MERGED: Coffs Harbour Chipmunk Crash

[Innominate11]

Crime scene at Boambee Beach after light aircraft crashes | Coffs Coast Advocate (http://www.coffscoastadvocate.com.au/news/crime-scene-boambee-beach-after-light-aircraft-cra/2303366/)


Searching for more info, I know a lot of pilots in the area. 2 POB, seems to be injuries but no fatalities from news I've found.

[Subversive1]

Chipmunk crash at Coffs, 2 POB.
http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/latest_releases?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGZW JpenByZC5wb2xpY2UubnN3Lmdvdi5hdSUyRm1lZGlhJTJGMzg4NjEuaHRtbC ZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D

VH-UPD

[Desert Flower]

A crime scene has been established at the location and will be examined by forensic specialists.


WTF - this is not normal for a crash scene is it????

DF.

[Hempy]

Unless the aircraft was stolen or undertaking criminal activities I don't see why it's a 'crime scene'...'accident scene' would seem more appropriate... unless it's not!!

[bankrunner]

"Crime scene" is just a name for a specific set of procedures used to protect the evidence at the scene of an event (usually a suspected crime, but not always.)

[drunk_pilot]

It's believed the aircraft which crashed south of Coffs Harbour this morning is a Chipmunk, specially built for aerobatic displays.

The aircraft involved is believed to be an ultralight.

Quality journalism there. From witness reports, it's seems like it may have been a late spin recovery, for whatever reason. The only 'gotcha' I remember with spinning the chippie, was to make sure the 'hand brake' was off, as it reduces rudder authority when on.

Hopefully all involved will make a speedy recovery.

[Subversive1]

Pilot has head injuries and was critical last I heard. Pax (or P2) has minor leg and head injuries, not admitted.

[Dora-9]

ATSB are now in on the act - see Investigation: AO-2014-114 - Collision with terrain involving DHC-1, VH-UPD near Coffs Harbour, NSW on 29 June 2014. (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-114.aspx)

VH-UPD seen in happier times (Chipmunk Rally at Tocumwal NSW, 2009):

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/Blithering/VH-UPD-at-Tocumwal-NSW-19_zps65e5cc8a.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/Blithering/media/VH-UPD-at-Tocumwal-NSW-19_zps65e5cc8a.jpg.html)

[Aerodynamisist]

Any more information available ? I know the aircraft but I'm not sure if JM owns it any more, he doesn't fit into that age bracket from the news reports and it would be unusual for other pilots to fly his aircraft.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Failing #1 - brakes off, on the pre-aerobatic check caused most, but not all the stall/spin losses in AU for the Chipmunk.
Sad to hear another is reduced to components, there is only a finite supply.
Tootle pip!!

[roundsounds]

TV footage of the aircraft certainly looks like it had very little forward speed. With reference to spin recovery the most comprehensive document on chipmunk spinning is TNS (Technical News Sheet - English version of AD) #142 issued by De Havilland. I issued a copy to all pilots when I checked them out in a Chippy - Having operated 3 of them during the 1990s in a flying school. The TNS was written following a number of Australian Chippys spinning in during the late 1950s. VH-RSV and another chippy were tufted, fitted with spin recovery parachutes and spun many times by test pilots. The results revealed the wide chord rudder and anti spin strakes had an insignificant effect on recovery. There is a marked increase in stick forces during recovery as it is moved toward the forward stop, if you don't push through this region the aircraft will not recover. You also need to have the ailerons neutral or some pro-spin aileron during recovery, the engine at idle and as leadsled says make sure the Johnson bar (brake lever which allows differential braking during rudder application and acts as a park brake) is full forward to allow full rudder travel. The Chippy spins nicely, will continue to spin if you release the controls. It will recover, but you must use the correct recovery technique, be patient and have height! They are relatively flat when stabilised in the spin and the rate of rotation increases initially during recovery and may continue for a few turns from the time recovery is initiated until rotation stops. The Chipmunk is an excellent aeroplane!!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Interestingly, the Chipmunks I learned to fly on in UK did not have the strakes, there was no history of problems with spin recovery.
Nor did my original VH- registered Chipmunk, in the mid-1960s.
What is the history of retro-fitting the strakes and the wide chord rudder??
Tootle pip!!

[Simplythebeast]

I recall when I was an Apprentice at RAF Halton a chipmunk flying an air experience flight failed to recover from a spin and the pilot was killed in the accident, the apprentice died some time later. the incident occured in 1972 and is recorded here......
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=20364

[Dora-9]

Roundsounds - an excellent post, thank you!

