Plane down Overbury, Tewkesbury. [Archive]

Mike Flynn

8th Jan 2018, 20:47

Latest: Two die in plane crash near Tewkesbury

Reported to be an Aeros aircraft based at Gloucester.

Two men have been confirmed dead after a light aircraft has crashed into a field near Tewkesbury this afternoon.

West Midlands Ambulance Services says a light aircraft came down at around 12.45pm today in a field near Overbury, Tewkesbury.

The two men were confirmed dead the scene and the ambulance service has said nothing could have been done to save them.

Gloucestershire Live has learned the aircraft came from a flight training company based at Gloucestershire Airport and was travelling back to the county when it came down.

There is thick fog in the area and eye-witnesses have said the plane hit a tree.

Gloucestershire Airport has described the plane crash as a “tragic accident.”

Darren Lewington, operations director at the airport, said: “West Midlands Ambulance Service has sadly confirmed that two people were killed when the light aircraft they were flying in crashed at Overbury, near Tewkesbury this afternoon.

“Our air traffic control staff raised the alarm when contact was lost with the aircraft, which was inbound to the Airport at around 1240. We are assisting the police and Air Accident Investigation Branch with their investigations. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of all those affected by this tragic accident.”

Latest: Two die in plane crash near Tewkesbury - Gloucestershire Live (http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/two-dead-fatal-plane-crash-1027480)

Mike Flynn

8th Jan 2018, 22:07

Reports of thick fog at the time.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTBhhnbWAAUtcJv?format=jpg

Deltasierra010

9th Jan 2018, 06:12

Very low cloud around midday with light drizzle, the gap between Breedon and the Cotswold ridge with low hills in between would have been very tricky in VFR, if it was an instrument flight there was a big navigation error. With high ground to the east Staverton is an airfield where navigation must be spot on.

BigEndBob

9th Jan 2018, 07:32

Isn't Breddon hill one of only two hills in the country with a light on it, because locals got fed up of the RAF flying into it from Pershore.

Duchess_Driver

9th Jan 2018, 07:51

if it was an instrument flight there was a big navigation error. With high ground to the

Sorry, but where is your evidence to back up that statement? Beacon to beacon or beacon to point or beacon to range/radial are valid IFR navigation techniques. Admittedly these chaps or chapesses were in the wrong place at the wrong time when some LOC/UA/technical event occured but it remains to be seen whether they were playing by the rules or not.

piperboy84

9th Jan 2018, 08:37

Anyone know the type of aircraft?

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

9th Jan 2018, 10:46

A sad event. Aircraft was a PA28 @piperboy84.
Plenty of images appearing online in previously linked sites along with registration.

Rest In Peace Gentlemen.

F4TCT

9th Jan 2018, 12:08

A very sad day for me having learnt the loss of my good friend and instructor.

I'm absolutely devastated to say the least.

Blue Skies.

Mike Flynn

9th Jan 2018, 12:42

The press were allowed to photograph the crash site today.

https://i.imgur.com/6i5UoG4.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/fu8z35Q.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/olWLIvI.jpg

piperboy84

9th Jan 2018, 15:26

Poor folks, its taken some violence to twist that engine around and take off the wing. Is the accident site situated along the approach route for the destination airport instrument procedure?

Whopity

9th Jan 2018, 16:39

Is the accident site situated along the approach route for the destination airport instrument procedure? No, its on the side of the isolated hill in the Severn valley

direct ortac

9th Jan 2018, 16:39

Poor folks, its taken some violence to twist that engine around and take off the wing. Is the accident site situated along the approach route for the destination airport instrument procedure?

The North east arrival route is about 5km to the ESE. I will get the chart. Altitude at the IAF is 2400 feet.

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-2DE17FFD25AF2E6F0E311D65F9F1DCB5/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGBJ_8-4_en_2013-03-07.pdf

Dan_Brown

9th Jan 2018, 20:05

Mike Flynn

10th Jan 2018, 00:48

I've seen aircraft in worse state than pictured and people have walked away. It is the vertical G that does most of the damage to us mortals.

If it were horizontal G i think this accident could have been survivable. IMHO.

The damage looks more severe in this picture. Both wings ripped off.

https://i.imgur.com/qd3fftj.jpg

This from an earlier report.

Air traffic control at Gloucestershire Airport lost contact with the plane at around 12:40pm.

There was a lot of fog in the area, and eyewitnesses said the plane had hit a tree.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

10th Jan 2018, 09:20

Not much sign of vertical impact there (such as from a high rate of decent, as in a spin). One would expect the wings to be attached and a flattening of the fuselage. If it's come through a substantial tree in forward flight before hitting the ground that would explain both wings detached as well as the severe damage generally. While the fuselage is not too distorted it has obviously taken a lot of impact damage.

Mike Flynn

10th Jan 2018, 09:38

Another Aero's Warrior,G-OOMA, was at 3600ft in the area shortly before the accident.
https://i.imgur.com/7PAOXYV.jpg I imagine they will supply valuable information regarding the localised weather at the time.

ralphos

10th Jan 2018, 22:58

How on earth could they have been be so low in such conditions? Engine failure? Earlier today I read somewhere that the witness did hear the engine noise.

Arfur Dent

10th Jan 2018, 23:43

All sorts of hostile influences at play here. Icing, disorientation, spacial confusion and some loss of control placing them at a height that is not even close to MSA. Awfully sad.
Too many of these GA fatalities recently.
RIP

Deltasierra010

11th Jan 2018, 06:20

The flying conditions were not VFR but the flight was perfectly feasible on instruments and other aircraft were in the area at 3000 ft plus. There have been no reports of any mayday calls which suggests a sudden event rather than a developing problem, the experienced instructor would have been very familiar with the area, as ATC was tracking them they will provide the answer. If they were attempting VFR, why !.
Very sad .

tmmorris

11th Jan 2018, 17:15

Were other aircraft VMC at 3000 on top, or IMC? Icing does seem a possibility given the temperatures.

Propeller tips curled over which does look like it was turning.

RAT 5

12th Jan 2018, 06:39

360BakTrak

12th Jan 2018, 07:18

There's no mention of the intended flight path/route. I assume they took off from Glos', but am curious about the 180 before the crash. Would they have 'booked out'? As a local instructor I would expect them to do so. What were they attempting?

If you're referring to the FR24 screenshot above, it's a different aircraft/different flight, but similar area.

Mike Flynn

12th Jan 2018, 07:35

I posted the screenshot of G-OOMA because it was in the same area shortly before the accident. It had departed Gloucester and appeared to be heading back there before turning towards Coventry.

Its ADS-B track only appeared when it climbed near the accident site and as you can see disappears before landing.

I understand both aircraft were operated by Aero's.

This sad mishap appears to be weather or engine related.

Whopity

12th Jan 2018, 08:48

Yet another sad CFIT event. Speculation and irrelevant aircraft tracks don't help.
The flying conditions were not VFR Conditions are VMC. VFR are Rules!
which suggests a sudden event rather than a developing problem CFIT usually is! Witnesses reported it flew into a tree.
the experienced instructor would have been very familiar with the areaFamiliarity does not help if you can't see.
as ATC was tracking them they will provide the answer.But ATC had lost contact with them at 1240!

