ATSB Report on Tiger Moth stall/spin fatal accident
Another Tiger Moth stall/spin fatal accident. There have been a few of these in the past decade. None of these Tiger Moths had auto slats installed; their owners having removed them to decrease maintenance costs. These stall warning devices were very effective with their loud clacking as the slats moved in and out when the aircraft was approaching the stall.
In the accident concerned, the loud stall warning noise would have alerted the pilot to the impending danger in time for him to take recovery action and at least force land under control, rather than be caught by surprise and stall/spin at low altitude. As the old age says, if you think flight safety is expensive, try an accident. How much would it cost owners of Tiger Moths to re-install auto slats as a safety measure? https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2015-150/ |
There are a lot of aircraft out there managing to avoid stalling without slats. I’d say there is a lot more in that report relevant to the incident than the slats. |
Pilot says he applied opposite rudder but no indication of forward stick. |
Originally Posted by Vag277
(Post 10403624)
Pilot says he applied opposite rudder but no indication of forward stick. |
Looking at the aerial view of the flight path of the aircraft in the ATSB report, why did he attempt to turn left when a gentle right turn would have put him over a clear paddock, and maybe not have resulted in a stall ?
|
Aggressive forward stick would have been required. The pitch over needed to be aggressive to unload the wings and minimise speed loss. This was no time to look into the cockpit. Eyes on the target!. At the very least, a landing straight ahead, into the trees/scrub, could have been achieved at a modest ground speed.
The poor fellow might not have, during his type training, grasped the absolute importance of performing an aggressive pitch over, followed by a low speed accident into wind. I vote in favour of Handley-Page auto slats. In addition to the noise, they provide the pilot with a wonderful visual depiction of stall development. |
Whenever the conversation touches Tiger Moths and spins I can't help thinking of this photo:
https://www.waggabiketyres.com/The%20Canon%201.jpg |
Originally Posted by sablatnic
(Post 10403811)
Whenever the conversation touches Tiger Moths and spins I can't help thinking of this photo:
https://www.waggabiketyres.com/The%20Canon%201.jpg |
For Race 15. Is that what they call a straight -in approach ?
|
Originally Posted by Octane
(Post 10403987)
How the hell did he survive that?!
That was one of three that flew formation aeros from the Tiger Club, based at Redhill, Surrey, UK in those days. The Canon, Deacon and Bishop. Maybe they had God on their side?? In about 1963, at Biggin Hill. somebody spun a Tiger in, on the field doing aeros overhead, both pilots survived, just bruises and cuts and scratches. --- the steel tube fuselage, really good harnesses and very slow speeds ---- it's Vsquared wot gets ya!! Tootle pip!! |
Stall warning systems were not a feature on British aircraft, if Auster & Chipmunk were any guide. Fail to see why Tigers should have slats fitted, they were a buyers option after all. Military probably fitted them as a make work item for ab initio training, instilling cockpit check procedures. We had similar make work items imposed during ab initio, no flap landings if a flag was flying beside the runway van, canopy open at certain stages of flight, both for no good reason, other than to instil discipline.
The aircraft in the OP's link had slats, you can see the left plainly extended. With only a little over seven hours in the Tiger, the pilot would have had little experience with the aircrafts characteristics, low power, high drag, small speed range, factors pointed out in the report. Was he even aware of the slats "clacking", I certainly don't recall it now from my nearly six decades ago experience, it certainly wasn't a subject of the endorsement. |
The aircraft in the OP's link had slats, you can see the left plainly extended. With only a little over seven hours in the Tiger, the pilot would have had little experience with the aircrafts characteristics, low power, high drag, small speed range, factors pointed out in the report. The following extract is of interest from the book by Stephen Slater called De Havilland Tiger Moth 1931-1945 (all marks) Owners' Workshop Manual. Page 49-50 refers. Quote: "The upper wings of the majority of Tiger Moths are fitted with a further ingenious device to improve low-speed handling. Aerofoil-shaped slats (or 'slots') on the upper wings are held against the leading edge of the wing by air pressure in normal flight, but at speeds below around 60 mph(100kph) they progressively extend by 3in (75mm), encouraging the airflow to remain attached over the top surface of the outer wing, thereby slightly delaying the stall and making it more gentle when it occurs. The slats which can be manually locked closed by a control on the right side of the rear cockpit, to avoid sudden deployment during aerobatics or unnecessary wear and tear when taxiing - were developed by another British aircraft designer, Sir Frederick Handley-Page. In addition to the cost of the slats and their controls, de Havilland had to pay a royalty of 38 pounds eleven shillings and sixpence on every set fitted as an extra cost option on pre-war Tiger Moths. However, all RAF-specification aeroplanes had them fitted." Unquote. |
I have several hundred hours in the Tiger Moth and all of them with the slats locked. If the lack of wind in your face does not give you an idea of speed and the view does not tell you something about the AoA then you probably should not be flying one.