Leady:

The broad-chord rudder was introduced in 1952, probably started being retro-fitted to the RAF fleet in 1954-1955, In the preamble to this modification, it states that the intention is to reduce foot loads during protracted climbs, and to enhance rudder authority during crosswind takeoffs & landings, and during aerobatices. It does NOT state that it had anything to do with improving spin entry or recovery (a common Chipmunk myth)! My experience, for what it's worth, of flying both is that the reduced authrority of the narrow chord rudder is perceptible (but then I was alerted to/looking for this), while they both are identical in entering and recovering from a spin.

The spin recovery strakes appeared in 1958, allegedly a "political fix" to cure a perceived problem. Certainly the exhaustive DCA report into spinning (referred to by Roundsounds) was very dismissive of their effectiveness, and the entire idea was also completely ignored by the RCAF when specifying their Chipmunk T.30's (the last production Chipmunks).

I'm not sure if I quite agree with Roundsounds' assertion that a Chipmunk will recover from a spin by simply letting go of the controls - from the often mistaken for a spin spiral dive yes, from a fully developed spin, I think not.

Another factor contributing to the failure to recover is that some Chipmunks certainly "wind up" the spin when anti spin inputs are initially applied. This actually is an indication that the inputs are working, but in the confusion/stress of the moment it may cause some pilots to reduce the inputs.

Regarding the failure to apply full forward stick when necessary, to ensure that students overcame the greatly increased forces and actually reached the forward limit, some aero clubs painted witness marks on the stick/floor pan, and students were instructed to check the alignment during recovery.

But it is a lovely perfectly safe aeroplane, if handled correctly.

[TBM-Legend]

I wonder if they were wearing helmets. It is a good idea in confined canopy aircraft.

[rjtjrt]

This is turning into a spinning thread, and we should still acknowledge we do not know what caused this accident.
With regard to spin recovery of today's Chipmunks, what is the effect of the removal of the old STRX (?spelling) radio and consequent rearward movement of CofG, on spin recovery of current Chipmunk, especially with a passenger? It is now very easy to exceed rear CofG limit with a passenger (yes - we should check balance each time before flight).
Apparently there is a TNS addressing the rear CofG movement after removal of the original radio.

[Dora-9]

Trying NOT to turn this into a Chipmunk spinning thread!

I'm simply answering points already made.

rjtjrt:

I absolutely agree, currently we can only surmise as to the cause of the VH-UPD accident. I hope nothing I've posted, nor am about to post, detracts from that position - at the moment we simply don't know. Like you, I'm anxious to learn more about this.


Roundsounds:

PM sent

Leadsled:

On re-reading yours, I haven't quite answered your query regarding the history of the strakes/broad-chord rudder. Despite being developed & tested over 1951, with the relevant Modification issued in 1952, DH produced virtually all Chipmunks with the narrow-chord rudder, then constructed the replacement item which were slowly retro-fitted to the RAF fleet (an nice little "double-dip" into the UK taxpayers' pockets perhaps?). By now however the RAF's Reserve Command had been disbanded and a large number of Chipmunks were already in storage pending disposal. Understandably, these stored aircraft were not modified; a significant proportion were subsequently exported to Australia. With any Chipmunk gathering, it's possible to see all four tail configurations; no strakes/narrow rudder, strakes/narrow rudder, no strakes/broad rudder & strakes/broad rudder.

Respectfully and seriously, would you like to expand on this please?


Failing #1 - brakes off, on the pre-aerobatic check caused most, but not all the stall/spin losses in AU for the Chipmunk. A few years ago, I did attempt to analyze Australian Chipmunk spinning accidents; the Register has 6 Chipmunks accidents where the dreaded word "spinning" appears. Contacting ATSB I found that they haven't retained any Chipmunk accident files; some (only about 20%) are with the NAA, a few are with State Libraries - the majority have simply disappeared. There are also the old DCA Quarterly Accident Reviews plus I have some newspaper clippings. As an aside, given the considerable discussion about the abysmal standards of journalism recently, it's worth noting that the press were getting it totally wrong back then, too! So my baseline is short and incomplete, but nowhere have I come across the implication that an aircraft crashed because partial brake was selected. Aft CofG was implied in the VH-MOR accident, while the coin-stuck-in-the control-column-housing was blamed for the infamous VH-FTA accident. The remainder were basically attributed to "incorrect recovery technique".

I don't doubt that the brake being left partially on caused some of the early RAF accidents; indeed when I learnt to fly in 1961 ensuring that the handle was off was dinned into me repeatedly, but do you know of any here where this was the cause?

[VR-HFX]

Dora

You certainly know what you are talking about:D

I had the great privilege of learning some basic aerobatic skills in this wonderful aeroplane. The only disconcerting thing with the Chipmunk was the engine cut-off if you stayed inverted for more than a few seconds.

My dad used to call it the poor man's Wirraway. He trained many people on both.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Chipmunk will not recover from a developed spin without very positive and coordinated input. Full forward elevator is a must, especially if the CofG is at aft limits.

Great to see some really useful stuff being posted.

