Firefly accident in North Yorkshire.

[timmcat]

BBC reporting two casualties in an accident near Castle Howard, North Yorkshire this morning. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36176991

[Aerial Camera]

Reliably informed its a Firefly, but not confirmed.

[tezzer]

Very sad. My daughter and I both did lessons out of the home field, RIP.

[ak7274]

Relatives were at the home airfield at the time.
Dreadful time for everyone there.

[anderow]

Sad news. Does anyone have any facts on what happened?

[GipsyMagpie]

It seems to look sadly very similar to this:

G-BUUD crash (https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5422ea79e5274a1314000009/Slingsby_T67M-MkII_Firefly__G-BUUD_10-07.pdf)

Terribly bad form from Telegraph to show the reg.

Condolences to the family

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

A very sad day indeed, too close to home for comfort.

[Jetscream 32]

RIP v sad news.....

As an experienced firefly owner / operator of both the 160 / 200 & M260 along with many of the other guys on the mil forum - it is always advisable to wear parachutes when performing any aerobatic manouevres, it is also critical to have a full brief and ensure the levels and hard deck for level flight are adhered to, then if it still goes wrong - get out, float about and walk back!

The Firefly is a very safe aircraft and very safe to aerobat, however it will NOT suffer fools or anyone using incorrect techniques.... depending on the weight of the two occupants and the fuel in the 160 and depending on what direction they entered will depend on what happened but looking at photos available full left rudder is still applied possibly meaning a spin the right - going to the right if the engine was at tickover then occasionally it stops, especially if cold / carb icing potential - no real dramas at all - sort out the spin recovery first.... and then re-start the fan.

if you don't get the stick all the way forward to the stop and hold it there..... then it ain't coming out.....

AAIB are well versed and WILL give all the details in time...

Very sad day for all involved for sure and not a great few days for aviation especially after the Norway heli rotor head separation.

Dance with the clouds guys!

[Mike Flynn]

All the detail is out there on sites such as the Daily Mail. North Yorkshire aircraft crash sees two casualties feared near Castle Howard | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3567029/Two-feared-dead-plane-crashes-field-North-Yorkshire.html)

Road fatalities are the same and it is one of the aspects of having the internet and mobile phones.

A very sad day for those involved.

[rolling20]

It is always advisable to wear parachutes when performing any aerobatic manouevres...Couldn't agree more. Having worn a chute in the Bulldog when their spinning recovery was being questioned, I was horrified when a later civilian instructor decided to spin a PA28 in a shirt and tie. I made my thoughts very apparent. RIP people.

[quattromatt]

AK7274 is it anyone I know? The train driver.

[ak7274]

No mate. No one you know.

As a member who was at the airfield at the time of the accident, I can categoricaly state that no one knows what happened. When the press tried to speak to me, I tried a diplomatic answer that didn't work, so as someone who was brought up in an environment where if hungry we ate our own young, resorted to stereotype and made my answer clearer.

[quattromatt]

I wouldn't expect anything less dude

[blue up]

if you don't get the stick all the way forward to the stop and hold it there..... then it ain't coming out.....

BTDT. Scared the living daylights out of me the first time that happened. Not enough seat padding to comfortably get full forwards and only an extra shove against the restraint of the straps got it to come out. FULL and free.

Not saying that this was the issue here but I did learn a valuable lesson from this aircraft type.

[akaSylvia]

Crash plane had been "hired for aerobatics" (From York Press) (http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/14464713.Crash_plane_had_been__hired_for_aerobatics_/)

TWO men who were killed when their plane crashed near Castle Howard had planned to do some aerobatics, it is believed.

The pilot and a passenger of a yellow light aircraft died when it crashed in a field between Welburn and Bulmer at 10.40am on Saturday.

A Slingsby T67 Firefly, the plane was a two-seater built locally at Kirkbymoorside, and at least one report suggested it could have been attempting to make a crash landing.

The names of the dead have still to be released, but both were experienced flyers who had chartered the aircraft from the Full Sutton Flying Centre near York.

A spokesman at the centre said the two men had been planning to do a local flight and a “bit of aerobatics” – something the aircraft was designed to do.


And more here: Pair killed in Yorkshire light aircraft crash thought to be RAF pilots | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/01/pair-killed-yorkshire-light-aircraft-crash-raf-pilots-castle-howard)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I don't know the Firefly, but the Chipmunk is mandated to carry a palcarded warning that 'spin recovery may require full forward stick'. And sometimes it does.

[Dr Jekyll]

Having worn a chute in the Bulldog when their spinning recovery was being questioned, I was horrified when a later civilian instructor decided to spin a PA28 in a shirt and tie.

Was it the lack of chute or the PA28 that was the problem? It's difficult enough to get out of a stationary PA28 on the ground so I don't see many people would bother with a parachute.

[Cows getting bigger]

I don't (intentionally) spin an aircraft without wearing a parachute. That was after being given a bit of advice from the boss of ETPS some years back.

[TopBunk]

Very sad. Heartfelt commiserations to all involved.

If I read the registration correctly, I flew it back in 1988-89 when it was with Trent Air Services at Cranfield.

RIP

[fireflybob]

No comment on this accident as we don't know the facts until AIB has reported.

Done loads of spinning in the firefly (and other types) and recovery never a problem so long as the correct recovery procedure is followed and the aircraft is within CG and weight limits and fuel is balanced.

"Move the control column (centrally) forward until the rotation ceases".

If you only move the control column to a central position the a/c will go high rotational but if you then continue with forward column movement (if necessary to the forward stop) the aircraft will always recover.

The rate of rotation increases due to conservation of angular momentum - as the a/c starts to spin in a smaller radius the rotation rate increases to maintain momentum. Assuming you are following the correct recovery procedure this is an indication that the a/c is in the process of recovering.

[rolling20]

Dr Jekyll, it wasn't planned. He just decided to spin it, all I kept thinking was get ready to jettison , release harness, then I realised that wasn't going to happen. It was all over fairly quickly.

[snapper1]

WTF have spinning or Pipers got to do with this tragedy? Get a grip and show some respect.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

WTF have spinning or Pipers got to do with this tragedy? Get a grip and show some respect.

