PDA

View Full Version : Don't Leave a Crash Site!


The Guvnor
9th Aug 2001, 10:49
In the same way that it's mad to leave your car (which is big and noticeable) if it breaks down in the outback/bush; so it is crazy to leave your aircraft in the event that it goes down.

Here's one reason why, from today's Scotsman:

Air crash survivors deserted their best chance of rescue

Frank Urquhart

FOUR mountain air crash survivors were walking away from their best chance of being saved when rescuers spotted them by chance, a report reveals.

Emergency signals from three possible crash sites - more than 30 miles apart - had been picked up after the pilot of a Cessna 172 crash landed into a mountainside near Braemar as a build-up of ice threatened to stall the aircraft.

It is believed deep snow saved the occupants’ lives by cushioning the impact when their crippled aircraft flew into the side of the 3,400ft peak of Carn an Tuirc.

But the survivors were walking away from the wreckage and the aircraft’s radio distress beacon - their sole location aid - when they were sighted by the crew of an RAF search and
rescue helicopter, according to a report by the Air Accident Investigation Branch.

The report states: "Without this location aid it is unlikely that the survivors would have been found since they had no other means of location, such as flares or bright clothing.

"The weather conditions were harsh and the survivors had no warm or protective clothing, nor were there any emergency rations available.

"They were first sighted at 3:10pm as they attempted to walk off the hills into a snow gully; they were thus walking away from the beacon, which was their sole location aid."

The report reveals: "When rescued they were already suffering from mild hypothermia. Sunset that evening was at 4:26pm, after which the chance of locating the survivors would have been remote. They would then have been forced to spend the night on the hills in extreme conditions without appropriate clothing, protection or any location aids."

The pilot, Stephen Broughton, 53, from Ipswich, escaped with head and hand injuries, while his 38-year-old co-pilot, who has
never been named, suffered facial injuries.

One of the passengers, Mark Peacock, 22, from Peterborough, suffered suspected rib fractures, and his girlfriend, Judy Laidler, 20, also from Peterborough, had mild hypothermia.

The accident happened on 25 January, 90 minutes after the Cessna had taken off from Peterborough for Inverness.

Fifty miles south of the Highland capital the pilot noticed ice accumulating at an "extremely rapid" rate on the leading edges
of the wings of the Cessna 172, which had no de-icing capability and is not approved for flights in icy conditions.

The pilot tried to ascend over cloud, but accumulation of ice increased and the Cessna was unable to maintain its climb. He then descended, but the aircraft encountered severe turbulence . The report continued: "The pilot then briefly saw snow-capped hills below and decided that he should attempt
to land before the aircraft stalled. The aircraft struck the ground at an altitude of 2,690ft.

"On contact with the ground the aircraft broke up, but all on board managed to extricate themselves from the wreckage."

The report, however, reveals confusion over the source of the aircraft’s emergency locator transmission (ELT) initially hampered rescue services in their search for the plane.

Three ELTs were reported to the emergency services - one by the crew of an RAF Nimrod to the south of Lochnagar, where the aircraft had crashed, one 30 miles to the west at Dalwhinnie and third another 30 miles away at Ben Rinnes.

The signal from Ben Rinnes was quickly discarded but two helicopters were scrambled to go to the two other possible search areas. A third was scrambled to head to Lochnagar,
where the survivors were found walking along gully.

The report states: "The position of the ELT provided by the aircraft in transit, and apparently confirmed by two Tornadoes, confused the unfolding scenario since none of these aircraft was suitably equipped to precisely locate the ELT."

Hogwash
9th Aug 2001, 11:49
They were bloody lucky that they could "walk away" from it!

RATBOY
9th Aug 2001, 17:54
This also really points out the problems with the VHF 121.5 ELTs. Because they are low power and their signals bounce all over the place they can be a bear to find even with the proper equipment. The newer UHF ones seem to work a lot better and in any case the satellite based receivers can do an excellent job of really pinpointing the location. Problem with the satellite service is you have to wait for a satellite pass and then get the data down and to the SAR center.

Genghis the Engineer
9th Aug 2001, 19:18
My training when flying the Queen's aeroplanes was, unless there was a good reason to do otherwise, to stick with the aeroplane as the most easily found object.

In this case, it was probably the only shelter available too. There's a moral here about carrying safety equipment.

G

312928
9th Aug 2001, 22:26
Why was the fourth person never named???
Bit cloak and dagger isn't it?

Vfrpilotpb
19th Aug 2001, 15:45
Sound advice Guv, the crew of Pelican 16 did just that when they Pancaked into the desert in Mauritania and were found by a co-incidental UN Orion patrolling, they were able to fire off some of the destroyed Shackletons oils and tyres to alert the Orion crew, all were recued later that same day by land vehicles and choppers( from the crash site in the middle of a war zone) lucky chaps, all safely got back to S Africa.
Including "Potty Potgieter" one of the nicest men I have ever met!

[ 19 August 2001: Message edited by: Vfrpilotpb ]

DB6
19th Aug 2001, 16:39
I read somewhere that the crew of the C172 in question weren't aware it was fitted with an ELT, which may go some way towards explaining their decision.

[ 19 August 2001: Message edited by: DB6 ]

Cusco
20th Aug 2001, 03:03
The fourth person was never named because he was an instructor acting as * safety pilot* to a very low hours but very confident PPL.