Whilst you are waiting for more factual information you might like to read CAA Safety Sense Leaflet 23 (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20130121SSL23.pdf) Para 6 describes circumstances which match this accident perfectly. There was an almost identical event last January on the Chiltern Hills.

Mike Flynn

12th Jan 2018, 12:11

If you look at the screenshot of G-OOMA it was more or less overhead at 12.50 just 10 minutes after contact was lost with G-WAVS.

https://i.imgur.com/vKvrwVx.jpg

It appears to be on track for its base at Gloucester then turns 180 degrees and at 12.52 heads back towards Coventry.

https://i.imgur.com/gDoKfay.jpg

Is it safe to assume G-OOMA was at 3700ft VFR on top?

As I understand both aircraft operated by the same school and in the same area at the same time.
Coincidence or what?

The CAA Safety Sense leaflet 23 is worth reading many times during your flying career.

piperboy84

12th Jan 2018, 17:34

If it wasn’t an equipment issue I wonder if they were faced with the dilemma of either scud running lower and lower or climbing into the soup, and chose the former not knowing or forgetting about the one hill in an otherwise flat low level valley. You’d think with an instructor being on board climbing to get on top would have been the first choice and just roll the dice on not iceing up. Sad business all around.

Chronus

12th Jan 2018, 18:25

Were other aircraft VMC at 3000 on top, or IMC? Icing does seem a possibility given the temperatures.

Propeller tips curled over which does look like it was turning.

Hard to be certain, but to my view the first photo shows prop tips bent outwards, suggesting engine was producing power at impact.

maxred

12th Jan 2018, 21:36

PB scud running assumes some forward viz underneath the crap. From the photographs the fog looked dense with virtually zero forward viz. Obviously assumes conditions were similar at time of incident.

Deltasierra010

14th Jan 2018, 08:45

Yet another sad CFIT event. Speculation and irrelevant aircraft tracks don't help.
Conditions are VMC. VFR are Rules!
CFIT usually is! Witnesses reported it flew into a tree.
Familiarity does not help if you can't see.
But ATC had lost contact with them at 1240!

Whilst you are waiting for more factual information you might like to read CAA Safety Sense Leaflet 23 (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20130121SSL23.pdf) Para 6 describes circumstances which match this accident perfectly. There was an almost identical event last January on the Chiltern Hills.

I've done enough flying in poor visibility to know what is high risk and what isn't but in this case CFIT is not an automatic cause there are other possibilities.

They hit a tree but we're they "in control"
The instructor probably flew on the area every week he knew hill was there
ATC were tracking them before the crash, they have the track and flight details and maybe some RT.

If they were attempting an instruction flight under VFR rules I would want to know what minimums the Flying school operate to AND do they enforce them, this is not a private pilot risking his own neck it is a Flying School, which is a responsible and accountable organization.

I do know a lot more about the circumstances of the flight that cause me concern, they will be made public when the AAIB report.

Pittsextra

14th Jan 2018, 15:03

I do know a lot more about the circumstances of the flight that cause me concern, they will be made public when the AAIB report.

Why should you hold back from airing these concerns? It seems very odd that you might allow a Blogs 2 to continue to put himself in a compromised position until (possibly) the end of 2018 when the AAIB are likely to report finally....

piperboy84

14th Jan 2018, 16:23

Yes, do share DS

PeteMonty

14th Jan 2018, 17:10

He is probably reluctant to share as he doesn't want to add to the 'rumour mill'. People hear one thing and then propagate it as fact. For eg this statement that the aircraft was seen 'in a tree'. In the pictures the aircraft is in the middle of a crop field, nowhere near a tree. None of the damage is consistent with hitting a tree and all the wreckage is together.

Wreckage is not permitted to be moved (to allow the AAIB to properly investigate based on what ended up where). There are no trenches or other marks in the ground so my (totally unofficial) view is that it struck the ground here going largely straight down.

This would make it NOT a CFIT as the C stands for 'controlled'. Despite someone else's comment above I think the damage does resemble a spin. Just look up images of other aircraft that have spun in. I fly a lot in this area and the route they were going - back towards Glos (again this is only rumour until confirmed by AAIB) they were actually gaining ground clearance here which again cuts against the theory of this being CFIT into an unseen hill rising beneath them.

The AAIB will be able to sift through all the rumour, find the facts and report when they have done the due diligence a case like this deserves. Hopefully we can all learn something from this tragedy that has cost the lives of fellow aviators.

Whiskey Bravo

14th Jan 2018, 20:03

Very strange accident... Possible that the aircraft was positioning from Coventry or Wellesbourne and hit the only high ground on track?

WX changed quickly on that day and the TAF was revised around the time of the accident. Likely METAR's available before departure:

METAR EGBJ 081120Z 08003KT 9999 FEW009 BKN015 03/01 Q1022=
METAR EGBJ 081150Z 05002KT 8000 FEW008 BKN014 02/01 Q1022=

TAF available before departure:

TAF EGBJ 081102Z 0812/0821 04008KT 9999 BKN016
BECMG 0812/0815 BKN012
PROB30 TEMPO 0815/0821 4000 -DZ BKN007=

TAF at time of accident:

TAF AMD EGBJ 081240Z 0812/0821 04008KT 9999 BKN010
TEMPO 0812/0821 8000 -DZ BKN007
PROB30 TEMPO 0812/0821 4500 BR=

Other traffic in the area would suggest VMC on top, so one would hope with an instructor on board they were not scud running and had another issue that prevented a climb.

I think even with the icing risk I'd have gone up to a terrain/obstacle safe altitude, you can always come back down.

Sad event.

Whiskey Bravo

14th Jan 2018, 20:10

METAR around the time of the accident, being worse even than the revised TAF.

METAR EGBJ 081250Z 05003KT 3500 -DZ BR BKN006 OVC010 02/02
Q1021=

Less than ideal for a SEP IFR flight even if that is what was planned. On those forecasts it would be very easy to get suckered into departing VFR for a familiar route and getting caught well short.

piperboy84

14th Jan 2018, 23:04

I have no more knowledge than anyone else on how this particular accident happened, but can’t help wonder if weather related CFIT in general needs to be addressed differently in the primary training syllabus. It’s been a while since I sat my PPL but IIRC the focus on how to execute an off field landing including glide distance, checklists etc was always taught as a response primarily or indeed solely to “if your engine quits” why is “if you get in over your head and are scud running “ not taught as having equally weight as a reason for emergency off field landing? This “must get back to a tar runway or home base” thought process is killing people. It should be drummed into students that when things get dodgy the minute you decide to pull the power you are no longer flying a local club or syndicate aircraft but instead are operating a piece of equipment that’s just been purchased by a large financial services company who have tasked you with getting it on the ground uninjured and have provided you with some sacrificial hardware such as wings and landing gear to be used to arrest your speed once on the deck. Most sub 1 ton gross weight spamcans stall out at around 50mph so your chances of surviving (very possibly uninjured) even if you completely mince the airplane are high, not so for a scud running CFIT.