I know at least one of the characters on this Thread - and believe me he will have the greatest of respect for the people involved and for what has happened.

It's incomprehensible to imagine the situation at the 'home' airfield that day.

Any discussion relating to flight safety is never out of place - and spinning, whether applicable to this case or not, is well worth considering.

I used to spin every glider and light aircraft I flew (if it was so cleared) until I spun the PA38, had an engine cut on me, and decided I was too old for that s**t!

There was a reason why spinning was deemed too dangerous to be included in the PPL(A) syllabus and I learned from personal experience why that was the case.

Those of us who are pilots understand the situation here and please don't for one minute imagine we don't sympathise with all concerned. It's just how pilots are and how they deal with these tragedies ...

[Mike Flynn]

I have to agree with you spanner.

The PA38 Tomahawk nearly stopped me flying during the mandatory spin part of the ppl 36 years ago.

The Slingsby has a bad record for killing pilots.

[rolling20]

snapper1,in all my years on pprune you are the first person to have sworn on forum, congratulations!

[parkfell]

The deceased have now been named as two RAF students.

[maxred]

They pair have been named, both RAF students, aged 21. and 25. Very sad

Ryedale light aircraft crash: RAF student pilots named - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36188336)

[Mike Flynn]

Very sad.

My son is a UK military officer and I would never want him to fly in a Slingsby.

They have taken too many lives.

[oscarisapc]

What have spinning or Pipers got to do with this tragedy? Get a grip and show some respect. Anyone who works with the bereaved and the dying knows that the one thing they absolutely hate is people going round with long faces and hushed voices, avoiding mentioning the d- word. Having respect for these unfortunate young men, neither of whom I know but am as sorry as anyone to learn of their demise, does not mean avoiding discussion about their deaths. Whilst it is fresh in our minds, speculation on a pilots’ rumour network about how a crash may have happened is absolutely appropriate. The most likely scenario for an airframe to arrive in such a state is from a low forward velocity and a high downward one – i.e. in a spin , and I am also aware that Fireflys have form in this regard. So let’s continue to have respectful speculation about the crash whilst it is still high in our consciousness and someone may learn something useful from this tragedy that will one day save their own lives.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Very sad.

My son is a UK military officer and I would never want him to fly in a Slingsby.

They have taken too many lives.
The military spec M200 and M260 aircraft have an excellent safety record.

Virtually all of the fatalities - and yes, there have been a significant number - have been in the smaller engined civilian models.

I don't think that the aeroplane is a death trap, but nor do I understand why civilian clubs routinely aerobat T67s without parachutes. Mind you, I would rather not aerobat anything without a parachute or equivalent safety device, regardless of what it was.

G

[BEagle]

The only variant of the T67 which I've spun is the T67A. It was critical to ensure that the weight limits were strictly observed and we had to be VERY careful when refuelling the aircraft to ensure that the actual weight of the crew was taken into account.

The T67A fuel tank is well forward, so with a chubby student the maximum fuel load was quite low and the CG was correspondingly aft, which made the spin less pleasant, but still entirely predictable. I never doubted that the aircraft would recover using the correct technique. Later versions of the aircraft have totally different limitations, but there is no reason to doubt that the spin recovery would be anything but predictable if carried out in accordance with the POH technique

However, some versions of the T67 do seem to have had rudder control restriction issues, hence ADs were raised to ensure that the rudder pedals weren't obstructed in any way. Of course the normal taxying check should be sufficient to ensure that full and free rudder movement is available - does everyone still do that though? I hope so..

Currently, there is no requirement for a PPL holder to hold an aerobatic rating in order to conduct aeros on the T67. But proper training is very firmly recommended - and will become mandatory after Apr 2018.

As with the G-BLTV accident, I suspect that the cause of this sad accident will never be established beyond all reasonable doubt.

[Mike Flynn]

Worth looking at the wiki page before forming an opinion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingsby_T67_Firefly

[Genghis the Engineer]

I would be cautious of any public information about the USAF track record. It's rather more complex than is portrayed, particularly by the residue of the pressure groups who successfully campaigned for those aircraft to be destroyed. (Or those who disagree with their position, who can also be less than balanced in their accounts.)

Wikipedia is also basically the document last amended by whoever chose to amend it. Mostly it's very good, but it may sometimes be biased or misleading.

G

[Jetscream 32]

Jay Sata,

I was the person that facilitated the sale of the majority of the T67's 160/200/260 from Babcock (military to civilian including BONSO) on behalf of Lombard and took along G-ZEIN to Cambridge to ensure prospective owners were not offered the ability to bid on aircraft they had not flown.....we sold (26) aircraft that weekend - many will remember......... The T67 of all variants are safe - its typically the crew that might occasionally forget an item from either pre-departure or in flight memory action......

Woe betide anyone aerobating the T67 that feels they can ignore what the POH procedures - heights, recovery, weights, equipment or any other element that played a part or briefed...

Re USA and anything from Wiki - you really need to see where Hondo is and the DENSITY altitude of that airport and area are and the height that the manoeuvres where entered and the full reports...

I do not work for Slingsby or ever have but I started life as a glider cadet, instructor and worked my up plus served in the military. Like Alan Wade and many others I have a substantial time on the T67 all variants - The T67 is not an aircraft that is docile or forgiving in the sense that you can be lazy and not operate it as per the POH - thats why the military bought it - it teaches you lessons and will bite you if you are lazy - if you're son is taught as per the POH it will be a pussycat - it will not throw surprises, the military will never teach you to "kick the tyres and light the fires" in any situation which is why we rarely have accidents of this nature.... Plan, Brief, Demonstrate, Execute, De-brief and then do again as required if required. We also ensure currency in all aspects of the flight envelope especially high energy manoeuvres or aerobatics. The T67 is not a C152 Aerobat which is why the C152 aerobat was never used as military EFT aircraft.

Please remember flying itself is not inherently dangerous, but to an even greater degree than the sea, it is, however terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.

I know BONSO as she was affectionally known.... please don't bash the T67 - and I openly offer anyone that has fears of the T67 to come and fly her with me or any of the military instructors....

