Crash at Jersey Airport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: jersey
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash at Jersey Airport
Does anyone no the details about the aircrash (involving a light aircraft)at jersey airport this morning, the pilot died but does anyone know anything else
Just this on the BBC news:-
One dead, one hurt in plane crash
Police have sealed off the area
It is understood one person has died and another has been injured in a crash involving a light aircraft at Jersey's airport.
It is thought the accident happened at about 0750 BST on Saturday.
The area near Les Ormes golf course has been sealed off by Jersey police, who are investigating the incident and will be issuing a statement later.
Officers from the Air Accident Investigation Branch are now flying into the island from the UK.
One dead, one hurt in plane crash
Police have sealed off the area
It is understood one person has died and another has been injured in a crash involving a light aircraft at Jersey's airport.
It is thought the accident happened at about 0750 BST on Saturday.
The area near Les Ormes golf course has been sealed off by Jersey police, who are investigating the incident and will be issuing a statement later.
Officers from the Air Accident Investigation Branch are now flying into the island from the UK.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putco obviously missed out on the news of the DC3 that crashed in Colombia yesterday killing all three on board. If you are superstitious enough to believe that incidents go in threes then that would be the third.
If third in the series implies accidents happen in threes (or whatever): There is no "...third in the dreaded series". The 'series' has been acruing continuously since Icarus. It's another fatal to add to the woe of all the previous ones. The significance of 'three' is only because people choose to reset their counter to zero after the number reaches '3'. They could choose any arbitrary number they like but it's still meaningless. I think I'll choose 1.9070874443 x 10^978810908675. 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jersey
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot killed when his light plane crashed into a hillside near Jersey airport has still not been named. He has not yet been formally identified.
It's thought that the single-engined Mooney aircraft suffered mechanical failure moments after take-off.
The plane came down in a steep-sided field near Mont a la Brune. The pilot was pronounced dead at the scene.
The UK Air Accident Investigation Branch, together with local police and fire officers, are trying to pinpoint the cause of the crash.
It's thought that the single-engined Mooney aircraft suffered mechanical failure moments after take-off.
The plane came down in a steep-sided field near Mont a la Brune. The pilot was pronounced dead at the scene.
The UK Air Accident Investigation Branch, together with local police and fire officers, are trying to pinpoint the cause of the crash.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kishna, we're talking 'The impossible turn' here. As you say, it's far too early to speculate but this does look like an EFATO and the situation aggravated by, reportedly, poor weather. Also, the western end of runway 27 at Jersey is prone to turbulence due to the terrain. Very sad, and our hearts must go out to the family of the pilot and a speedy recovery to the injured passenger.
Last edited by DerekWarrior1; 18th Oct 2004 at 14:17.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not knowing anything about the circumstances of the crash in Jersey, I will not comment but give the details on a crash that occurred a year earlier with my hangarmate involved in his Mooney. he is just now beginning to walk again.
In short: on a previous trip a fuel tank was allowed to run empty in flight, no big deal, a switch was made to the other tank and the flight continued.
After landing both tanks were filled to the brim. Starting was on the second tank that was not previously run dry, then a flight was made of about one hour.
A week later a new flight was planned, engine started on the second tank, but after the runup and engine checks, with the aircraft on the runway ready for takeoff, fuel selector was switched to the first tank again (the one that was run dry and had not been used since).
Result: just enough fuel in the lines to get up to about 100ft over the runway followed by silence as the trapped air reaches the engine.
Conclusion: three people seriously injured, one aircraft total loss. Could have been much worse if the engine had run for 10 seconds more.
In short: on a previous trip a fuel tank was allowed to run empty in flight, no big deal, a switch was made to the other tank and the flight continued.
After landing both tanks were filled to the brim. Starting was on the second tank that was not previously run dry, then a flight was made of about one hour.
A week later a new flight was planned, engine started on the second tank, but after the runup and engine checks, with the aircraft on the runway ready for takeoff, fuel selector was switched to the first tank again (the one that was run dry and had not been used since).
Result: just enough fuel in the lines to get up to about 100ft over the runway followed by silence as the trapped air reaches the engine.
Conclusion: three people seriously injured, one aircraft total loss. Could have been much worse if the engine had run for 10 seconds more.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bournemouth, UK
Age: 53
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its high time that the CAA safety people issue some recommendations regarding engine failures after take off.
The info I have is that the pilot was alone in the aircraft. My sympathies are with his family.
Regards
Stoney X
Flies for fun
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Wishing it was somewhere sunny!
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that it was standard practice to start and taxi on one tank then switch to the other for run up checks and take off. Is this familiarity where "experienced" pilots believe that they don't need to do full run up checks any more?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody can comment on the accident at the beginning of this thread as nothing is known but talking about fuel management before take off.
There seem to be 2 schools of thought.
One is that you start and taxi out on the lowest tank and then change to the fullest before you do the run-up and engine checks leaving it on that tank for the take-off and initial climb.
That works indeed well for most aeroplanes with shortish fuel lines.
The other method is to start on the fullest tank and taxy, run up take off and climb on that tank until you are in the cruise and then change. Advantage is that you know that your fuel supply is good and uninterrupted. Drawback is that you don't know if the other tank(s) are feeding.
Best thing to do is to use your POH or noddle and work out something that works for you and your aeroplane and stick to that.
FD
There seem to be 2 schools of thought.