[roundsounds]

ATSB summary states:
Video footage taken by witnesses showed the aircraft established in a slow, upright spin. The on‑site evidence was consistent with the spin continuing until the impact with terrain.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-114.aspx

[rjtjrt]

Any further news on this accident?

[rjtjrt]

I am still impatient to find out the cause of this accident.
Wonder how far ATSB are from releasing the report?

[roundsounds]

Interesting read:

Investigation: AO-2014-114 - Collision with terrain involving DHC-1, 'Chipmunk' VH-UPD near Coffs Harbour, NSW on 29 June 2014 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-114.aspx)

I find it interesting the report does not mention the manufacturers TNS on Chipmunk spinning. TNSs (Technical News Sheet) are the manufacturer's version of a service bulletin / AD, the ATSB has quoted various articles written about spinning the DHC-1, but not the official one!
I believe TNS 142 should be a mandatory issue to all pilots flying the Chippy.

[Dora-9]

I find it interesting the report does not mention the manufacturers TNS on Chipmunk spinning.But it is there, Roundy! Appendix A is an extract from the Aviation Safety Digest No.22, which is the identical text to TNS 142.

I'm appalled to read though that some instructors were apparently teaching incorrect techniques.

[Fris B. Fairing]

Fabric covered wings?

The Chipmunk was designed for ab initio military flight training. It is a two-seat, low-wing, singleengine aircraft with a mainly light aluminium alloy sheet airframe and fabric covered wings and control surfaces. The aircraft was powered by a de Havilland Gipsy Major 10 Mk 2 fourcylinder piston engine driving a two-blade wooden Hoffman H0.21198B/140L fixed-pitch propeller.

[Dora-9]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here - metal "D" section leading edges, otherwise the wings aft of the mainspar and all flight controls are fabric covered.

[roundsounds]

But it is there, Roundy! Appendix A is an extract from the Aviation Safety Digest No.22, which is the identical text to TNS 142.

I'm appalled to read though that some instructors were apparently teaching incorrect techniques.

Yes, you and I know the text is the same but it appears the ATSB do not know of TNS142. A pretty important document relating to the investigation? I doubt they even know it exists?
I'm also appalled at the standard of instruction but not surprised. Ask the average flying instructor what they teach for spin recovery, most say apply opposite rudder and some form of elevator input. No mention of throttle or aileron input. They were likely taught and teach entry from a power off, wings level state of flight and don't understand how people inadvertently enter a spin. I would suspect high power and a fist full of aileron in an attempt to counter the roll during the spin entry - like this poor fellow flicking of the top of a loop or a stall in a climbing turn after takeoff or a beat-up.

[Fris B. Fairing]

Dora-9

I'm not sure what you're getting at here - metal "D" section leading edges, otherwise the wings aft of the mainspar and all flight controls are fabric covered.

Well you should know. I always thought the wings were metal skinned hence my question.

Rgds

[djpil]

I am also appalled at the standard of instruction but not surprisedTotally agreed.
Sat through a spin brief and questioned the recovery technique put to me. Went flying and he saw that what he said did not result in recovery. I asked him if he knew what the Flight Manual said on the subject ......... I sometimes have pilots come to me for a quiet chat about a spin which has scared them and I ask what recovery technique then I comment that they were lucky ... read the Flight Manual.
Didn't we just have the same discussion in another thread.

[Dora-9]

Fris B. Fairing:

Just to complicate the issue there is actually one Australian Chipmunk with metal-skinned wings and flight controls (and wing lockers too).

[Fris B. Fairing]

Dora-9

I suspect there might be another one. I'll have to check.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Rgds

[tail wheel]

Fris, I would have asked the same question but look under the Starboard wing in Dora-9's photo........

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/Blithering/VH-UPD-at-Tocumwal-NSW-19_zps65e5cc8a.jpg

£4/10/- an hour when I learned to fly ........... :ok: Sadly the aero club sold their two for a reputed £800!

[Dora-9]

£4/10/- an hour when I learned to flWe're showing our age here, Tailwheel!

Here's a 2003 photo of the ill-fated UPD at Coffs Harbour (I think the accident site is in the line of trees in the RH background), note all the grey areas of the wing are fabric covered:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/Blithering/VH-UPD-Coffs-Harbour-27-9-2_zps7b4l713x.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/Blithering/media/VH-UPD-Coffs-Harbour-27-9-2_zps7b4l713x.jpg.html)

[Dora-9]

It would seem that ATSB are posting out hard copies of this report to (at least) Chipmunk owners - mine arrived in the mail yesterday.

Given that everyone seems always ready to bag ATSB, I think it's impressive thinking to ensure that this report receives the widespread attention that it surely deserves.

The attached "The Chipmunk Spin - The Facts" article (from Aviation Safety Digest No.22) is also included, unlike what was on the ATSB website this time it's large enough to be easily read. It should be required reading for all Chipmunk pilots or those intending to fly one. To his credit, Roundsounds ensures his students read this.

