Grob Forced Landing

[Gash Handlin]

copied from BBC ONline:-

Student crash-lands crippled plane

A student escaped uninjured when the plane he was flying suffered engine failure and crashed into fields.

The 20-year-old from Warwick University ditched the two-seater Grobb Tutor single-engine plane near Shifnal, in Shropshire.

He was taken to nearby RAF Cosford after the incident on Thursday morning, and was found fit and well.

The plane was said to be "slightly damaged". An inquiry is underway into why the engine failed.

Glad to hear there were no injuries. UBAS I presume or do UAS's still swop bases for the summer camp?

[bad livin']

Good work that fella. Glad he's ok.

Can he provide his own account on these pages? :eek:

[Max R8]

The Boy Done Good!
How many of us would be able to make a landing in a field from an engine failure @ 500 ft!
No damage to the aircraft and, more importantly, no damage to the lad.
I see lots of pictures of civilian aircraft crumpled in a corner of a field following a mishandled PLL/EFATO. This student was instructed by RAF QFIs. Need I say more.

[Mad Pax]

2nd yr stude apparently - boy done good. :cool:

[Vortex_Generator]

Whilst I have nothing but admiration for the student in this incident, as a PPL holder I resent the implication by Max R8 that only those instructed by RAF QFIs are capable of such a feat. There are plenty of excellent pilots around who have never met a RAF QFI and this kind of elitist crap has no place in aviation.

[DB6]

As a civvy FI (B2 eqiv.) at JEFTS I can say that the teaching of EFATO in the military environment is pretty much the same as in the civvy world and luck and student ability would play a much bigger part in the scenario than the quality of instruction. In addition the chap in question was probably very familiar with the options off the end of each runway, which is not always the case in the civvy world as they tend to operate out of more airfields than their military counterparts, and those airfields are often much smaller than the normal RAF station. Good show though, well done that man.
(That's assuming it was an EFATO)

[ 15 July 2001: Message edited by: DB6 ]

[BEagle]

Vortex Generator - I think that the point is not so much that the 'teaching' of forced landing techniques is any better by a military QFI than by a civil FI, it is perhaps that the military's insistence on regular demonstrations of PFL skills (every 28 days) by their UAS student pilots is the key.

Most PPL holders will probably only ever be required to demonstrate PFL skills during a biennial SEP Class Rating revalidation proficiency check - and then only if they decide to revalidate by check, not experience. Should they choose to revalidate by experience, there is no mandatory requirement to demonstrate a PFL; the dual training flight only has a recommended content.

As a UK/FE(PPL) and A2 QFI, I can state quite unequivocally that the standard of most PFLs demonstrated by PPL applicants during their PPL Skill Tests is quite poor. But this is hardly surprising given the lesser emphasis placed upon this exercise in the JAR/FCL PPL course. The military pilot is not trying to achieve a 'just adequate' standard in 45 hours, he/she/it/don't know/don't care is required to display higher levels of pure piloting skills - hence whilst most PPL applicants can navigate thier aircraft very competently, their basic pilot skills are less finely developed than their military colleagues. However, I've always found that the latter haven't much idea about flying a SEP aircraft from A to B at 2-3000 ft; in fact most probably can't find the hole in their own ar$e without a mirror!

At (civilian) FI/FE seminars, it is always apparent that nothing like enough time for instruction or student practice is allocated to PFLs generally. So it's not the military QFI who is necessarily teaching any better, more that the military training system demands higher student standards.

[Max R8]

Sorry to have offended, not my intention at all. However, I do believe that elitism has every role to play when you are training for the standards expected by the RAF front line, so, no appologies there. I said it as I saw it, the lad involved did very well (not EFATO by the way) and I have read many AIB reports on light aircraft accidents to know that it will be a combination of skill, training and luck to have a happy outcome like this. However, I can't help but think that the RAF EFT training enviroment (both UAS and JEFTS) gives students the skills and practice for their best chance in this very nasty situation. We should be proud, we should be elitist!

[skua]

Having had roughly equal amounts of instruction from mil and civil over the years (some time ago it has to be said) my humble opinion is that there is no contest. Mil wins hands down. If you were starting a flying career now, which would you prefer:

an A2 QFI having had a flying tour on something useful, and then CFS, or

a 19 year old with a epaulettes, dodgy shirt, and 200 hours in a C152?

No contest !


There are insufficient experienced instructors in the civil sector, as has been discussed elsewhere on this site on many occasions.

[ol_benkenobi]

Vortex

Sorry, you must of stumbled on this page in complete error looking for something else. Quite obvious from your ‘elitist crap’ comment that you were unaware you were on a Professional pilots site and specifically a Military forum. If you hadn’t found any elitism issues here then you (and all of us)should have been fearful for the state of the nation.