One is that you start and taxi out on the lowest tank and then change to the fullest before you do the run-up and engine checks leaving it on that tank for the take-off and initial climb.
That works indeed well for most aeroplanes with shortish fuel lines.
The other method is to start on the fullest tank and taxy, run up take off and climb on that tank until you are in the cruise and then change. Advantage is that you know that your fuel supply is good and uninterrupted. Drawback is that you don't know if the other tank(s) are feeding.
Best thing to do is to use your POH or noddle and work out something that works for you and your aeroplane and stick to that.
FD
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 2nm due S EGLK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FD,
Indeed, not changing tanks at all is a perfectly good solution subject to the caveats you mention.
But I hope we can all agree that swapping tanks on the runway is frankly insane!
TPK
Indeed, not changing tanks at all is a perfectly good solution subject to the caveats you mention.
But I hope we can all agree that swapping tanks on the runway is frankly insane!
TPK
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kishna, from CAA Safety Sense leaflet 1D, Para 4:
In the event of engine failure after take-off,
if the runway remaining is long enough,
re-land and if not, never attempt to turn
back. Use areas ahead of you and go for
the best site. It is a question of knowing
your aircraft, your level of experience and
practice and working out beforehand your
best option at the aerodrome in use. (One
day, at a safe height, and well away from
the circuit, try a 180° turn at idle rpm and
see how much height you lose!)
PS. I am not speculating as to the cause of this accident. I am merely responding to a specific post.
In the event of engine failure after take-off,
if the runway remaining is long enough,
re-land and if not, never attempt to turn
back. Use areas ahead of you and go for
the best site. It is a question of knowing
your aircraft, your level of experience and
practice and working out beforehand your
best option at the aerodrome in use. (One
day, at a safe height, and well away from
the circuit, try a 180° turn at idle rpm and
see how much height you lose!)
PS. I am not speculating as to the cause of this accident. I am merely responding to a specific post.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Jersey Evening Post have now published a more comprehensive report on their website. The pilot was a Mr Alan Armstrong, managing director of a Jersey finance company and he was departing JSY in his Mooney single en route to Teeside. According to witnessses, the engine failed shortly after take off and the aircraft burst into flames upon impact with the ground. There is no mention of a passenger. His family, apparently, live in the UK.
I think it safer on the majority of the tired GA fleet out there to change tanks only once airborne with plenty of height allowing a calm restart or forced landing. This practice of teaching PPLs to change tanks on the ground prior to take off has caused two incidents that I know of.
Invariably PPL's are looking for an expeditious departure and by doing a quick power check at the holding point they may only have drawn a few litres after changing tanks. Similarly its not uncommon for the tank change to get overlooked. They suddenly remember just prior to take off and hurredly 'correct' their oversight by switching.
Avoid all the pitfalls and do it downwind or as part of the first FREDA or first leg setting or even 1000ft checks.
Cheers
WWW
Invariably PPL's are looking for an expeditious departure and by doing a quick power check at the holding point they may only have drawn a few litres after changing tanks. Similarly its not uncommon for the tank change to get overlooked. They suddenly remember just prior to take off and hurredly 'correct' their oversight by switching.
Avoid all the pitfalls and do it downwind or as part of the first FREDA or first leg setting or even 1000ft checks.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have run a tank dry on the Mooney as discussed above. It took about 30-45 seconds before we had normal flow again. This is no big deal at safe altitude.
I recommend starting the engine on tank A, doing taxi and runup on tank B and not changing tanks again until at a safe altitude.
Also if a tank was run dry, just filling it up will not get rid of the air in that part of the fuel line that sits beween the tank outlet and the fuel selector valve. That air has only one way to go and engines don't run to well on an air/air mixture.
On the Mooney or Beech this part of the fuel line can be drained only if the fuel selector valve is moved to the right position.
On all these checks, it helps if the pilot remembers WHY he is doing it a particular way rather than blindly following a checklist.
I recommend starting the engine on tank A, doing taxi and runup on tank B and not changing tanks again until at a safe altitude.
Also if a tank was run dry, just filling it up will not get rid of the air in that part of the fuel line that sits beween the tank outlet and the fuel selector valve. That air has only one way to go and engines don't run to well on an air/air mixture.
On the Mooney or Beech this part of the fuel line can be drained only if the fuel selector valve is moved to the right position.
On all these checks, it helps if the pilot remembers WHY he is doing it a particular way rather than blindly following a checklist.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Under the Mildenhall landing flightpath
Age: 69
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy the pilot was a friend of mine. He used to commute into London from Essex on the Stansted Express before he moved job to Jersey, he then kept his home in Essex and commuted from Fowlmere to Jersey weekly in the Mooney.
Apparently he was flying to Teeside to see his son at a sports day when the crash happened. He left a wife and two sons. He was a really nice guy and I and his other fellow commuters was really shocked when we heard what had happened. I last saw him only about a week before the accident when he made one of his periodic appearances on the train.
Apparently he was flying to Teeside to see his son at a sports day when the crash happened. He left a wife and two sons. He was a really nice guy and I and his other fellow commuters was really shocked when we heard what had happened. I last saw him only about a week before the accident when he made one of his periodic appearances on the train.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Guildford
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh no, that chap. I had a chat with him one afternoon at Fowlmere when I drove in there a few months ago. Seemed like a nice chap. Helpful. He was just about to depart so I watched him get in his plane and take off. My condolances to anyone who knew him.