Dan_Brown

14th Jan 2018, 23:50

I am not so sure about stalling the aircraft, or departing from controlled flight. Stall the a/c and the vertical speed increases at an alarming rate, even close to the ground. Going in under control a lot of energy is absorbed by the wings etc..

Have a look at the clip below and see proof of a high chance of survival if you go in under control. these guys went in under control, albeit inadvertently. Their ground speed would have been relatively high also considering the Density Altitude. Same goes for an attempted turn back after an EFATO. Land ahead, under control! Stall or depart from controlled flight I.E., Stall/Spin, you will die. Period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVM3RRd1vf0

piperboy84

15th Jan 2018, 00:09

I meant a normal short field approach and landing under control, the reference to the stall speed was how slow you can get it down to if you really try. Not these excessive speeds over the 1.30 or even 1.25 x Vso that seem to be taught.

Dan_Brown

15th Jan 2018, 00:12

Ok, fair enough. Point taken.

Pampera10

15th Jan 2018, 05:33

I believe more information is to be released today, however the findings of the AAIB is almost certainly going to be some time. Possibly 12 months or more before the likely cause is known.

Deltasierra010

15th Jan 2018, 06:55

No further comment from me but the last few posts are on the right lines.
There have been quite a few crashes where very experienced pilots were in command and came to grief because margins were cut, Shoreham, Chilterns, Seaplane and now Breedon Hill, they all had been so familiar with their operation that they became relaxed and got bitten.

We have all made mistakes, if you have altitude you learn from it, but at low level you don't get a chance to learn. It is essential that instructors teach pilots how to handle crap conditions but not at low level.

Dan_Brown

15th Jan 2018, 10:35

I don't advocate scud running for one minute, however if you're caught up in a lowering ceiling/vis situation, you need to reduce a/s and lower the stall speed. This is done of course by lowering flap, not to mention helps lower the nose. Then turn around and get the hell out.

It can be likened to driving at night with dimmed lights on an unlit country road. You need to slow down as not to "out drive" the range of your headlights, therefore visibility..

When is the time to turn back? When you first think about it. Most of us don't of course and there lies the risk.

Pittsextra

15th Jan 2018, 11:14

He is probably reluctant to share as he doesn't want to add to the 'rumour mill'. People hear one thing and then propagate it as fact.

Couple of things. Firstly this is a rumour mill and we are all adding to it. Secondly I can not remember an accident in recent years where very many on here had failed to call things almost spot on from the very beginning. But the poster in this case seems to suggest there are other factors, which surely if more cultural to a particular entity, highlighting the same becomes a matter where time is important?

Mike Flynn

15th Jan 2018, 11:58

You don't have to join too many dots to conclude the weather played a major role in this accident.

This picture shows how dense the fog was when the emergency services arrived on site.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTBhhnbWAAUtcJv?format=jpg

I am still curious to know the relationship of G-OOMA to this event considering they were both operated by the same flying club. The fact they were at the same location with minutes suggests more than co-incidence.

aztec25

15th Jan 2018, 14:09

Men who died in plane crash named and one was from Gloucestershire - Gloucestershire Live (http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/men-who-died-plane-crash-1066488)

Very sad - had many happy years instructing at Aeros in Gloucester.

PeteMonty

15th Jan 2018, 17:14

Couple of things. Firstly this is a rumour mill and we are all adding to it.

Yes and I like a nice juicy rumour as much as the next guy/gal but in this case there are things we hear on the grapevine that if we repeat are in effect us pointing the finger at specific individuals for the death of another (or the same) individual. Kind of takes the thrill out of it for me! Would rather work with facts for the finger pointing!

I flew near the site today but was too busy to divert to have a look at the surroundings to see how the land lies there. Maybe next time I am up.

Pittsextra

15th Jan 2018, 17:55

PM - Yes I hear you. Although as Jay Sata posted it doesn't take a scientist to see where the main factor of this sits but DeltaSierra seems quite specific about other items of relevance which are quite curious. Now people have been named btw [and as an aside] seems a bad few months for pilots of differing nationalities flying in the UK.

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

15th Jan 2018, 21:04

He is probably reluctant to share as he doesn't want to add to the 'rumour mill'. People hear one thing and then propagate it as fact. For eg this statement that the aircraft was seen 'in a tree'. In the pictures the aircraft is in the middle of a crop field, nowhere near a tree. None of the damage is consistent with hitting a tree and all the wreckage is together.

Wreckage is not permitted to be moved (to allow the AAIB to properly investigate based on what ended up where). There are no trenches or other marks in the ground so my (totally unofficial) view is that it struck the ground here going largely straight down...

An absence of trees in the photos does not rule out the aircraft hitting one. I was looking in particular at the semi-circular fold in the leading edge of the starboard wing close to the tip. Any thoughts on that please?

https://i.imgur.com/olWLIvI.jpg

https://i2-prod.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/article1032686.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/GLAL20180109A-013_C.jpg

Whiskey Bravo

15th Jan 2018, 21:31

Does anyone have any idea what minima this school work to? Evidently one of the crew was qualified to be operating the flight IFR, but in an SEP if your one engine stops turning you can still be IMC but unable to maintain IFR until you become VMC. Then you need enough altitude/time to find a place to put down safely.

Allowing transition from instruments to visual that's about a minute in a PA28 if you have 1000ft to play with when you drop out of the muck. Assuming they didn't just blunder into a hill they might have had this space pretty much anywhere else enroute, but it wouldn't be good VMC.

IFR in a single needs a bit more thought and risk evaluation than looking at departure and destination.

Hopefully the AAIB get the answers to why this tragic event happened.

ralphos

15th Jan 2018, 22:32

Does anyone know if G-WAVS was IFR-equipped? Maybe GPS?
I have flown it a dozen times, but it was ages ago and I don't remember any details (anyway things may have changed since).
Flying low would obviously be a very bad decision in such conditions, but because the freezing level was so low, flying higher in cloud would not be a great idea either...

Is there any way to access historical Met Office low level weather charts (F215)? What was the thickness of those clouds?

Mike Flynn

16th Jan 2018, 01:00

An absence of trees in the photos does not rule out the aircraft hitting one. I was looking in particular at the semi-circular fold in the leading edge of the starboard wing close to the tip. Any thoughts on that please?

https://i.imgur.com/olWLIvI.jpg

https://i2-prod.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/article1032686.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/GLAL20180109A-013_C.jpg

I am inclined to agree that damage suggests the wing could have been ripped off by impact with a tree.
It would have then possibly flown like a sycamore seed to drop on the crop. The other wing also departed with very substantial damage.

The tail plane remained intact however the left section of the stabilator is severely bent back.

The wreckage seems to have dropped on its resting position with no ground marks. There is no evidence in those pictures of cartwheeling.

The nose-wheel has not dug in to the ground or snapped off. It appears the the wreckage was travelling sideways otherwise the leg would be under the airframe?

If you look behind the fueslage in the first picture there are some trees.

Is it possible it ploughed through them to its final position?