The fact remains 2 young souls were lost and may they rest in peace....... Sincere condolences to all involved both family and at home airfield....

Oh! they have slipped the surly bonds of earth,
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward they've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds, --and done a hundred things
you have not dreamed of --Wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there
They've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
they're eager craft through footless halls of air...
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
they've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark or even eagle flew --
And, while with silent lifting mind they've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

[RatherBeFlying]

Modern single seat gliders mandate chutes.

In a CG critical situation having the occupant(s) that extra 2-3" forward may be what keeps you within limits.

That extra 2-3" may be what's needed to get the stick to the forward stop.

One small pilot I know had to loosen his straps to recover from a spin.

[dsc810]

This looks to me like some sort of mutual flying where neither pilots are instructors and it may be somewhere unclear exactly who is in control regardless of who is defined as PIC/P1.
One or indeed both would have had a civilian PPL to hire the a/c and presumably had checkouts/qualifications for the T67 to the hiring out club's satisfaction.
Both will be at the same standard of flying, aerobatics etc in the RAF.

In the gliding world this is regarded exactly the ingredients for an accident should an emergency occur- which is why mutual flying where both pilots are at the same level tends to be frowned upon and the instructor i/c the day's flying are reluctant to give approval for.
Less of a problem where one pilot has vastly more experience or say one is the owner of the aircraft.

[Genghis the Engineer]

dsc - whilst you aren't the only person to think in those terms, may I politely suggest that given the uncertainty of information right now, and that there will be bereaved families looking for information - that a public discussion along those lines right now isn't wise, nor courteous to the memories of the two young men who have just died. There's a time for that discussion, but not I'd venture, right now.

G

[ak7274]

The P1 at least had a Civilian PPL. He was checked out in Bonso. He trained for at least 60 hours on a Tutor(Grob 115).
I am a member of the Club and was there all day. Unfortunately there were family members there too and I for one am most grateful to "V" the off duty Copper who took on the duties of informing and caring for the family. Thanks mate.
There is no more to tell. Except I agree with airpolice and GTE.
BTW there is absolutely nothing wrong in mutual flying. The expert remarks made DSC810 are not made by an expert.

[Jetscream 32]

Hi DSC,

Mutual flying will be a moot point here I'm afraid, they would of both known it had gone pear shaped long before "terra firma" jumped up to grab them and open the pearly gates.... and I'm sure they would of both been crystal clear to each other as to actions and inputs to try and recover the situation.

The aircraft would only have entered an erect flat spin for one of two reasons, the first being intentional spinning that either they couldn't recover from due to weight and balance or incorrect recovery technique as well as insufficient height to recover from, or a high energy aerobatic manoeuvre that resulted in a flick to spin resulting in either disorientation of direction of spin rotation or again incorrect recovery technique, along with height to recover.

This is a terribly sad, bad flying accident with two young souls that were obviously keen enough to go and hire an aircraft whilst serving in the RAF undergoing flying training.. whatever they were doing and trying to do or practice, it went wrong and they paid the ultimate price... It was an accident and a terrible one... Lessons will come out for sure, but with no CVR or data recorder it will not be exact it will be approximate - either way we will all learn and adapt...

[Genghis the Engineer]

I don't believe that "we" even know if it was a spin.

G

[Camargue]

Am I missing something - ie I've not read anywhere that said what the aircraft was doing so where do we get it spun from??.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Exactly Camargue. There's some evidence in that direction, and a known historical issue with the type. But basically - we don't know, and people are jumping to conclusions here, and in numerous other places online. It was a tragic crash, it's being investigated. More information will follow from those whose job it is to develop that information.

G

[robrob]

It's being reported that the two pilots were planning on doing aerobatics. The crash site photos are textbook spin at impact. Notice how the engine is buried in the dirt in front of the aircraft.

https://robrobinette.com/images/T67_Slingsby_Firefly_Crash_2016.jpg

The Firefly is a very safe aircraft

I flew the T-3A at the Air Force Academy and was the flight safety officer during the first fatal accident. I also was a member of that first safety investigation.

The T-67/T-3A fleet has over a 10% hull loss--280 built, 28 fatal accidents, 35 killed and I know of at least two hull losses without injury.

Speaking of which, I would like to get details of a Hondo Texas T-3A (3rd Flying Training Squadron) landing accident that resulted in no injury but the aircraft was destroyed. It happened around 95 or 96. I believe the student was attempting a no-flap full stop but jerked the aircraft back into the air after touchdown. The civilian instructor took the controls but couldn't avoid the crash. It is not listed on the Aviation Safety Network list of T67/T-3 accidents (https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=RF6). There's some interesting reading in those reports. Any help would be appreciated.

Keep in mind that pretty much every one of the dead Firefly pilots thought it was a safe airplane until just before impact so don't tell me, "I fly the T67 and it's a safe airplane." It's not. It's statistics are shockingly bad. It's got to be right up there with the F-104 Starfighter.

From a UK Fatal Stall or Spin Accident summary (1980-2008) report (http://www.gremline.com/index_files/page0053.htm):
The accident rate for the Slingsby T67 was throughout the period much greater than any other certified type and has been treated as a special case.
The Slingsby T67, (8 fatal accidents) was excluded from the main numerical analysis but was studied as a special case. (See Appendix 2 of the full Report).

Here's my T-3 story: https://robrobinette.com/T-3A_Firefly.htm

Rob Robinette

[V_J]

RIP to the two chaps involved.

Bonso was a lovely aircraft always looked after with no expense spared (certainly in GA terms). It was always a great experience and flown from a brilliant little club. I did my PPL on that particular Firefly after switching my UAS/EFT hours into a civilian license and was very sad to hear the news.

I can't imagine what it was like there on the day - sounds like it was handled as well as could be.

[maxred]

Am I missing something - ie I've not read anywhere that said what the aircraft was doing so where do we get it spun from??.