|
Whenever the conversation touches Tiger Moths and spins I can't help thinking of this photo: https://www.waggabiketyres.com/The%20Canon%201.jpg Reading his exploits I reckon the guy has nine lives. |
I have several hundred hours in the Tiger Moth |
I think it’s been shown this aircraft had slats so it’s a moot point if they save lives. Apparently not in this case. Of more interest is that the minimum type training required by this company was 5 hours. The accident pilot had less than this. The minimum tailwheel time required by the operator and by the insurance company was 25 hours. The accident pilot had less than this. The full length of the runway was not useable due to long grass. No lawnmower? The pilot made a substantial turn to the left 2 seconds after take off followed by a turn back to the right to give more time to gain height to fly over obstacles. The young pilot had no supervision or help on this day, he had to get out of this aircraft with the motor running twice. |
If anything it shows you that an accident has many facets and can be days or weeks or months in the making. None of the following are a clear cause but have contributed in a small part
|
Originally Posted by B2N2
(Post 10406260)
If anything it shows you that an accident has many facets and can be days or weeks or months in the making. None of the following are a clear cause but have contributed in a small part
If you have a crack in the varnish, fuel can get into the cork, as it heats up it will expand and may result in the float sticking causing a rich or lean mixture. https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4bf4007d8.jpeg |
I think it’s been shown this aircraft had slats so it’s a moot point if they save lives. Apparently not in this case. Unfortunately too, spin training is no longer part of the curriculum, few aircraft are cleared for spinning. https://www.aopa.org/-/media/files/a...spin.pdf?la=en |
Not stated to date is that, as I recall, the pilot, although a new graduate to the Tiger Moth, had recently flown a Cirrus SR-22 around the world.
A big difference in the handling of a DH82 Tiger Moth and a Cirrus CR-22. |
A number of concerns.
It has been pointed out by a few posters regarding the pilot having very little time on type, the weather conditions and some interesting manoeuvres after takeoff. in regards to slats, as the person whom started the thread stated. Yes slats are in the POH as a stall warning device. They also assist in decreasing the published power off stall speed by 2 or 3 knots, depending on the rigging of the tiger moth. The stall speed with power on is published at 25knots and a Tigermoth can comfortably be flown in S and L at 30 knots or less by a pilot with sufficient training on type by an instructor with knowledge and experience on type. Also in contradiction of the initial post, war time tigers built in Australia were supplied with slats. They were not an after market option as suggested. the ATSB, after approx 40 months have returned some interesting facts. Fact 1. A minimum of 5 hours training was required by the operator in the ops manual. The operator claims that they operate to a charter standard. Firstly the minimum requirements for charter is 10hours on type, and, secondary the pilot had less than 5 hours training on type and less than 10hours total time on type. Further research beyond the ATSB report will find that the person doing the training held a PPL and the training was pre part 61. (Meaning a ppl could not hold an instructor rating.) Fact 2. The insurance company required time on tail Wheel was 25hours minimum. The pilot was performing duties with less than the required 25hours. (One would assume that this has rendered the insurance void.) Fact 3. The pilot performed duties autonomous with no ground crew resulting in the passenger been strapped in and alone on the aircraft with the engine running on 3 occasions before take off. To pony out the obvious, this is a major breach. The question must be asked, is this an instruction from the company and considered normal operations? Fact 4. The pilot performed a left hand turn 2 seconds after takeoff at a reported height of 20 to 40feet. (After several test and discussions with pilots having between 600+ and 8,000 hours on tigers, the height at which this turn commenced would be 8’ to 10’.) as mentioned in the ATSB report there would be little to no advantage in gain of altitude by these turns. (Furthermore, some comments from high time instructors, were, that they believed that the series of turns were a procedure turn been the precursor to a downwind ‘beatup’.) Fact 5. The ATSB found through video footage of the flight that the wind sock was indicating 10 - 15knots down the cross strip used in the fatal flight. This is well within the limits of the planes capabilities and would result in an adequate climb rate to clear any obstacles identified within the limits of an ALA. the westpac rescue helicopter pilot stated above tree level albeit, about an hour later that it was 30-35knots above tree level. It should also be noted that Coolangatta was diverting flights due strong winds. Fact 6. The pilot stated that he had used the cross strip many times before. This statement is quite interesting as the pilot had a total of less that 8 hours on type at that aerodrome. Is many 10 times, 30 times or more than 50? the ATSB report has raised some serious concerns with either the system in place and approved by CASA to a self administration body, or rather the operators gross misconduct after performing inadequate training to meet their own operations manual and not ensuring the pilot meets the minimum standard for the insurance. this accident is tainted with gross misconduct by several parties with the result being grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of an innocent passenger and serious injury’s to the young pilot. you can continue talking about slats and the unsafe nature of a classic trainer, or, draw your own conclusions by reading the report in full. Either way, our industry has experienced another set back and a tragic loss of life which should not have even occurred. |
Originally Posted by fatboywings
(Post 10410107)
Firstly the minimum requirements for charter is 10hours on type |
Yes. The minimum time on type is 10hours. Also when you state a minimum time of training on type, that should be done not a lesser amount. |
and 8,000 hours on tigers, |
Originally Posted by Centaurus
(Post 10410390)
That must surely be a world record if true..