By all accounts the instructor was very experienced so I doubt he was scud running.

Therefore could it be engine related or pilot incapacitation?

PeteMonty

16th Jan 2018, 07:32

An absence of trees in the photos does not rule out the aircraft hitting one. I was looking in particular at the semi-circular fold in the leading edge of the starboard wing close to the tip. Any thoughts on that please?

I agree that we cannot rule out it hitting a tree and that some damage COULD have been caused by a tree but it makes everything else that has gone on here very hard to explain if it did hit a tree. I will go through what I am seeing bit by bit but bear in mind I am not an expert (in crashes - aeroplanes I do know a thing about!) and this is just my OPINION and not fact.

The witness report stated seeing an aircraft 'in a tree'. Not having gone through a tree so I'm not sure why so much emphasis is put on this mystery tree? The statement is clearly erroneous in part so why not in full?

The wing spars on a PA-28 are very very strong. You could land this aircraft through a hedge and the wings would stay on. It would take considerable force to pull the wings off - either hitting something solid in passing (like the trunk of a substantial tree but not branches, they are not solid enough) at high speed or an extreme deceleration. I say high speed as if you hit slowly enough you can land actually in a tree and the wings stay on despite the tree stopping you (pictures online of PA-28's intact in trees) I have seen the wings broken at the root fitting (sheared clean through level with the fuse) on a PA-28 aircraft that landed and shortly after went between a pair of trees. Here is the rub though - the wings themselves are incredibly light. For them to have been 'removed' by hitting something with forward motion the fuselage tends to keep going but the wings have next to no inertia (and what they had was robbed by the solid 'thing') so remain where they get removed. So if these wings got removed going through a tree they would not be sat beside it in these images. OK so someone could have moved these wings and laid them beside the fuse but why? That is completely against AAIB protocol and the site was instantly in police lock down.

If you look at the fuse pictures the engine has been pushed up and to the right. The instrument panel is actually outside the cockpit to the right of the fuse so that whole front end has been rotated on impact meaning impact had to be on the lower left corner of the front of the aircraft. The port wing has been sheared off and shows incredible impact deformation the entire length of the wing. Both of these factors show that the aircraft hit the ground left wing and nose down in at least a 45 degree nose down angle. This force ripped the port wing off and forced it up against the port side of the fuse damaging that and taking the port stab off (or at least severely damaging it - hard to see from the photo angles).

Next lets look at the prop blades. If the engine was seized only one blade (if any) would be bent. When these engines stop in flight without seizing the blades continue to windmill. Due to the slow rotation of the windmill the blades tend to bend toward the root of the prop and with a slighter radius bend. The faster the rotation at impact the shorter and sharper the bend. The bends are relatively short (and both are bent) so I conclude the engine was turning fast. The second blade is bent forwards not backwards. For this to happen, by the time that second blade hit the ground the prop disk has to have been angled up away from the ground which clearly agrees with the angle the engine is sat at in the pictures. Had the aircraft been traveling forward this is far less likely to happen so this again agrees with the theory that there was no forward motion but that the aircraft came almost completely vertically down.

As already mentioned in previous posts - there are no marks in the field. This means it stopped where it hit and hasn't slid here.

As to the cartwheel theory - the engine and wings get ripped off and left in the trail when that happens. All this wreckage is in one place exactly as you would expect to find it if had been dropped vertically down. The tail section of all aircraft are EXTREMELY light and fragile. Had it cartwheeled there would be much much more damage to the tail of the aircraft which is pretty much intact in these shots.

What you call a 'semi-circle' at the stbd wingtip I don't think is. The wing tip on these is either made of thermo-plastic or GRP and there is a rib in the tip there. So I think it is actuality more indicative of a flat impact than that a tree trunk... This damage is consistent with this wing being ripped off when the rest of the aircraft came to a very sudden stop (that tells you how much force was involved here). The wing tip would have been pointing up at an angle as the rest of the airframe hit the ground and what inertia there was in the wing (which as stated above isn't much so again - tells how much force we are talking about here) pulled it off. the momentum (resistance at the root) would have caused the very tip then to contact the ground first causing the damage you see in the picture. Note also the main wheel is free of any mud so definitely never got dragged on the ground. The slope here is slight so if it was flown straight and level into the ground this wheel would at least be covered in ground - more likely the entire leg ripped off.

I have said before and I will say again - I don't think this was CFIT. Unless they had turned around they were flying AWAY from the high ground not towards it. EVERYONE flies with skydemon or etc these days so IFR equipped panel or not they would have had warnings on that for terrain. This was loss of control but why is the question we all want answered. Mechanical issues, disorientation, physical incapacitation etc etc...?

I'm more than happy to be wrong but that is how I see it. A near vertical trajectory with the left wing and nose down (as in a spin but that doesn't mean it was spinning).

The extreme rapid deceleration is what would have caused the fatalities (mercifully instantly so no pain or mental stress) which you can read between the lines of the statement the emergency services said which was along the lines of 'immediately apparent' there was nothing to be done.

Condolences to all who knew either of these poor folk. A very sad case indeed.

treadigraph

16th Jan 2018, 11:22

The wing spars on a PA-28 are very very strong. You could land this aircraft through a hedge and the wings would stay on.

Piper Lance went through a hedge a Booker a few years go and shed at least one wing - the PA-28, 32 and 34 are all pretty much the same basic structure aren't they?

Dan_Brown

16th Jan 2018, 12:06

Yes they are.

Where the wing(s) end up in relation to the fuselage for example, is a good indicator of trajectory and speed pre, impact or final impact.

GAPU

16th Jan 2018, 12:52

I decided to learn to fly when I took early retirement. This is my first post and with less than 200 hrs I am certainly not doing so from a wealth of flying experience! I read the threads on PPruNe and the AAIB reports in an attempt to understand the causes of accidents and learn from the "mistakes" of others. Whatever people say, flying a light aircraft is a risky business and I want to avoid doing anything that tilts the odds against me.

Straight after my PPL I did IMC and Night ratings. Not because I had any intention of planning a flight in IMC but I wanted to give myself the best chance of surviving if I was somehow caught out by the weather. My instructor would never let us fly in real IMC unless the cloud base was 2,000 above any local high ground. In an SEP he wanted to give us the best chance of finding a suitable field and executing a good forced landing. He even mentioned that he had to consider what would happen if he had a medical issue - I would be on my own. There were quite a few days when I looked at the weather and really wanted to go up, but he said no. No chance we would have flown in the conditions on the day of this accident. Even if the student in this case already had good IFR skills you still have the SEP risk

I found a 2008 photo of G-WAVS' panel on line. It was the older King setup but it did have a KLN89 GPS (plus usual radio nav kit) and the avionics might well have been updated over the past 9 yrs. I would be surprised if they did not also have at least one phone or ipad with Skydemon so they must have known where they were. The highly experienced instructor would know about the high ground so it is very hard to believe this was a simple CFIT. Even without the high ground why would he be 1,100ft in IMC so far from the airport he would stay higher and use the ILS. The other Aeros Warrior did not seem to have any icing problems?