(Retires unable to believe that he defended the crabs)
:confused:

[fobotcso]

OB, love it, love it!

[Vortex_Generator]

I have been in the air force long enough to know that military pilots are an elitist bunch, and rightly so in most cases. What I find annoying however, is the attitude of some people that the sky should be the exclusive preserve of professionals, and us recreational flyers should be banished to a small box over the Humber. As a member of the groundcrew fraternity, I feel that my aviation experience gives me a greater insight into what you professionals do, and can have a significant effect on flight safety. Surely an aviation based force should do all it can to promote aviation amongst its non-flying members, and offer helpful and constructive advice to the general aviation community. Comments like:

"I see lots of pictures of civilian aircraft crumpled in a corner of a field following a mishandled PLL/EFATO. This student was instructed by RAF QFIs. Need I say more."

are neither helpful nor constructive. Flight safety is paramount and I would hope that everyone, regardless of their aviation background, would aspire to being able to deal with a similar situation as competently as this student did. I'm sure we can all learn something from this incident, but it shouldn't be used to try and prove "my dick is bigger than yours."
It is not my intention to wind anyone up or have a "dig" at professional pilots, military or otherwise, it is just to point out that those of us who have to raid our piggy banks to get airborne also have ego's, which get bruised when our competence is questioned.

[You want it when?]

Speaking as a low hours trainee PPL - I'd rather be trained by the military. However in civilian world at £100 or so per hour I couldn't afford the same length of training course - how long does it take to get equivalent of an SEP(L) licence? Do you think the Queen would lend me one of her smaller cheaper airframes to learn on plus a QFI, and some go-juice? Egos or not (and if you don't believe your the best then you have no right to be up) we can all learn from every incident and fly safer. :D Well done to anyone who gets bent bird back on the ground safely.

[Max R8]

I have no intention to get any further into VG's civy/mil debate. I just think that my dick may indeed be bigger than his.

[BEagle]

Your ar$e certainly is!!

[grimfixer]

Wannabees always seem to have penis envy, keep up the flight safety and don't leave any spanners loafing. :D :D

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I'd like to hear more detail on the incident largely because its my old UAS and I well remember the excellent efforts of a certain Sqn Ldr Karl Bufton trying to hammer the finer points of a bulldog High/Low key PFL into a cocky young PPL holding Welshman...

Shropshire is a GREAT place to have a forced landing mind - I challende anyone at more than 3000ft to be outside of gliding range of a WW2 airfield... ;)

BEagle - as usual - you have hit the nail squarely on the head. Its not essentially the instruction but the recency that makes such a difference between mil and civ flying.

Before taking their skilltests my 80% of my PPL students and 100% of my latterly commercial students were perfectly capable of performing a PFL to an acceptable standard at their first attempt. Six months later most of them would have got well high into a postage stamp with a pylons on the approach powering the spike factory at the other end...

Flying skill - and PFL's are skill demanding exercises make no mistake - is a skill best quenched on recency...

After 6 months now without a light aircraft betwixt my finger and thumb I'd probably cock mine up!

WWW

[Mad Pax]

And after all that, the stude still deserves a pat on the back, don't ya think?

[A and C]

First well done to the guy , eny one who pulls off a good landing after an engine failure is due congratulation.

As to all the RAF we are better than you bull .....i should think so most of my students are working to pay for your flying as well as there own !,in the RAF the students have nothing better to do all day than learn to fly.

I hope that the standards that i train to are up to the conditions that the PPl holder will meet when he/she gets the licence but luck will allways play a part when an engine quits as one of my ex students will tell you after he put a PA28 and 2 pax into a field without a scratch (and unseen by the newspapers)following the loss of power.

[Gash Handlin]

AandC

there is NOTHING better to do all day than fly.

But I think you'll find that a UAS stude does a damn site more, they spend three years working bloody hard to get a decent degree in case the RAF decide they don't want them and at the same time they are expected to pass an intensive flying training course at the end of which they will be streamed on the basis of their performance, a decision which will decide their whole military career (or in some cases if they can even have one).

You should also note that the average stude in my time managed to get 1 trip a week if he/she was lucky, more often it was once every two or three weeks. Starting to sound more like your PPL studes?? (I did quite a lot more but got chopped cos of my eyesight then dropped out of my degree)

Perhaps you should learn something about the subject before you wade in with both feet (in your mouth)

[You want it when?]

Gash - I can't believe you actually said a Uni stude has to work hard! It's three years on the beer/wine, cruising to the odd lecture - sure they are all smart people but hard working - hardly.