It would appear from the fairly intact airframe, the fact that it would appear to have been a low forward motion, flat contact with the ground, with enough force to fatally injure the pilots, that it may have been a flat spin. It could of course have been something entirely different, but the more probable cause COULD be a flat spin. Or a loss of control at low altitude, resulting in a stall/spin. The AAIB will confirm when all the facts are known, and the investigation is complete. Until then, discussion focuses on a probable spin in. I think that is where people are getting the spin bit from.

[Jetscream 32]

From the photos plus my knowledge of the aircraft along with just about every T67 accident and its build, this picture is consistent with the de-lanimation of the wings assumed to be from the weight of the fuel in the tank at force loading on impact - based on little or no forward speed. Soon as the composite structure starts to fail or is weakened on a join then it will go fairly quickly as can be seen from the port wing which has failed at the tank slightly left of the B in the reg, the weight of the flaps and fuel in tank based on a high vertical impact is as you would expect to see.

For the sake of good order and out of respect to families and others affected i shall now silence on the subject. Apologies if my words have caused offence or upset.

[jacksummers]

Hi guys, new to this website and thread. I found it by googling details of the crash.

The passenger was my cousin and we were really close my whole life.

They had the inquest today and I just wanted to know if there was anywhere I could review any sort of official report or more details of the crash? Its so frustrating not having more of an idea of his last moments or what exactly they were doing up there.

I found a few articles published today but nothing that helped me much.

Thanks in advance and I hope its alright to post this here?

[Pilot DAR]

Welcome Jack,

It's perfectly alright to post here. Sorry about your cousin, I hope that the inquest, and other information will bring closure for you. Though I myself have no details about this accident, in time, the AAIB report will be made public, and it will be your best source of information. This could take more than a year. In the mean time, other posters here may point you in the direction of more detail on this sad event.

[tmmorris]

It should be said that the reason the AAIB take so long is they do a VERY thorough job, so the report, when you get it, should be as close as you can get to answering your questions. But there may be things they can't know without having been in that cockpit, bearing in mind light aircraft don't contain voice or flight data recorders.

Reports appear on the AAIB website, or, no doubt, someone will post a link here when it's published.

[Flyingmac]

The Coroner suggested that spin training in specific aircraft types is advisable due to different spin recovery techniques. Tucano-T67 for example.


Mr Oakley said: "Obviously they were endeavouring to get the aircraft under control but it didn’t have enough air to do so. There was no mechanical explanation for this it can only have been what must be termed pilot error."

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

It has now been a year since this tragedy. These two young men who had very promising careers ahead of them were taken far too soon, they will not be forgotten; I raise a glass in memory of Cameron and Ajvir.

Rest In Peace gentlemen.

[GipsyMagpie]

The report is our in the May 2017 (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-accident-monthly-bulletin-may-2017) bulletin.

It confirms the aircraft entered a spin from the exit from a loop and that it did not recover. The aircraft commander had all the right licences but had no chutes and had not had differences training on spin recovery for Firefly (different to Tutor and Tucano).

All pilots should learn a lesson or reinforce old knowledge from the loss of these 2 promising future combat aircrew. Get adequate training when changing type and always wear a parachute for aerobatics if available.

[India Four Two]

A very thorough report with very sobering conclusions.

The T67M's basic spin recovery technique looks like what I would call a "normal spin recovery technique", it's certainly similar to all spin recovery techniques on all aircraft I've flown.

However, what I found surprising was that the Tutor and Tucano had different but similar spin recovery techniques. Why is there a requirement to hold the stick central? Would moving the stick forward not work and if so why?

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Indeed it is a sobering read, and sad too that recovery may have been in progress but they just ran out of height. Regarding the question above from India Four Two, maybe ask in the military pages; I am sure there are ETPS guys who may be able to shed some light on reasons for Tutor and Tucano spin recovery being what it is.

My thoughts are with the families and friends.

[Dan Winterland]

The T67M's basic spin recovery technique looks like what I would call a "normal spin recovery technique", it's certainly similar to all spin recovery techniques on all aircraft I've flown.


Similar, but not the same. There is no 'standard spin recovery' for all aircraft as some people of this forum claim. They vary from type to type, some slightly - some massively. During WW2, the RAF used a standard recovery, but the introduction of the Chipmunk changed that after several fatal accidents and a type specific recovery was introduced - along with a design modification. And since then, every RAF type has had a specific spin recovery. I've flown 7 training types in the RAF as both student and instructor - all the spin recoveries had differences.

This tragic accident highlights that all recoveries are different, that you should know the recovery for your type and you should get spin training on type conversion if you intend to fly aerobatics.

[Pittsextra]

Total experience, hours on type what a sad waste.

[H Peacock]

The Tucano spin recovery was very predictable if completed iaw the taught technique (ht, Idle, opposite rudder, centralise CC, centralise rudder immediately spin stops). Two hands were invariably used during the spin to prevent the ailerons from 'snatching' and hence applying an unwanted roll input. Any in-spin roll input would cause the spin to become more oscillatory.

During recovery, if the CC was moved further forward than the approximate central position then a pronounced bunt would ensue as the rotation stops. As well as the negative g being uncomfortable, the rapid increase in IAS caught some people out.

[LOMCEVAK]

The reason for the Tucano having 'stick central' in the spin recovery is due to the fact that it has an inverted spin mode as well as the erect spin mode, and 'stick central' works for both. Therefore, the spin recovery is identical for an erect and an inverted spin and a pilot does not have to identify whether the spin is erect or inverted in order to effect a recovery.

The initial spin recovery procedure recommended by Shorts for the Tucano was 'Throttle closed, all controls central'. However, their spin testing was limited and it was discovered during the Release to Service trials that following a left erect spin that had been initiated with 30% torque or more when the power had been maintained for more than 2 turns, the spin would not stop with a centralised recovery. Therefore, the current recovery technique was devised that would work for all spins. The worst case that we flew was left, erect, full power for 4 turns, full right rudder, stick central, 4 more turns then select idle. It recovered satisfactorily which definitely proved recovery from the worst case scenario. Now that one was fun!!!!

[ShyTorque]

The reason for the Tucano having 'stick central' in the spin recovery is due to the fact that it has an inverted spin mode as well as the erect spin mode, and 'stick central' works for both. Therefore, the spin recovery is identical for an erect and an inverted spin and a pilot does not have to identify whether the spin is erect or inverted in order to effect a recovery.So can other, supposedly relatively benign aircraft. For example, the JP3 and the Cessna 150.