Eye witness reports can of course be unreliable but this one suggests they might have had an engine problem prior to the impact?

Lizzie Ransted, who was walking on Bredon Hill at the time of the crash, told the BBC that as she was walking down the hill, she "heard a loud engine sound".
"It was sort of cutting out and then we heard a very loud crash bang. We couldn't see anything.... visibility was so bad," she said.
"But it was the noise. We knew something was not right."

The fact that ATC reported an exact time that radio contact was lost suggests they might have been in active ongoing communication with G-WAVS? Indicating a developing problem?

The AAIB are currently investigating 14 fatal accidents, including this one, the earliest of which happened on 18th Sep 2016. We won't get their perspective on this accident for at least a year.

It's all so very very sad.

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

16th Jan 2018, 15:59

Images of PA28s that have hit trees shows same curved "indent". This is from G-LUSH incident. It went through trees at speed, wreckage all ended up together and both wings came off.

PeteMonty

16th Jan 2018, 17:27

Images of PA28s that have hit trees shows same curved "indent". This is from G-LUSH incident. It went through trees at speed, wreckage all ended up together and both wings came off.
What is not evident in that picture of LUSH is that it has just hit a brick hangar and wooden shed during the braking phase of a landing. Speed and therefore inertia was correspondingly low. The solidness of the obstacles hit was sufficient to pull the wing off but due to the low speed none of the wreckage went far at all, hence all being in the same place in the pictures. You can see the cowling lines are still all straight with the fuselage and no apparent deformation (there will have been plenty but severe enough to see in this picture) on the fuselage. Very different kettle of fish with WAVS. Still just my opinion though!

PeteMonty

17th Jan 2018, 18:27

So... I flew over the site today. Really struggled to find it, mostly because it was nowhere near where the media said it was (surprise?). It actually WAS right at the top of the hill (I may have to revisit my stance on CFIT after more inspection as it is much more plausible here). Open Google maps and stick 52.054096,-2.043463 in the search bar (and put it on 'satellite' layer).
The dry stone wall that runs across the NE of the field looks unscathed but I was at 2000ft aml (~1000ft agl) and running in a new top end on a Navion in lots of turbulence so was a tad distracted and couldn't see many ground features that clearly...
Had they been flying from the north this point of this field is (I think...) just lower than the tops of the trees past the dry stone wall to the NE.
I want to try and have another look from slightly lower and when I'm not trying to wrestle an aeroplane to try and pick out any other clues... I did take a picture but it is phone quality so no actual detail to see...

India Four Two

18th Jan 2018, 01:13

PM,

Thanks for your update of the location. The previously reported locations didn't make any sense.

Attached are images from GE and Streetmap.

smarthawke

18th Jan 2018, 07:59

A bit of misreporting re G-LUSH I think.

Accident 1, 2003 involved a hangar.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422fb90ed915d1374000823/dft_avsafety_pdf_023902.pdf

Accident 2 when the picture in the above post (#67) was taken was in 2017 and didn't involve a hangar but did involve trees.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59affb89e5274a180b403e0c/Piper_PA-28-151_Cherokee_Warrior_G-LUSH_09-17.pdf

Shaggy Sheep Driver

18th Jan 2018, 09:59

The location pictures and maps above point to CFIT in my opinion (and that's all this is). Looks like they were flying low from the Evesham direction in IMC and hit the trees on top of the ridge. The ground rises very steeply just up-track of where the wreckage came to rest.

This does not explain why such an experienced pilot who knew the area was that low in IMC. Simple altimeter mis-reading (would be far from the first time that's been done), or engine problems perhaps?

I still think the wreckage shows every sign of impact with trees before coming to rest in the field. The lack of vertical deformation makes stall / spin unlikely in my opinion.

PeteMonty

18th Jan 2018, 18:39

Thanks smarthawke, I had assumed that the G-LUSH pic was of the earlier incident as I thought it got written off at Meppershall.. I have googled and found other pics of the 2017 incident from other angles. I would still argue that the 2017 incident happened at low speed. As previously stated there is next to no deformation to the fuse and AAIB report (thanks for the link) states that the single occupant walked away with no injuries whatsoever. The energy involved in G-WAVS was astronomically more. The firewall and forward fuse on the PA-28 is the strongest part of that structure and so to be as disfigured as WAVS was took it being stopped very rapidly from a high velocity.

The location pictures and maps above point to CFIT in my opinion (and that's all this is). Looks like they were flying low from the Evesham direction in IMC and hit the trees on top of the ridge. The ground rises very steeply just up-track of where the wreckage came to rest.

I'm not picking on you SSD, honest! But we may just have to agree to disagree! If just simply flying low they would have hit the trees first as I'm pretty sure (although not 100%) they are higher than the point of impact. IF the trees are what removed the wings there is NO WAY they would have ended up where they are in the media pictures. That is a long distance to travel and the energy absorbed by the trees in taking the wings off would have meant they would be dumped in that first field. OK so the wings could have been moved before the media shots but why move them to a difficult to place to recover them? There are far easier routes from the tree line to the vehicular access than to traipse them across this sticky field...

If the aircraft was simply descending and just missed the trees and then CFIT into the field it rested in (remember, it hasn't hit the stone wall at the field edge) then unless it was in a steep decent then it would have glanced the ground taking the landing gear off and travelled a long way in the field OR flipped on its back, neither of which have happened...

This does not explain why such an experienced pilot who knew the area was that low in IMC. Simple altimeter mis-reading (would be far from the first time that's been done), or engine problems perhaps?

Coventry is the least likely airfield to depart with a miss-set altimeter. The reason being that Birmingham's controlled airspace sits 1500ft directly overhead. There are so many infringements from people flying in and out of there that those who call Cov home base are super vigilant and the controllers drum the QNH into you and the 1500ft climb limit into pilots before clearing (actually they have recently downgraded to A/G so no 'clearance' now!) you to line up. Then on takeoff you are so panicked about your altitude that you are watching it like a hawk and you would instantly notice if you hadn't set it right.

I still think the wreckage shows every sign of impact with trees before coming to rest in the field. The lack of vertical deformation makes stall / spin unlikely in my opinion.

You are going to have to explain to me what you mean by 'vertical deformation'. What I see when I look at the wreckage is extreme deformation as if the aircraft were travelling vertically down... Same picture but you and I are seeing polar opposites!!!

So for it to be CFIT for me (and I did say a few post ago that it COULD be CFIT) they would have to have hit the trees, remained intact but lost control enough to have impacted the ground vertically (or with a large vertical component) down and broken apart then. Trouble is the eye (ear?) witness (who is named so more reliable than the witness who saw an aircraft in a tree which clearly NEVER happened as no tree near the final resting place is large enough to hold an aircraft prior to the emergency services removing it...) states a running engine and ONE loud bang. Had it hit the trees it would have been two impacts heard surely?

The other option is that the aircraft was in a very steep decent. A slight descent and it would not show the vertical impact damage it does and would most likely have flipped on hitting the ground.

