Hairyplane
19th Aug 2002, 13:16
This subject was debated earlier in the year. However, a letter in Pilot Magazine prompts me to open a second thread on this incident.
The letter crticises a report in GASIL.
GASIL report - p.7 June 2002 issue -
Having agreed to buy a competition-level aerobatic aircraft, the new owner requested the vendor to deliver it to his home aerodrome. With the minimum of breifing on type from the vendor, and apprently never having flown one before, the new owner took off and returned within a few minutes to provide all assembled wth an impromtu low-level aerobatic dispaly.
At the concxlusion of his sequence his first attempt at landing resulted in a late go-around, having landed too deeply and too fast into a relatively short grass field.
On the second attempt, he appeared to make a much better approach but forgot to lower the undercarriage..THe aircraft slithered to a halt in a shower of mud, prop blades and panels.
The new owner then suffered the ignominy of watching his new aircraft being raised up on a crane, the gear lowered and then pushed into the hangar having suffered many thousands of pounds worth of damage.
The accident could also have been avoided if the pilot had maintained a listening watch on the Aerodrome frequency. Had he done so he would have heard frantic voices telling him to go around.
Pilot magazine - Air Mail - August 2002 issue p.78
LEST YE BE JUDGED
The report in the recent GASIL, 'Another new aircraft - look what I can do!' damages the reputation of a competent pilot who has flown Evans VP 1's to Spitfires over 20 years without so much as scratching an aircraft.
I personally witnessed the incident. The pilot has 100 hours on a similar type and did not perform - as stated in GASIL - a low-level aerobatic display. He had the sense to go around when unhappy with his first approach.
His only crime was forgetting to select gear down. Of course this is never going to happen to you is it?
Well done CAA, you've trashed a good blokes reputation on hearsay without even talking to the plot. You can't beat giving somebody a good kicking when they are down.
Tony Smith
THe Aerodrome
Breighton
YO8 6DS
(We've invited a reply from the CAA - Ed)
What is clear -
We are all capable of error - no debate on that.
However, this guy was showing off in a new plane and fxxxxd it up.
Tony Smith cites - '100 hours on a similar type'. Is this code for '100 hours on the Yak 52 and none on the Yak 50' ??
Would you immediately go into a low-level display on your intial YAK50 flight?
His first approach (with 10 minutes on type?) was hot and high. Is this hardly surprising in view of the fact that the 50 hasn't got flaps? During the late go-around he raised the gear but misremembered to lower it again for his second approach.
Maybe Tony Smiths letter doesn't actually do the pilot any favours at all for it now serves to identify him by virtue of the field and types flown. He previously enjoyed anonimity. We now know where to send the box of Kleenex.
Marvellous to get the opportunity fly(somebody elses) Spitfire(Pink?) - not so sure I fancy flying a VP1 though..
Accidents are often the result of a stream of errors and not just one single factor. This is the reason why GASIL is such an important read. We all need education. We can all learn by other peoples mistakes no matter how embarrasing it might be for the pilot concerned.
All Tony Smiths letter does is to place the dented pride of his chum before flight safety and puts a very weak defence forward in Pilot.
Insurance - It seems that the pilot may have misremembered to insure it. Is this somebody who actually believes that accidents only happen to others? How responsible is that? How would you feel if the smoking hole that was once a Yak 50 actually also contained the remnants of something you hold dear (whatever that might be).
Finally - it also appears that the pilot may have also misremembered to report the accident too. THe CAA - it appears - contacted the previous owner when they got to hear of the accident, only to be told 'I sold it half an hour before it happened'.
Lets see what the official report has to say.
The letter crticises a report in GASIL.
GASIL report - p.7 June 2002 issue -
Having agreed to buy a competition-level aerobatic aircraft, the new owner requested the vendor to deliver it to his home aerodrome. With the minimum of breifing on type from the vendor, and apprently never having flown one before, the new owner took off and returned within a few minutes to provide all assembled wth an impromtu low-level aerobatic dispaly.
At the concxlusion of his sequence his first attempt at landing resulted in a late go-around, having landed too deeply and too fast into a relatively short grass field.
On the second attempt, he appeared to make a much better approach but forgot to lower the undercarriage..THe aircraft slithered to a halt in a shower of mud, prop blades and panels.
The new owner then suffered the ignominy of watching his new aircraft being raised up on a crane, the gear lowered and then pushed into the hangar having suffered many thousands of pounds worth of damage.
The accident could also have been avoided if the pilot had maintained a listening watch on the Aerodrome frequency. Had he done so he would have heard frantic voices telling him to go around.
Pilot magazine - Air Mail - August 2002 issue p.78
LEST YE BE JUDGED
The report in the recent GASIL, 'Another new aircraft - look what I can do!' damages the reputation of a competent pilot who has flown Evans VP 1's to Spitfires over 20 years without so much as scratching an aircraft.
I personally witnessed the incident. The pilot has 100 hours on a similar type and did not perform - as stated in GASIL - a low-level aerobatic display. He had the sense to go around when unhappy with his first approach.
His only crime was forgetting to select gear down. Of course this is never going to happen to you is it?
Well done CAA, you've trashed a good blokes reputation on hearsay without even talking to the plot. You can't beat giving somebody a good kicking when they are down.
Tony Smith
THe Aerodrome
Breighton
YO8 6DS
(We've invited a reply from the CAA - Ed)
What is clear -
We are all capable of error - no debate on that.
However, this guy was showing off in a new plane and fxxxxd it up.
Tony Smith cites - '100 hours on a similar type'. Is this code for '100 hours on the Yak 52 and none on the Yak 50' ??
Would you immediately go into a low-level display on your intial YAK50 flight?
His first approach (with 10 minutes on type?) was hot and high. Is this hardly surprising in view of the fact that the 50 hasn't got flaps? During the late go-around he raised the gear but misremembered to lower it again for his second approach.
Maybe Tony Smiths letter doesn't actually do the pilot any favours at all for it now serves to identify him by virtue of the field and types flown. He previously enjoyed anonimity. We now know where to send the box of Kleenex.
Marvellous to get the opportunity fly(somebody elses) Spitfire(Pink?) - not so sure I fancy flying a VP1 though..
Accidents are often the result of a stream of errors and not just one single factor. This is the reason why GASIL is such an important read. We all need education. We can all learn by other peoples mistakes no matter how embarrasing it might be for the pilot concerned.
All Tony Smiths letter does is to place the dented pride of his chum before flight safety and puts a very weak defence forward in Pilot.
Insurance - It seems that the pilot may have misremembered to insure it. Is this somebody who actually believes that accidents only happen to others? How responsible is that? How would you feel if the smoking hole that was once a Yak 50 actually also contained the remnants of something you hold dear (whatever that might be).
Finally - it also appears that the pilot may have also misremembered to report the accident too. THe CAA - it appears - contacted the previous owner when they got to hear of the accident, only to be told 'I sold it half an hour before it happened'.
Lets see what the official report has to say.