Perhaps he was a bit sheepish that he didn't intervene much earlier and get P1 to do a pretty smart 180 and get the h*ll out of it.

I think in these circumstances I'd exercise my right to anonimity if I ever wanted a job in aviation again.

And the A/c was virtually brand new. Ouch!

Salvador
20th Aug 2001, 07:33
90 minutes from Peterborough and fifty miles south of Inverness - Must be one hell of a 172. I don't wish to diminish the good intentions of the "posters" but the information here seems to be inadequate.

kabz
20th Aug 2001, 07:55
"Best chance of rescue..."
One for the safety cards in those Tristars of yours, Guv...

Vedeneyev
20th Aug 2001, 12:45
When being judged on PFL's during airforce training, the only way to secure a perfect score besides good judgement of the field in terms of size, shape, slope etc, was if it was next to a Little Chef or pub of any description....
One incident (a Bulldog I believe) was mentioned in the accident report after the emergency services could not locate the crew for 20mins (field was next to a Little Chef)

Go-Around
20th Aug 2001, 19:57
Wasn't an instructor.

Cusco
20th Aug 2001, 23:29
Go-around:

Beg to differ but I have in front of me as I type, a fax from an instructor in support of the pilot of the said 172 who was attempting to join our Arrow group with far too few hours for comfort.

Said instructor promises to accompany the pilot on all trips in our Arrow if we let him in and, and I quote the fax dated 21.1.01 * we will be completing a trip to Inverness and Glasgow this coming week.*

Now unless there was a last minute change of plan the unknown chappie *was* an instructor: if he wasn't then what was a less than 100 hours pilot doing flying a leg like that in conditions like that.

Go-Around
20th Aug 2001, 23:53
Cusco:

Was that person a current instructor, or just someone with a rating from a few years back?

312928
21st Aug 2001, 00:07
Go-Around and Cusco:

Have either of you read the accident report? http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/bulletin/aug01/gtome.htm

The un-named person was P2 Even if he or she was an instructor, they were not P1, the relatively low hour PPL was and should have made the final decisions regarding Wx, routing, climbing etc.

The AAIB report make's no reference to P2 being an instructor.

Having read the accident report on the AAIB website my questions are:
Firstly, why didn't the non-intsrument rated pilot do a 180 at the first sign of bad weather/ICE?!?!
Secondly, and probably more importantly, why didn't the instructor either say something or just take control.
Thirdly, should the a/c have attempted to climb above cloud if only P2 is instrument rated? I'm not sure of the regulation regarding this.
And as for not being aware of the conditions that might exist en-route or the systems available in the a/c (ELT), I will leave you all to make your own minds up.
Personally, I am not at all surprised that he/she wants to remain nameless, I would.

[ 20 August 2001: Message edited by: 312928 ]

bookworm
21st Aug 2001, 01:12
Salvador

It appears that, despite a reasonably accurate article in other ways, the Scotsman journalist didn't know his UTC from his ELBA. :)

Accoding to the AAIB report the aircraft got airborne from Peterborough at 1029 and the accident happened at about 1300, some two and a half hours later.

Cusco
24th Aug 2001, 03:15
312928 and Go-around.

I certainly have read the report: from cover to cover.

P1 was seeking to join our group with far too few hours in my opinion.

P2 had a lapsed instructors iicket and was in the a/c as *safety pilot*

Lapsed or not you don't forget the knowledge learnt in gaining an instructors rating: particularly if you are P2 in the capacity of safety pilot.

My point was what about the good ole fashioned 180 and scoot.


Cowardice prolongs active life: autrement dit *back off and be happy*

FNG
25th Aug 2001, 13:10
Also, I bet that the pilots wouldn't dream of making the short hop across from Dover to Cap Gris Nez on a hot sunny day without, at the very least, a couple of lifejackets. Very sensible too. They were prepared, however, to plan and fly a route over some of the most dangerous terrain in northern Europe, terrain which regularly kills even experienced and well equipped climbers and walkers, in winter, without any outdoor gear, emergency kit etc.

312928
29th Aug 2001, 00:06
So what responsibilties does an in instructor have, even on a "lapsed ticket?"
I know at the end of the day P1 has the final decision, but as part of the crew at which point can/should you say enough is enough and take control.
I'd do it as soon as I felt that the actions of P1 weren't safe.
I know it was only a PPL flight, but it di have more than a one pilot crew.
Was there any CRM/MCC?
The last thing I want to do is bring up a whole new argument, but IMHO CRM was seriously lacking here.
Opinions?

Cusco
29th Aug 2001, 06:28
312928

My understanding of a *safety pilot* goes like this:

He needn't be an instructor, nor need he necessarily be more experienced than the PI he is providing *safety cover* (whatever that is ) for.

However, someone with both the above IMHO would be a better safety pilot than one without these attributes.

At preflight checks he would indulge in a
little CRM/MCC and say something to P1 to the effect that we're here to have a fine flight which for various reasons we have elected to have me here in an overseeing capacity.

Enjoy your self, but if I see you doing anything dodgy or dangerous and do not correct yourself after a brief interjection from me I will say *I have control and YOU WILL RELINQUISH CONTROL TO ME* , aand then we will do a swift 180 and get the hell out of this s*dding ice.