The ear witness says the engine sounded off. What does a non-pilot know about how an engine should sound? It was making power at the time of impact or the blades would not be bent the way they are. It could have been losing power and therefore in a kind of forced descent. If that were me in IMC I would be at best glide and probably have full flaps. That way even if you don't get a chance to flare at the last second your energy is at the minimum and you have the best possible chance of survival. Had they hit the field they did at 60kts at a 7/1 angle they would have probably survived...

If they were descending to try and visual the ground it would surely have been a slow rate of descent? The forward speed would be high but then it would have flipped not hit and stopped with so much deformation and no apparent 'digging in'?

Still not enough fact available to proclaim it as CFIT or not CFIT methinks...

Flyingmac

18th Jan 2018, 20:45

There are some photos in this report. PA32 hit a tree and shed a wing with ease. No injuries. He was inbound to us. The impact damage from the tree is clear. https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-piper-pa-32r-301t-n414ag#download-report

Shaggy Sheep Driver

18th Jan 2018, 21:28

Coventry is the least likely airfield to depart with a miss-set altimeter.

I don't think you read my post. I said "mis-read", not "mis set". Big difference.

For the record, I completely disagree with every other point in your post. Have you looked at spin-in pictures on AAIB site? They are quite characteristic in their vertical damage (not apparent in this accident) and the wings still being in about the right place. But it's only my opinion. We'll see in about a year.

Edited to add: Is it a co-incidence that the accident occurred where the track of the aircraft intercepts sudden tree-covered high ground (it's a ridge forming the NE edge of Breedon Hill rising steeply from the relatively low plain of the Severn Valley)? I suppose it could be, but what is most likely?

PeteMonty

18th Jan 2018, 21:44

Apologies, I did miss-read your statement!‎ You make a good point there. In the distraction of worsening weather it would be easy to see what you expect on an altimeter as opposed to what it is actually saying. Especially with two pilots as each assumes the other is making the call... There have been many cases of minor and major accidents when an instructor assumes the capable PUT has covered something and the PUT assumes the instructor is paying more attention or vice versa...

On the other points, like I say, we will just have to agree to disagree! I do keep stressing that my views are only that - just opinion and with an extremely scant amount of the facts to base it upon at that‎. Thankfully the AAIB will have all the facts and will therefore get it right. Regardless of any of our 'guesswork' this thread has still highlighted many points that we could all do with a refresher on to keep complacency at bay (such as the point above that SSD was originally making that I miss-read!).‎

BigEndBob

20th Jan 2018, 17:20

Looks like it hit a tree and cartwheeled over the nose and tail.

PeteMonty

23rd Jan 2018, 21:05

Is it a co-incidence that the accident occurred where the track of the aircraft intercepts sudden tree-covered high ground?

This is exactly why I stated that it COULD be CFIT just after finding the crash site from the air. I completely agree that the most likely occurrence is normally what has indeed happened but at the same what did happen is what did - no matter how convenient/inconvenient.

I flew to the crash site from the Coventry direction a couple of days ago and can confirm that the tree line is considerably higher than the place the aircraft impacted. So it remains possible that they clipped the tress and then pulled up, lost control and came down in the place it did but I cannot see that it flew into the ground where it did for the reasons stated in my earlier posts regarding the nature of the impact damage. Of course that is assuming it was still heading for Glos and hadn’t turned around.

BEB – this aircraft did not cartwheel. There is no damage on the fin which would get at least distorted in a cartwheel if not removed altogether. When these aircraft cartwheel they tend to actually look worse than this but the occupants often walk away. This is because the extremity structures act as crumple zones and absorb a lot of the energy. Also cartwheels normally occur in failed landing attempts and so speeds are relatively low. Look up the crash report and photos on G-COVB and you will see what I am talking about. Two elderly occupants extracted themselves and were calmly waiting for the emergency services to arrive despite the aircraft looking in worse shape than this one. It is all to do with the amount of energy and how that is dissipated.

I have been trawling through crash reports for days now trying to find one where the prop tips have been bent one back one forward and I have finally found one. It still won’t let me post URL’s on here so you will have to search for ‘N32396 NTSB’ for the NTSB report and Google image search for ‘N32396’ should get you pictures. According to the eyewitnesses (multiple pilots) it was seen to spin in. It has the same looking impact damage as WAVS. I’m not saying WAVS definitely span but it must have hit the ground with a largely vertical component in nose and wing down attitude to impact the way it has as laid out in my earlier posts. I think others have mentioned a lack of ‘vertical damage’ but what they really mean is damage along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. A spin is rarely nose down (some will be some wont) especially on PA28’s which tend to spin flatter than say a firefly or chipmunk or etc and like I say the accident report and photo above are of a PA-28 that span in so that proves that a spin accident can look like this.

So yes this COULD have been caused by CFIT but if it was then the initial ‘into terrain’ was only a contributing factor to the final impact and not the impact you see in the pictures. The end impact was a result of loss of control.

One other point of interest is that Glos ATC allegedly immediately called the emergency services. If ATC’s called 999 every time they lost contact with an inbound aircraft there would be a lot of 999 calls… So they don’t. They have overdue procedures etc that take considerably longer. This says to me that they knew more due to radio calls received – again suggesting NOT CFIT (as there isn’t time to call ‘I’m about to hit something I’m not aware is there’). The other PA-28 that was in the area does a 180 degree about face at the exact time ATC say they lost control so I suspect there was a mayday or similar call from WAVS that meant Glos ATC immediately called the emergency services on losing contact and the other PA28 turned to see if they could assist.

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

23rd Jan 2018, 21:43

"So yes this COULD have been caused by CFIT but if it was then the initial ‘into terrain’ was only a contributing factor to the final impact and not the impact you see in the pictures. The end impact was a result of loss of control."

???

Not saying this is what happened but if an aircraft flies, under control, into trees then it is CFIT (That "T" is terrain which includes trees, walls, buildings, whatever else one may encounter on the ground). What happens thereafter is in the lap of the gods.

As for ATC contacting the emergency services, what if G-WAVS was talking to ATC and mid conversation the controller hears "...****, oh **** oh ****....(then silence)". do you think they will wait the requisite 1 hour beyond notified endurance before informing the emergency services?

Pampera10

24th Jan 2018, 05:32

If the aircraft suffered an engine problem that forced it to loose altitude, but was still in IMC conditions (above cloud base) when it hit the terrain, would that still count as CFIT?
It might have been under control but had not cleared the cloud.

PeteMonty

24th Jan 2018, 05:50

Yes SWB we agree on the definition of CFIT (not sure why the ????) and your radio example is just one such scenario I was alluding to.

Quarterback? Sports metaphors are lost on me let alone American ones! Lol!

BigEndBob

24th Jan 2018, 08:17

Reason i say it cartwheeled is that the nose is offset, rear fuselage is buckled, wings off and one side tail plane is missing.

This accident reminds me of the one round here in the nineties. Mooney pilot enroute from south to Sleap, called asking what the cloud base was, told it was about 1300 feet.
I was 1100 just returning to HG airfield. Controller later asked what frequency did the Mooney change to, no one knew.
Later we found out had descended and hit the Wrekin hill, tops 1400 feet, 30 feet from it's top. Local pilots know of it, but for someone unfamillier with the area, hard to see on a map. Looks like a Volcano.