Lastly, on another thread Sheppey posted this:

aircraft owners should be particularly interested because of the need to always ensure aircraft flight manual documentation is valid and up to date. Perhaps missing the point here, the major significance is that at least two instructors (and they were from a school that had another Chipmunk "on strength") weren't teaching (or perhaps didn't even know) the correct technique for Chipmunk spin recovery.

[roundsounds]

Dora - Perhaps missing the point here, the major significance is that at least two instructors (and they were from a school that had another Chipmunk "on strength") weren't teaching (or perhaps didn't even know) the correct technique for Chipmunk spin recovery.

I'd go a step further, I'm not sure they know the correct spin recovery full stop.
Extract from MOS Schedule 2:
2.1
Elements and performance criteria
FAE-8.1 – Recover from spin
perform pre-manoeuvre checks;
enter and establish an upright spin;
identify upright spin and direction of yaw;
close throttle;
stop yaw;
unstall wing by reducing AOA;
recover to controlled flight;
recover within the number of turns normally required for upright spin recovery in the aircraft type, within the aircraft and height limitations.

Moving the control column to somewhere near / forward of neutral won't achieve "unstall wing by reducing AOA".

[Dora-9]

Moving the control column to somewhere near / forward of neutral won't achieve "unstable wing by reducing AOAI'm with you Roundsounds (again)!

Given that they operated their own Chipmunk and the demonstrably poor knowledge and deficiencies in the techniques being taught, it seems that a Chipmunk spinning accident was only a matter of time, wouldn't you agree?

The school is named (peripherally) in the report.

[roundsounds]

-
I'm not sure if I quite agree with Roundsounds' assertion that a Chipmunk will recover from a spin by simply letting go of the controls - from the often mistaken for a spin spiral dive yes, from a fully developed spin, I think not.

.

Sorry, poorly worded statement. I was trying to say the Chippy will happily continue to spin hands off all the way to the ground. However, it will always recover, but you must use the correct technique. The hands off, stomp on the nearest rudder pedal “party trick” method being taught by some experts might be ok in a Robin but it won’t work in a Chippy!

[Dora-9]

At the risk of the dreaded thread-drift, has anyone any information about the recent VH-RSM accident at Luskintyre? From what little I've gleaned, it sounds like another emminently avoidable Chipmunk accident.

[Ultralights]

i heard it was ENFATO, landed straight ahead, ran through a fence.

[LeadSled]

I don't doubt that the brake being left partially on caused some of the early RAF accidents; indeed when I learnt to fly in 1961 ensuring that the handle was off was dinned into me repeatedly,

My experience in the UK, exactly, as was applying recovery control to the control stops. "Brakes Off" was number one item of the pre-aerobatic check.

My memory tells me that, in at least two of the Australian losses, the brakes were found in the "taxi" position, two/three notches on.

Tootle pip!!

[roundsounds]

My experience in the UK, exactly, as was applying recovery control to the control stops. "Brakes Off" was number one item of the pre-aerobatic check.

My memory tells me that, in at least two of the Australian losses, the brakes were found in the "taxi" position, two/three notches on.

Tootle pip!!

It was drummed into me as part of the pre manoeuvre checks to ensure the park brake was released / fully forward. If it’s latched part way on, it will restrict rudder travel. I too recall at least one accident in South Aus of the brakes contributing to the aircraft spinning into the ground.

[LeadSled]

Rounsounds,
To this day, in Australia, I still find the failure to RTFM very common, and what really gets me is when CASA FOIs issue direction not in conformity with the POH/AFM -- some of them just plain dangerous.
So it is not surprising that industry respect for and adherence to manufacturer's SOPs is often conspicuous by its absence.
Tootle pip!!

[djpil]

...... you must use the correct technique. The hands off, stomp on the nearest rudder pedal “party trick” method being taught by some experts might be ok in a Robin but it won’t work in a Chippy!I've had some discussions and arguments with some of those particular experts:
- disappointing that they don't bother to read the book by Gene Beggs with many of the limitations of that technique
- one expert criticised me for claiming that there were some spin modes for the Decathlon where it would not work (also mentioned by Beggs) and, of course, he had never tried it in a Decathlon himself
- one expert learnt the hard way when one of his students discovered that indeed it does not always work

I show that ATSB Chipmunk spin report to all of my instructor trainees. Disappointing that the ATSB treated the problem as being peculiar to just a few instructors at one flying school at the time however, as LeadSled suggests, the problem is quite widespread and systemic. I encounter too many instructors who ignore the bold text in roundsounds' Feb 2016 post; too many who don't bother to read the AFM.

PS: still waiting for CASA to rewrite CAAP 155-1, Aerobatics, after Part 61.