]

Or maybe the stall warning horn is on the same breaker as the Hobbs......

[Cloud Cutter]

Well if someone connected the stall warning in a C172 up to the electrical system, there's your problem right there.

[belowMDA]

here is the recovery effort. Looks like the majority of damage was done trying to get it out.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/878506/M/

[Formally Known As]

Yes bad news all round.

The idea IMHO, of the training carried out in a low flying area down to 200' agl is to train for eg., for bad weather low flying. 200' is plenty low enough and flying any lower is unnesessary and probably "showing off".

Flying at extremely low altitude is the demain of operational low flying and can ownly be carried out with any degree of safety after hours and hours of practise.

If a flying school wishes to carry out agricutural aviation training, then it should hire in current ag-pilots with instructor ratings, not "low houred instructors".

[Aunty Matawai]

I know a Student pilot doing a CPL at AFS, who was very upset with the instructor, because he was demonstrating ground affect in the low flying area and trying to skim the wheels on the water. The INX quoted " Feel those vibrations, thats the ground affect off the water". When the student complained, the instructor said, " Whats wrong with you Nana". This was about 4 months ago. And yes, it was the same INX involved in this accident.