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

24th Jan 2018, 12:37

The ???? was because of this comment "The end impact was a result of loss of control."

If it was CFIT then "The end impact was a result of hitting something on the ground a few seconds earlier."

...and likewise, sports metaphors (especially American ones) are lost on me too.

...BigEndBob. Every UK military controller is aware of the Wrekin and its sister peak adjacent to RAF Cottam ;-)

PeteMonty

24th Jan 2018, 18:05

SWB - aha I see your objection. IF (I'm still not convinced but am not ruling it out) ‎it hit/clipped the trees then whatever else occurred it is still CFIT. The sentence you quote above is my attempt to point out that it did not just hit the trees and then continue out of control to end up where it hit the dirt but must have climbed (this could have been in or out of control) after said theoretical tree contact, high enough to then come down vertically (or at least with large vertical component) in the field. I was simply trying to point out the distinction as most seem to be suggesting it hit the trees and continued in more or less the same trajectory until stopping where it is shown in the media images. I argue that the wreckage and positioning make this scenario impossible.

If the aircraft suffered an engine problem that forced it to loose altitude, but was still in IMC conditions (above cloud base) when it hit the terrain, would that still count as CFIT?
It might have been under control but had not cleared the cloud.

I would argue (and folks are welcome to disagree) that an aircraft 'forced' to lose height is no longer under control. Yes you could still have control of the flight axis but you do not have control of the engine and therefore the descent is not a controlled but a forced manoeuvre. I would call such an accident 'forced landing in IMC resulting in collision with unseen terrain'.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

24th Jan 2018, 18:59

If the first deviation from a controlled and intended flightpath was hitting trees, it was CFIT. Anything that subsequently happened (and in my book all that in all probability subsequently happened was, seriously damaged, it hit the ground beyond the trees) is not the cause of the accident.

If it didn't hit the trees but a 'close encounter' led to a sudden climb and loss of control in IMC, then it wasn't CFIT.

BigEndBob

25th Jan 2018, 16:39

Deltasierra010

25th Jan 2018, 21:18

I doubt they had time to communicate the instant of the terrain encounter, a likely scenario is they were merrily scud running probably with the student flying, saw the trees, pulled up, clipped the trees and stalled. That would easily account for the plane being a little way from the trees.
They might have had engine problems but it was very bad luck at that critical point in a flight lasting maybe 30 mins or more.

PeteMonty

26th Jan 2018, 14:37

I know a guy who knows the estate workers who were first on the scene. So this is 3rd hand and not a statement of fact but more of rumor. They say it DID hit the trees first so it would seem it was CFIT after all... I still hold that the impact was mostly vertical so the aircraft has to have climbed at least 100ft after hitting the trees (and I know SSD categorically disagrees with this and i respect his take on it! We are agreeing to disagree!) in order to come down the way it has in the field but I have bored everyone with that too much already.

I looked up the 'quarterback' phrase on Google and this is what it told me:
Monday morning quarterback. a person who criticizes the actions or decisions of others after the fact, using hindsight to assess situations and specify alternative solutions.

I was a bit put out initially (and I suspect it wasn't meant as a compliment in this case) but then I thought - too right! We are a small band us aviators and if we are not looking to assess what goes wrong and 'specify alternative solutions' then we are arrogant and ignorant and likely to end up in a mess sooner or later. This is precisely why the AAIB look into these things! In 'sport' I can see how this phrase is meant in a negative light but when it is life or death we all want to help each other to fly again another day and should all be looking to better our skills/knowledge/understanding as a large part of our aviation ethos/mindset. Personally I welcome people seeking to do things better than me and not repeating the mistakes I make!

I am taking particular interest in this case as the collision was 4.4miles from the airfield I fly and run my business from, in an aircraft I have a couple of variants of in my business and they were flying to and from airfields I regularly do too. This couldn't be more 'on my doorstep'. I do not seek to 'criticize' but to understand and learn from this tragedy and do my utmost to ensure it never happens to me, my passengers or anyone else I know and/or fly with.

The 'hindsight' in the phrase definition gets my hackles up though! We have another name for 'hindsight' in aviation and it is called 'airmanship'. If this was CFIT then avoiding it wasn't hindsight - it was airmanship. It reminds me of when our 152 was landed here once with a 15kt tailwind straight up the 575meter grass runway. It didn't touchdown until gone halfway and the end result was a predictable off runway excursion with prop strike and bent wingtip. When I got to the other end to talk to the pilot (it was being dropped in for maintenance) I asked him in no-uncertain terms why the fruit he had decided to land with a 15kt tailwind. His response was 'its all very well saying that now with hindsight'!!! HINDSIGHT? said I (yes, probably yelling by this point) - THERE IS A WINDSOCK RIGHT THERE!!!! ITS CALLED AIRMANSHIP NOT HINDSIGHT! In this developed age of light aviation what causes accidents is nearly never hindsight but foresight that is lacking. So other than 'criticize' and 'hindsight', I'm happy to wear the 'Monday Morning Quarterback' phrase!

Pampera10

26th Jan 2018, 14:56

PeteMonty

Well put, we must all learn from this terrible incident.

Pampera10

31st Jan 2018, 19:13

Flew ILS into Glos today, Approach mentioned MSA three different times. I can't remember ever hearing that before.

Mike Flynn

7th Dec 2018, 06:04

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-piper-pa-28-161-cherokee-warrior-iii-g-wavs

AAIB report now published.

Conclusion
The aircraft struck trees near the summit of Bredon Hill following flight into conditions of deteriorating visibility. The aircraft was not equipped to operate in the icing conditions forecast in cloud and so could not climb to the minimum safe altitude.
In visibility close to the limits permitted under VFR there is very little time to avoid terrain and obstacles that may be encountered and, should conditions deteriorate, flight in these circumstances presents few options for a safe outcome.
CAP 1535, published by the CAA, advises pilots that flight in the minimum conditions of cloud and visibility permitted under VFR is not necessarily safe, and describes steps that can be taken when planning the flight to mitigating the risks of flight into terrain in poor weather.

apache147

7th Dec 2018, 08:49

Very sad news, hopefully lessons will be learnt.

Mike Flynn

7th Dec 2018, 13:47

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1623x1278/9e68db8b_567f_4f27_ab1e_478e92bdc9c1_315b3b831ea8ab6f1c22f9a b2acd4d780b4682cc.jpeg

The image shows the rising ground of Bredon Hill relative to the simulated aircraft flying at 900 ft amsl, and high ground to the right side of the Figure.
Civil Air Publication (CAP) 1535, ‘The Skyway Code’, published by the CAA, states:
The instructor was not known to use GPS navigation or flight planning software and did not carry a tablet or smart phone that could employ such systems. There is no requirement to do so.
Witnesses from the school stated that they had been taught that when lost they should circle a recognisable feature and then contact the Distress and Diversion cell at NATS Swanwick (D&D) on 121.5 MHz.

rnzoli

8th Dec 2018, 10:44

Oh, crap... :( right into the middle of that hill.
This leaves so little chance to make a quick turn to the left or right.
Looks like following those rivers would have been safer (less likely to hit terrain)

cats_five

8th Dec 2018, 16:45

The pilot was heard to express some concerns about the weather and appeared anxious to start the trip as soon as possible.