|
fatboywings:
Post #21 is spot-on! |
Yes. The minimum time on type is 10hours. you will find CAO 82.1 Para 4 stipulates minimum experience on type for Charter operations on Multi-engine aircraft and SE Turbine aircraft. These requirements are 5 hours time on type for VFR ops and 10 hours time on type for IFR. If the aircraft was operating under AWAL "Adventure Flight" rules, I am not familiar with those to comment. The above notwithstanding, you make some excellent points about the wider organisational factors that contributed to the accident. Good post. |
Originally Posted by Horatio Leafblower
(Post 10410860)
Fatboywings,
you will find CAO 82.1 Para 4 stipulates minimum experience on type for Charter operations on Multi-engine aircraft and SE Turbine aircraft. These requirements are 5 hours time on type for VFR ops and 10 hours time on type for IFR. If the aircraft was operating under AWAL "Adventure Flight" rules, I am not familiar with those to comment. The above notwithstanding, you make some excellent points about the wider organisational factors that contributed to the accident. Good post. i stand corrected. Thankyou |
They were not an after market option as suggested |
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 10411096)
Slats were an option available to the purchaser for a new build aircraft ie when you placed your order with de Havilland. But I'm sure it would not be beyond the abilities of an organisation to convert a non slatted aircraft into one so fitted.
|
For those tigers built at Mascot they were not an aftermarket option From 1931 article - The following special equipment is supplied at extra cost when it is desired to use the machine for duties other training:— Ten-gallon auxiliary petrol tank (larger auxiliary tanks can be supplied at the expense of other load); bomb racks to carry four 20-lb. bombs, complete with release gear ; bomb sight ; camera gun ; gun sight ;Marconi A.D. 22 wireless apparatus ; P. 14 camera with slides and envelopes ; parachutes ; Handley-Page automatic wing tip slots ; slot-locking device, operated from cockpit ;metal airscrew ; navigation lighting ; turn indicator ;drinking-water tank ; ration boxes; floats https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a71b2ae010.jpg |
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 10411128)
All the Australian built Tigers were for the RAAF, save 18 for the USAAF and 41 for the RIAF, and the purchasers opted for slats. Slats were never offered as an after market option by any Tiger manufacturer that I'm aware.
From 1931 article - My mount, courtesy of owner John Henderson, was the 78th aircraft off the Mascot line. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a71b2ae010.jpg |
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 10411128)
All the Australian built Tigers were for the RAAF, save 18 for the USAAF and 41 for the RIAF, and the purchasers opted for slats. Slats were never offered as an after market option by any Tiger manufacturer that I'm aware.
From 1931 article - My mount, courtesy of owner John Henderson, was the 78th aircraft off the Mascot line. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a71b2ae010.jpg |
Originally Posted by Cloudee
(Post 10411140)
VH-UEQ is still flying in South Australia. It has been flying quite safely without slats for many years I’m told. |
Thanks for the feedback. I could say that the premise of this thread was then similarly worthless given it appears the aircraft in question did have slats. |
bomb racks to carry four 20-lb. bombs, complete with release gear ; As soon as the Tiger Moth stopped on the airfield, the two occupants hopped out and ran away, leaving the Tiger Moth engine running. It started to move under its own power. The ATC was torn between chasing the fugitives or chasing the Tiger Moth before it ran into something. At the same time two RAF Mosquito fighter bombers were returning from a mission over Occupied France and had to go around because of the pilotless bombed-up Tiger Moth going in circles on the field. The two fugitives finally arrived back to their base and were arrested for stealing His Majesty's aircraft - namely the Tiger Moth. A most unlikely senior officer turned up at their Courts Martial and gave evidence that as CO of the Tiger Moth airfield he had objected having a bombed up Tiger Moth in his care. He had lodged objections to the Air Ministry saying it would be easy for anyone to pinch the Tiger Moth and drop its bombs on anyone. The Air Ministry had overruled his objection and left the bombed up Tiger Moth with no guard. Now that two RAF pilots on the run during a survival exercise had proved how easy it was to steal the Moth and fly away, it could have been escaped German prisoners of war that swiped the Moth and set sail for Germany. The Court of Inquiry dropped all charges. |
And so they should have...……
The officers concerned simply 'showed initiative'...….IMHO... Cheers.. |
The officers concerned simply 'showed initiative'. Btw, how are ya Mate?:ok: |
Still Vertical Mr Pinks….Still Vertical……..
CHEERSSS..... |
I cannot see anywhere in the thread or report any mention of the slats being lockable. Although the slats are designed to automatically deploy at high angles of attack, they can be locked with a control in the rear cockpit, which is SOP for aerobatics. I would normally leave the slats unlocked for takeoff and landing, unless the crosswind was near the limit. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:12. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.