I saw the latter with an instructor (spin training was included in PPL training back then) and during entry to what was supposed to be a normal spin, the aircraft flicked, the prop stopped, and suddenly the ground was "up").

I also managed to get myself into an inverted spin during solo aerobatics on the JP3 BFTS course. I was lucky to come out of that, the last thing on my mind at the time was ejecting and after I recovered to a climb I realised I was well below minimum abandonment height.

The Chief Instructor at CFS at the time I was there (late 80s) wrote an interesting article in Airclues. He was current on either three or four different types of aircraft at the time, all with different recovery techniques (Hawk, JP, Bulldog, possibly Chipmunk). One day he was flying a VSO (the AOC, iirc) on a GH sortie in a Hawk. The VSO asked to see a spin. As the CI entered the spin, for a few very worrying seconds he realised he couldn't remember what recovery technique he should use for the type! The point of the article was to know what you're meant to do and if possible pre-brief your recovery actions.

[LOMCEVAK]

Shy Torque,

I have had a JP5 (no tip tanks) in an inadvertent inverted spin after attempting to enter an erect spin on an up vertical line for a spin from a manoeuvre. The Aircrew Manual said that the inverted spin recovery was to centralise the controls which I did. There was very severe aileron snatching that I could not contain but it did recover after about 5 secs. A bit of research revealed that no inverted spin trial had been flown on the JP5 and the recommended recovery actions were read across from a trial in a JP4 which had tip tanks and, therefore, different roll and yaw inertia characteristics as well as different spanwise airflow at the tips plus a different nose shape.

The Hawk T1 has an inverted spin mode during which the rudder overbalances fully in-spin, and if the rudder is not centralised within the first half turn then the rudder pedal force required to centralise the rudder for recovery is about 250 - 300 lbs and very difficult to apply; fortunately it is not prone to entering this mode.

The Tucano was the first UK military aircraft to be cleared for intentional inverted spinning since, I believe, the Vampire T11 (can anyone confirm this?) and that is why we were so keen to have a single spin recovery procedure for all spin modes.

[sycamore]

LOM, `intentional inverted spinning is prohibited` for the VampireT11,although if one enters one inadvertently,the recovery actions are given,requiring possibly `full back stick`.(PN.AL3-5, 1970.)

[ShyTorque]

I have had a JP5 (no tip tanks) in an inadvertent inverted spin after attempting to enter an erect spin on an up vertical line for a spin from a manoeuvre.Perhaps it's no coincidence that my inverted spin was induced via a very badly botched stall turn - in retrospect (from what I could remember happening) I managed to induce a flick manoeuvre on the way up by not getting the true vertical early enough and then trying to correct it using a lot of up elevator. As soon as I put on rudder, the aircraft auto-rotated. It fell out on its back and then spun inverted. I do remember recognising that it was inverted quite promptly (I had seen it before in the C150, as previously mentioned) and putting in some aft stick and full opposite rudder, when it came out after a few turns (no idea how many). We students had received no guidance on how to recover from an inverted spin.

I then found myself in an erect spin because I was slow getting the rudder and aft stick off and I think it reversed direction, too. I lost a lot of height. I flew straight and level for quite a while afterwards while I recovered my composure then went back to base!

[megan]

When I trained with the USN we started out on the T-34 (piston), and an inverted spin was a demonstration only exercise after we had about ten hours total in the logbook. Crewroom had a board recording the instructors who had reached the one thousand inverted spins. Didn't seem much different to the erect, other than being upside down of course.

[SFCC]

A read of the Beggs/Muller spin recovery technique would have done wonders for these unfortunate chaps. It works in ANY spin mode of ANY aircraft. Period.

So sad

Edited to add....maybe not swept wing....but this was a straight wing aeroplane

[Maoraigh1]

Googled Beggs-Mueller. It is said it doesn't work in ALL light, straight-wing aircraft.

[B2N2]

215 hours (of which 3 were on type)

I admit I just stumbled upon this thread but as a former ( civilian) instructor with 100's of spins in 4-5 SE types I don't like the looks of that.
Statistically in a "dead" zone of high accident probability experience wise and only 3 hrs on type.
That's too little to be doing aerobatics in that type.
Were aero's part of the checkout procedure? Verbal warnings about the stall/spin characteristics?
No offense intended but was the fact that he was an RAF cadet pilot enough?

[18greens]

A read of the Beggs/Muller spin recovery technique would have done wonders for these unfortunate chaps. It works in ANY spin mode of ANY aircraft. Period.

So sad

Edited to add....maybe not swept wing....but this was a straight wing aeroplane


From my experience of the Firefly and the Bulldog I don't think Beggs Muller would work. Both aircraft took full rudder and positive forward stick for a turn and a bit to come out of a developed spin. The technique worked great on a Pitts which popped out of most spins in a quarter turn. I stand to be corrected by a more knowledgable source , has any one tried bm in a firefly?

[India Four Two]

I haven't been keeping up with this thread for a while. Dan Winterland commented on a previous post of mine:
Similar, but not the same. There is no 'standard spin recovery' for all aircraft as some people of this forum claim. They vary from type to type, some slightly - some massively.

Dan,
I didn't make myself clear. The point I was making was that all the types I have spun (light SE or gliders) have a recovery technique that is some variation on "full-opposite rudder, pause, move the stick forward". I had never heard of type that required centralized stick during recovery.

It is tragic that these two pilots had only flown types that required this technique and that the PIC had not done any dual spins in the Firefly.

H PEACOCK and LOMCEVAK subsequently explained why that technique was required on the Tucano but I haven't seen any discussion on the reason for requiring it on the civil Tutor. Can anybody explain why?

[JammedStab]

I see that this aircraft also has the small rudder installation.

As a pilot who is quite experienced in flying various small aircraft but inexperienced in aerobatics and any recency for spins, I would recommend that anyone not very familiar with aerobatics avoid doing so in an aircraft unforgiving of errors.