The forecast and actual weather reports for the Coventry area showed light winds from the north-east with a cloud base of approximately 1,000 ft. The Gloucester weather for the period of the accident also showed a light north-easterly wind with visibility reducing to 3,500 m in drizzle and mist and a cloud base of approximately 600 ft.

The instructor was not known to use GPS navigation or flight planning software and did not carry a tablet or smart phone that could employ such systems. There is no requirement to do so.

:( Huge holes in the cheese lining up here.

Council Van

8th Dec 2018, 17:52

:( Huge holes in the cheese lining up here.
Should have told his employer he was not playing that day.

Experienced enough to have said no.

I think I would have taken the climb above MSA and risked a touch of ice rather than hitting a hill and a May Day for vectors to the nearest suitable strip of Tarmac, probably Gloucester being routed down the middle of the Severn Valley.

dsc810

9th Dec 2018, 08:31

I do know a lot more about the circumstances of the flight that cause me concern, they will be made public when the AAIB report.

Well the AAIB report is now out - so we are all waiting for you to pronounce on those concerns....

Meester proach

9th Dec 2018, 11:33

A massive shame.
seemed he wasn’t happy with the conditions before even going......just say no !

had a few close calls as an instructor , hopefully I’m older , wiser and more aware of my own mortality now.

every year , there’s a few CFITs in the winter.

excrab

13th Feb 2019, 16:54

Can’t help wondering why, with the reported conditions, they didn’t just head west from Evesham to pick up the M5, and then follow it South. If the instructor was familiar with the area that would seem logical, rather than continuing towards Bredon hill.

India Four Two

14th Feb 2019, 04:25

I was just catching up on this thread and BigEndBob's post caught my eye:
Later we found out had descended and hit the Wrekin hill, tops 1400 feet, 30 feet from it's top. Local pilots know of it, but for someone unfamillier with the area, hard to see on a map. Looks like a Volcano.

In the late 60s, I was on a dual Chipmunk flight southeast of Shawbury, above a stratus layer. My instructor didn't want to wait for the AH to re-erect after some aerobatics, so he told me to descend through a very narrow hole in the cloud, with some green fields just visible below. When we reached cloud base, I was surprised to see we were directly over the top of the Wrekin, although safely above it. My instructor told me that it was a well known phenomenon - even a light wind blowing over the Shropshire Plain would lift the airmass over the Wrekin and cause local dissipation of the cloud. I hasten to add that this is not a trick I would recommend if the cloud base is below the hill tops.

This anecdote brings back one of the joys of RAF Chipmunk flying in the winter. We could take off on a typical, miserable winter's day with limited visibility and low cloud base, climb through a stratus layer, picking up a bit of ice on the way and then break out into blue sky, with the sun shining and a white cloud deck stretching as far as you could see. The instructors didn't like it so much, because the back seat was very drafty and cold as I discovered when doing instrument flying from the back seat.

Pittsextra

2nd Mar 2019, 19:25

Yes this one.... no outrage here at the loss of the innocent student... perhaps he needed to be a footballer and then we could discuss the ratings of pilot and fitness to fly and who was paying for what before legal consequences and who takes legal action against who..

Mike Flynn

3rd Mar 2019, 10:53

distaff_beancounter

4th Mar 2019, 11:01

According to the CAA website G-INFO today:

G-WAVS
Status - De-registered De Reg date: 27 Jun 2018 Reason: Permanently withdrawn from use
COFA/PERMIT: Revoked

Pittsextra

4th Mar 2019, 17:17

The big difference is the way both flights started Pitts.

Flight planning starts on the ground not in the air.

In the case of this one it was a short positioning flight with an experienced instructor who having encounterd bad weather decided to press on instead of turning back.

In the Sala incident it was a pilot who by his own admission was “rusty” with instrument flying but had no night night rating and was attempting to carry out a public transport flight. He also had the opportunity to divert in to Guernsey for the night and continue the flight the next day.

The common denominator in both was lack of rational pilot decision making. They both chose not to declare a weather emergency and ask for help.

Both pilots wanted to satisfy those who were paying for the flying.

The Sala incident gets more coverage because he was an innocent passenger and not crew.

There is an old saying....

No job on a Monday morning is worth dying for on a Sunday afternoon.

Firstly Mike don't patronise me. I don't need to be educated on the flight planning process and neither do I need some folksy wisdom around old sayings.

Whilst we await the final report and the facts around the PA46 accident I would agree that poor weather decision making was likely at its heart, which is the common factor in this PA28 accident. So you having said they are very different accidents ultimately concede they are very similar.

I don't know and I don't care what your own personal piloting experience is but should you ever find yourself in the clag through your own mistake I suggest that declaring an emergency and asking for help is unlikely to change the outcome unless it is the Almighty you are talking to. See now you have got me at this patronising business, I apologise.

You have no idea what the compensation was with the PA46 flight, not a sausage - unless you do - and I invite you to lay out the pounds and pence, euro or cent amount that was to be paid. I suspect you can not give that. Neither can you highlight any long list of these "grey charter" flights that you deride that end in disaster.

What you are quite good at is trawling public records and other database information to join dots to create an environment of illegality that led to a venomous reaction from all.

It would seem to me that the only difference between this PA28 flight and the PA46 flight is the perception around funding. Pilots can make piloting mistakes and generally people can also get led into things that they wish they had not. The criticism by all may ultimately be fair comment and that is fine its just a great pity that some seem to be taking great delight in presenting assumption as fact, all the more so because as I have highlighted here it is all rather skewed.

Mike Flynn

5th Mar 2019, 15:23

I have no intention of patronising you Pitts.

However I will question this statement.

I don't know and I don't care what your own personal piloting experience is but should you ever find yourself in the clag through your own mistake I suggest that declaring an emergency and asking for help is unlikely to change the outcome unless it is the Almighty you are talking to. See now you have got me at this patronising business, I apologise.

The sad fact is too many pilots are reluctant to admit they have a problem until it is too late to ask for radio help.By that I mean asking for radar assistance because of being uncertain of position. Please tell me what is wrong with just stating on the radio that you are lost? I have used the radio many times over three decades to ask for assistance or help. Does that make me a crap pilot? The answer is whatever the quality of my flying skills I have flown large chunks of the world as a single pilot and am still here. I know when to turn back!

Have you never asked asked a controller for help with an approach in difficult weather?

As for your comment.....

What you are quite good at is trawling public records and other database information to join dots to create an environment of illegality that led to a venomous reaction from all.

I have never disguised the fact that I am a retired journalist and long time pilot. I got my UK PPL in 1981 and my Australian fixed wing and helicopter licences in 1989.

I have paid for all my flying over decades and continents.

After allegations on here from the subject of a very very long thread on Pprune I decided to use my real name.

From your tag I guess you are a UK recreational pilot.

Please feel free to pm me.