I'd like someone to pay for my "intensive" flying (or even to get a tax rebate/credit on the money I spend would be nice) Sounds like you took the good options at the tax payers expense but when it started to go pear shaped (eyes) gave up the whole game - not only the career but the degree.

[A and C]

Gash i think that you are 50% right as is You want it ,from my observation of uni students the engineering and science students work hard but the arts and trendy subject lot do next to naff all exept make trouble but in both cases they would have had much more time to devote to the flying than i did working 12 hour shifts to pay for it all and of course they dont have to find the cash ......i was doing that for them !.

[Al Titude]

A C

No need to be so defensive mate! Some UAS studes have to work harder than others at their degrees- granted. But the flying course is intense in pressure, and don't forget this is the start of their professional training. Most PPL holders gain the license for pleasure flying. UAS studes are expected to fly to the same standards as their full time, salaried, commissioned JEFTS counterparts; so there is bound to be a general difference in UAS/PPL standards...professional v amateur. Although (standards wise) of course, this is a generalisation.

Let's not turn this excellent effort of a trainee pilot saving his/her life and the aircraft into a forum of oneupmanship and slagging each other off!

Regards :rolleyes:

[A and C]

Al i agree with all you say and the first line of my first post on this subject was to congratulate the pilot on a fine bit of airmanship..........but i have observed from this forum and 25 years in professional aviation that there is a SMALL but very vocal minority of RAF aircrew who think that there are two ways to fly an aircraft "the RAF way and the wrong way" and i had a feeling that this attitude was starting to come out in the posts above.
We should all be open to new ideas to improve flight safety, of late the RAF constant aspect forced landing drill has been the topic of much discusion in civil flying clubs as an example ,but i cant help getting the feeling that this is a one way street when i read that the RAF grob 115 cant fly IFR because all the power for the attitude indications comes form one sorce ,i dont know of a civil IFR training outfit that has made that mistake.
From my own experence i hav yet to meet this attitude from army and navy aircrew and wish to repeat that it is only from a vocal minority in the RAF.

[UAM]

The reason the stude was at 500' was due to the fact he was actually completing a PFL pattern from height. From information I heard, he opened the throttle, had no response, so he made the (very) wise decision of putting it into the field he was practicing on.
One possibility could be the RPM lever was not set MAX before the throttle, (RPM set LOW to minimise prop drag on PFLS ie more realistic), however there would still have been a throttle response. The day the incident occured, manifold icing would have been highly unlikely, but as always, can never be completely overruled. I guess we will have to wait until the signal is sent.
Fantastic work by the stude (although he probably has the biggest PIGS you could imagine); many people would have flapped or frozen placed in the same situation.

[A and C]

I would be very interested to know the outcome of the engineering investigation ,as not long ago a lycoming injected engine that i had some dealings with stopped for no reason that the engineering investigation could find ,fortunatly the instructor put the aircraft into a field without a scratch ,as an instructor was in the aircraft i think that it was not finger trouble.
I,m sure that we would all like to know why these things are stopping for no apparent reason.

[keepitlit]

Quite interesting comments. :eek:
Having taken your comments on board its hard to work out what the problem is between "Pros" and "mil" guys.
First I would like to say "respect" to the UASC who did a good job in returning to mother earth.

Next I would like to make a few comments on the above postings.

I have had the privi of being instructed by both so therefore my comments are from experience with no bias.

1. The indepth trainig in the mil up to PPL/BCPL is better due to the fact that"19 year old instructor hour building" doesnt have the same experience as an A2.
These are becoming fewer and fewer thankfully.

2. As for the professional Commerical Pilot Training I had both Civi and Ex Mil instructors. The Civi Commercial Instructors were far more practical towards the job than the Mil guys,but the high flying standards were still met.
This all came to light when I started to work for an Airline.

3.As for PFLs with the new regs on JAR,the flight test every 24 months may entail a PFL but for there own safety and comfort they should practice more frequently.

I think both have advantanges but both also have there faults.I dont agree with ex Mil guys being exempt from the commerical exams.

But at the end of the day what the Mil do is a completly different job than flying a public transport Aircraft.


Rdgs K.I.L.

:D :D :D

[raytofclimb]

For what its worth at this late stage of bickering, word on the street has it that the lad in question had set up for a PFL and the engine would not respond on the application of power to go around.

Lucky his set up was correct then!!

Ray.

(just found the rest of the thread.... I'll get my coat)

[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: raytofclimb ]

[sailtoo]

Have I missed something here? This young pilot does what I have never heard being done before. He force lands in a field and then ditches???

[Silva]

The frequency of PFL's carried out by military aircraft far exceed those by our civil counterparts - stats are quite interesting..

[A and C]

silva i would like to take a look at the stats on this.