I have a bit of Slingsby time and intend to get more but don't intend to get past doing stalls with an instructor in the machine as I know that I don't have the experience to accurately get things right every time in a disorienting situation.

[megan]

Folks have come to grief spinning the Chipmunk, and the aircraft has something of a reputation, though undeserved IMHO, just do it per the book and all is well. One cautionary tale.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5768080/ao-2014-114_final_report.pdf

Know your type seems to be the lesson to take away. ie a checkout by someone with the requisite experience, both in type and intended role - aerobatics, formation etc.

[JammedStab]

Folks have come to grief spinning the Chipmunk, and the aircraft has something of a reputation, though undeserved IMHO, just do it per the book and all is well.

Of course, what you say is likely true, but the reality is, at least for some of us is that when things start to happen, such as a spin, the brain is less likely to do things properly.

For example, seeing as you mentioned the Chipmunk. I used to give rides in Chipmunks. I think I was a reasonably safe pilot. On one of my last flights which was just a pleasure flight, I went flying with an experienced aerobatic pilot.

We decided to do some stalls which in each case led to a wing drop. No problem for recovery using an appropriate rudder input but....the aerobatic pilot wasn't happy with my inputting some aileron as well. I wasn't aware that I had done so. We all know that aileron input can make the roll in a stall worse and even lead to an unintentinal spin.

So we did several more stalls and all recoveries went well but each time, despite reviewing to keep the ailerons neutral, I always instictively made an aileron input. Perhaps if I was doing this all the time it would be different but I don't.

Conclusion: It is unlikely that if I do aerobatics that I will do them properly and exactly when the critical moments happen. So, for myself, why not just avoid such activities in aircraft that require exact, proper recoveries, because I know that I will likely make a mistake. No aeros for me in the Slingsby and I suppose the Chipmunk is the same. Only to be done in an aircraft foregiving of mistakes.

Guys like me are probably the ones crashing these unforgiving aircraft. I don't plan to be one of them.

[Trevorda]

Hello there,

I own and operate a T67M200 and I love it to bits. But being retired early, I have little income so have decided now to get a homebuilt with foldable wings to put in the garage rather than run a certified aircraft that needs a hangar. I put the aircraft up for sale and hit a problem..

The ability of google to bring together accident reports and scare people witless whilst they "skim" the headlines without reading them, is preventing anyone wanting to buy it - they google "Slingsby aircraft accidents" and then go no further, failing to differentiate that there are many models with very different capabilities.

The problem is that when it comes to accident reports, the devil is in the detail - you have to carefully read each accident report and then it becomes clear the multiple reasons there have been accidents. When you actually read the USAF accident reports for example, its is no wonder that the man in charge of the training school was "removed overnight" - but of course you cannot sue a officer in the air force, so of course you sue the manufacturer... they were flying a longer larger 260hp variant with and air conditioner under the cowl (dissipating heat) in the heat of texas (Hondo) taking off at high altitude and getting fuel vapour lock problems and then gaining altitude to practice spinning in an aircraft where the USAF wrote their own flight manual, NOT the one that was written by Slingsby with the special notes about spin recovery in it - NO it is NOT the same as a piper cub - hmmm.

The UK accidents each make sorry reading, with one being a case of pilot WITHOUT having completed his aerobatic training and NOT having been signed out for solo aerobatics, just deciding to do aerobatics to show off to friends - watch this ! . Even the accident where the most qualified pilot killed himself, he had practiced the aerobatic routine in a 260hp aircraft and when it would not start on the day of the airshow, hops in an aircraft with a 200hp engine and flies the routine in this aircraft instead for the FIRST TIME, then fails to recover from an inverted low-level manoeuvre during the display - what is it they say about never doing anything at low level you have not practiced at altitude (in the same aircraft type) ?

I think the failing of the Slingsby it is that it is a really easy aircraft to fly, much easier than the trainers I learnt on BUT it is a very capable aerobatic aircraft - not a snappy roller, but excellent all the same. This DOES NOT MEAN that flying aerobatics is easy and safe unless you are qualified and current. Now if you are interested in the Slingsby READ THE PART OF THE MANUAL ON SPIN RECOVERY - it is simple, safe and reliable BUT DIFFERENT to most aircraft. Most notably "if the stick is held forward whilst applying opposite rudder, the aircraft will remain in the spin" This is very important and warranted Slingsby issuing a special note to owners to pay attention to this. How many of the dead pilots read this and practiced it ?

SImilarly, I am now looking a buying a Europa aircraft and notice the many crosswind landing accidents - they are all in the Monowheel variant - now think about it - how tricky is it going to be to land a mono wheel aircraft in a crosswind that has sticking out OUTRIGGERS on each wing - very very tricky, whereas the tri-gear would be conventional. It does not put me off, I just know I need to have a tri-gear as my airfield is most often has a cross wind and I am not Houdini...

I really wish Slingsby had named the aircraft models differently, as they really are very different from each other - The T67M200 is SHORTER and LIGHTER and has a different C of G than the T67M260 and flies very differently meanwhile the 160hp model is much harder to fly aerobatics as it has WAY less power, but is still a nice aircraft.

Best wishes all
Regards
Trevor

[robrob]

Trevor, it's not just the big engined Fireflys that are having trouble. Have you seen this?

https://robrobinette.com/images/T67_AviationSafetyNet_Accidents_May_2016.jpg

The Firefly is now up to a total hull loss of 13% of the fleet.

[Trevorda]

Thanks Rob,

I have read every one recently when a potential buyer pointed this list out to me last week; there are lessons to take from each one, most of which have nothing to do with the aircraft type but clearly the fuel stoppage is focussed on the vapour lock confined to the large T67M260 with under cowl air conditioner, flown in hot and high conditions.

Example of not related to this aircraft specifically - the pilot having never flown the display in the different 200hp machine, just getting into one and flying it low level and crashing - darwin award.

I lost a friend in a Vampire Jet who did exactly that - someone was sick, so they offered to take their place and flew a routine not practiced at altitude and crashed - he was retired military with thousands of operational hours in props and jets including harriers plus huge aerobatic hours but fell foul of the golden rule... doin't do anything at low level you have not practiced at altitude (I guess except landing!) it will kill you .. and it did.

However, I do understand why myself and perhaps others are safe - I READ THE SLINGSBY FLIGHT MANUAL including the section on spin recovery which is simple and specific and NOT the same as other aircraft.
Then I went out and practiced what it said in the manual with an aerobatic instructor and it worked.
Since I am not a test pilot, I have no plans to get into a spin and try alternative methods of spin recovery ... would you ?
Clearly from reading the detail, that is what some people did, including a survivor who explained what they had done, still not understanding why the aircraft would not recover.

The USAF went one stage further with the T67M260 and even wrote their OWN flight manual thereby sealing their fate....

I went flying in the T67M200 yesterday and if I could afford to keep it indefinitely, I would not sell it, it is fabulous. It has full IFR panel, enough comfortable room for 2 side by side, will fly cross country further than my bladder will and I can roll about the skies doing loops and rolls like it is at a fairground on rails - ahhh - and I know how to avoid a spin, know how to recover a spin and know how not to botch a spin recovery - it is in the manual.

If you are interested - the key points for spin recovery are this - it says "a high rotation rate spin may occur if the correct procedure is not followed" - this is pretty dammed clear would you not say ? "particularly if the control column is moved forward, partially or fully BEFORE the application of full ani-spin rudder" - which is exactly what is known to have happened to one survivor and if you screw-up it even tells you the botched recovery er recovery ....

a. Check that FULL anti-spin rudder is applied
b. Move the control column FULLY AFT - then SLOWLY FORWARD until the spin stops.
c. Centralise the controls and recover to level flight (observing the G limitation)

I would add one more thing from reading the accident reports, although it should be obvious if you are learning aerobatics.

When pulling out of a dive, do it gently and make sure the rudders are central.

If the rudders are not central and you pull like buggery, you are executing a snap roll and guess what, it does a snap roll whilst pointing vertically down.
From the evidence, it looks like some people did exactly that.

The Slingsby is made of rust-free composite before the days of carbon fibre so it is HEAVY and from what I read, the 260hp version T67M200 spins very nose-low (the T67M200 does not from my experience)
This could be very scary if you have not practiced it and if the trainee panics and just yanks hard at the stick, they will do some more aerobatics pointing vertically down.

Today, I have decided that I will not sell my aircraft to anyone until they have have conducted a spin training session at my cost with my flight school A cat instructor and demonstrated not only that they can recover from a spin repeatedly, but that they know what is the incorrect spin recovery to avoid for this aircraft. I discussed this with the CFI there yesterday and unprompted he spelled out the CORRECT spin recovery for this aircraft and explained why. "most aircraft with the horizontal stabiliser placed low down relative to the rudder will suffer some blanking of the rudder in a spin. Keeping the stick back while applying opposite rudder ensures that the the rudder gets maximum airflow" yes he speaks like this. Interestingly, I have read that T tail aircraft suffer blanking by the fuselage in a spin - no controls will fix this - so are not certified for spinning for that reason like the DA20s that the USAF bought to replace the Slingsby.... here endeth the first lesson.

Best wishes
Regards
Trevor

[robrob]

a. Check that FULL anti-spin rudder is applied
b. Move the control column FULLY AFT - then SLOWLY FORWARD until the spin stops.
c. Centralise the controls and recover to level flight (observing the G limitation)


From the accident report:

‘3.7 ERECT SPIN RECOVERY
3.7.1 Standard Recovery Technique
a) Close the throttle.
b) Raise the flaps.
c) Check direction of spin on the turn co-ordinator.
d) Apply full rudder to oppose the indicated direction of turn.
e) Hold ailerons firmly neutral.
f) Move control column progressively forward until spin stops.
g) Centralise rudder.
h) Level the wings with aileron.
i) Recover from the dive.

Which recovery is the true Slingsby Flight Manual recovery? Did the accident board get it wrong?

Almost everyone that's ever flown a Firefly and not died will tell you it's a safe airplane that "always recovers" but there are a bunch of dead Firefly pilots that would disagree if given the chance.

Look at its safety record. Read the "UK Fatal Stall or Spin Accident Summary (1980-2008) report (http://www.gremline.com/index_files/page0053.htm)" and see how they singled out the Firefly due to its spin-crash record. Even a test pilot instructor was killed in one. The Firefly is right there with the knife-edge Pitts Special in mishap rate and should never be considered "safe".

[ahwalk01]

Having done LOC-I training in a Slingsby in the Netherlands I found it nice to fly, not that I did much of the heavy handling. The instructors were RNAF and LOC-I trained.

While this is a very specific use of the aircraft for a particular purpose, I witnessed no violent aircraft behaviour unless the Instructor was demonstrating it to me. Nevertheless each preflight included repeating the parachute mantra.

Slingsby T67M200 Firefly Aircraft at APS (http://apstraining.com/aircraftsimulator/airplanes-slingsby-t67m200-firefly/)

[CloudHound]

Robrob, out of context comparison.

The first procedure is non-standard (botched) spin recovery after pushing the stick forward before rudder.

The second is, as it says, the standard technique and accords with Trevorda.

[robrob]

Sorry, I missed the part about a botched spin recovery. We didn't have a botched spin recovery procedure and we didn't get any botched spin recovery training which is a crime when you're going to be teaching zero flight time cadets how to spin and recover a Firefly.

[Pittsextra]

Almost everyone that's ever flown a Firefly and not died will tell you it's a safe airplane that "always recovers" but there are a bunch of dead Firefly pilots that would disagree if given the chance.

Look at its safety record. Read the "UK Fatal Stall or Spin Accident Summary (1980-2008) report" and see how they singled out the Firefly due to its spin-crash record. Even a test pilot instructor was killed in one. The Firefly is right there with the knife-edge Pitts Special in mishap rate and should never be considered "safe".

a little bit of knowledge....

whilst the data is what it is how is it that the aircraft is used by new/novice/inexperienced aerobatic pilots without incident?

[robrob]

Luck.

Seriously, read the "UK Fatal Stall or Spin Accident Summary (1980-2008) report (http://www.gremline.com/index_files/page0053.htm)".

It's not a good idea to let low experience aerobatic pilots fly the Firefly without a really good spin checkout. Even then I wouldn't let a friend train in the Firefly.

[rotorfossil]

I flew a T67A. A different aircraft in many ways to the T67M’s but the same horizontal/vertical tail configuration and additional rear CofG traps for the unwary. It seemed to me that if the aircraft flicked into an incipient spin, the natural reaction was to unload, ie, stick forward. It was then counter intuitive to first move the stick back, apply full then stick forward again. I also suspect that some accidents arose from slow centring of the controls and going into an inverted spin.

[Pittsextra]

Luck.

Seriously, read the "UK Fatal Stall or Spin Accident Summary (1980-2008) report (http://www.gremline.com/index_files/page0053.htm)".

It's not a good idea to let low experience aerobatic pilots fly the Firefly without a really good spin checkout. Even then I wouldn't let a friend train in the Firefly.

Luck? The often Gary Player credited quote comes to mind about luck which you seem to realise with your own view on practice being a good idea. The pilots in the Yorkshire event sadly didn't seem to.

[robrob]

Pitts, the "Luck" response was in response to this question:

how is it that the aircraft is used by new/novice/inexperienced aerobatic pilots without incident?

This implies inadequate practice.

rotorfossil, I don't know if it's in the civilian Firefly flight manual but the USAF had a T-3A "Spin Prevent" procedure which did exactly as you said. We would do a normal spin entry (idle, nose up, full rudder) and when the spin began we would unload with forward stick and apply opposite spin rudder and stop the spin in less than one turn. If that didn't work we were to transition to the full up "Spin Recovery" procedure. It was extremely rare for the spin prevent procedure to not work--it never happened to me and I did hundreds of them.

[rotorfossil]

Robrob. Unfortunately I’ve thrown away my old T67A POH copy but I don’t remember it mentioned anything other than the standard full opposite rudder/move stick forward technique. Because of the long wings, I suspect that inadvertent outspin aileron might have have been another factor in delayed spin recovery.
The T67A was a nice aircraft for gentle aerobatics but it was frightenly easy to operate it outside the rear Cof G limits and I suspect that they often were. The low max AUW meant that the fuel load had to be limited for Aeros two up. As the fuel tank is forward of the cockpit this moved the cg aft. The cockpit seats were on rails so two 170 lb people with long legs really shifted the C of G back. In the end it was necessary to have a complex table of fuel load/ crew weights/ seat positions for the group members (not highlighted in the POH). The result was that I ( 190 lbs long legs) could fly with my wife (small light person) but nobody else in the group.

[tmmorris]

Some (most?) Fireflies (B, C, M) have fixed seat and moveable rudder pedals, perhaps for that reason?

[robrob]

The T-3A had fixed seats and adjustable rudder pedals.

As I mentioned earlier, when I measured the CG in a T-3A with full fuel, me and a large cadet + parachutes and canopy closed it was 2 inches rear of the limit. This was done without leveling the aircraft because our squadron didn't yet have the Firefly leveling tool but it was done on a known level hangar floor.

[AdLib]

robrob - do you recall the calculated CG position, W&B wise?

[robrob]

No, I don't remember the specific number but we came out right at 2 inches rear of the rear limit. If I recall correctly the firewall was the datum line.

It's possible this is one of the reasons the Air Force chopped up the T-3A fleet. They discovered the problem and didn't want to open the can of worms of trying to explain why we flew the aircraft for 3+ years with it out of specs.

[Runaway Gun]

One thing that concerns me with spinning, is the amount of people that tell me that they 'fell into' an inverted spin. Whilst indeed it is possible to do, I have personally witnessed many pilots telling me that is what happened to them, when it was actually only an incipient erect spin. They seem to think that just because the aircraft briefly rolled inverted, that it was therefore an inverted spin. If they then try to recover with backstick, then they are in for a shock.

Such confusion helps explain why some people fail to recover from various spins - they don't properly identify the type of spin they are in. An inverted spin has a negative G pitching moment (ie seat belts floating in front of your face), yaw in the direction of spin, and rolling in the opposite direction. That in itself can cause massive confusion.

Such a shame that the majority of pilots don't experience both types of spins, with an aerobatic instructor.

[rotorfossil]

Because of possible confusion between erect and inverted spinning, all aerobatic aircraft should have a turn and slip NOT a turn coordinator. Roll in the same direction as turn needle - erect spin, normal recovery action. Roll in opposition to turn needle - full rudder in opposition to turn needle, pause, stick back.

[sllessac]

I have operated T67M aircraft from 1996 to now. 160, 200 and 260
I competed in aerobatic competitions in firefly's. I have displayed firefly's
I have coached a large number of pilots to fly aerobatics in the firefly mainly for competition. Their experience varied from 100 hours ppl to 8000 hour ATPL.
Before solo flight they all were capably of

Entry to positive spin ( not a flicked entry) hold and count six turns and clean recovery
Entry to and recovery from power on flat spin
Recovery from to normal flight from power on departures initiated by me. This being a flick roll into high rotational spin on a number of lines, i.e. vertical, down 45 degree dive, climbing 45 degree line and top of the loop
Demonstrate precision competition spins of one, one and a quarter, and one and a half turn in either direction.
Fly a sportmen's (standard level) aerobatic program within an aerobatic performance zone ( kilometre square) staying within hight, G and speed limits

This takes time, a lot more time than the 5 hours plus "aerobatic rating" Not all the pilots manage to achieve the level, the ones that don't don't go solo. We have done north of 5000 hours aerobatics without incident.

The firefly is a wonderful training aeroplane. It teaches effects of controls in all phases of flight. Having mastered spinning the firefly a pilot will be in a much better position to recover any light aircraft from a spin. The firefly does not recovery from a spin if the stick is released and opposite rudder is applied (Beggs) It just changes the direction of rotation. The Pitts type is one of the few that recovers using that sort of technic.

.

[robrob]

That's very rigorous aerobatic training and what's needed in the Firefly.

[sllessac]

I train pilots on Extra aircraft as well and the same rules apply:O