Light Aircraft Crash on Isle of Wight
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been standing by the Sandown Control Tower waiting for an aircraft to arrive I will comment thus, any other information I have I will fwd to the AAIB for them to sort as usefull or not. I find the speculation and some earlier comments distastfull
The runway in use was 23 for TO and Landing.
The circuit was very busy with at the time of the accident aircrafts departure call, up to 4 in circuit, 3 waiting to leave at 23 threshold with approx two others and a high perfomance aircraft about to join the circuit.
The weather was hot however I dont have a temprature reading
The wind was southerly and was fluctuating around to the point where it slightly favoured one runway or the other for minutes at a time - certainly not enough time (in my opinion) to keep changing the runway and circuit direction.
23 is slightly up hill, especially at the start.
Operating our aircraft it was better to land going uphill with maybee a knot or two tailwind than to land into a knot or two going down hill - our choice.
The ground away from 23 does rise, however not steeply, there is a garden centre higher up and behind that higher again trees . After the trees the ground may fall away I cant see from the tower area.
When the aircraft was noted as struggling there was immediate concern, as it disapered behind the trees it was followed seconds later by a large amount of smoke.
The airfield fire engine immedtialy left to go to the scene.
A helicopter which had just lifted off went directly to the site of the accident, it was there within 90 seconds.
One of the crew jumped to the ground, saw two witnesses to the accident. he attepted to get near the aircraft but was beaten back by the fire - they returned.
I understand the Airfield Fire engine put the blaze out in difficult circumsatances.
The fire crew retuned when Police etc turned up - they were in shock and quite rightly relieved of further duties.
The airfield was closed whilst a detailed FOD check was carried out.
The airfield re-opened unlicensed with 05 being used for TO and 23 for landings. This kept aircraft away from the scene which had a large helicopter poss Coast guard hovering for a time.
With no smoke later on and the accident behind trees it looked like a normal day and unless you spoke to someone who was there at the time, it was difficult to believe that such an event had taken place.
I hope I have not upset anyone but these are simple observations as to events as I saw them. I will not comment on the aircraft, pilot or radio talk as there are better qualified people than me to deal with that.
The runway in use was 23 for TO and Landing.
The circuit was very busy with at the time of the accident aircrafts departure call, up to 4 in circuit, 3 waiting to leave at 23 threshold with approx two others and a high perfomance aircraft about to join the circuit.
The weather was hot however I dont have a temprature reading
The wind was southerly and was fluctuating around to the point where it slightly favoured one runway or the other for minutes at a time - certainly not enough time (in my opinion) to keep changing the runway and circuit direction.
23 is slightly up hill, especially at the start.
Operating our aircraft it was better to land going uphill with maybee a knot or two tailwind than to land into a knot or two going down hill - our choice.
The ground away from 23 does rise, however not steeply, there is a garden centre higher up and behind that higher again trees . After the trees the ground may fall away I cant see from the tower area.
When the aircraft was noted as struggling there was immediate concern, as it disapered behind the trees it was followed seconds later by a large amount of smoke.
The airfield fire engine immedtialy left to go to the scene.
A helicopter which had just lifted off went directly to the site of the accident, it was there within 90 seconds.
One of the crew jumped to the ground, saw two witnesses to the accident. he attepted to get near the aircraft but was beaten back by the fire - they returned.
I understand the Airfield Fire engine put the blaze out in difficult circumsatances.
The fire crew retuned when Police etc turned up - they were in shock and quite rightly relieved of further duties.
The airfield was closed whilst a detailed FOD check was carried out.
The airfield re-opened unlicensed with 05 being used for TO and 23 for landings. This kept aircraft away from the scene which had a large helicopter poss Coast guard hovering for a time.
With no smoke later on and the accident behind trees it looked like a normal day and unless you spoke to someone who was there at the time, it was difficult to believe that such an event had taken place.
I hope I have not upset anyone but these are simple observations as to events as I saw them. I will not comment on the aircraft, pilot or radio talk as there are better qualified people than me to deal with that.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lesson to all. Aviation is one of those things in life that people will pay the ultimate price for.
I have been to Sandown many times and seen it happen. I was sat on the veranda at the cafe earlier this year, and the local pleaseure flight a C-172 was filled up to the brim with pax and fuel. The guy sat next to me having a drink rated the guy as a good pilot! I beg to differ!! Said cessna got airbourne just!! Hmmm
Was a performance take off used? ie full power on the brakes and one or two stages of flap. I never saw it applied once when I was sat watching for an hour or so. I applied this and was airbourne in half the length. Come the end of the runway I was cleaning up with a good positive rate. But then again I wasnt full up and well over limits.
Condolences to all involved. Please though let this be a lesson to the rest of us!
I have been to Sandown many times and seen it happen. I was sat on the veranda at the cafe earlier this year, and the local pleaseure flight a C-172 was filled up to the brim with pax and fuel. The guy sat next to me having a drink rated the guy as a good pilot! I beg to differ!! Said cessna got airbourne just!! Hmmm
Was a performance take off used? ie full power on the brakes and one or two stages of flap. I never saw it applied once when I was sat watching for an hour or so. I applied this and was airbourne in half the length. Come the end of the runway I was cleaning up with a good positive rate. But then again I wasnt full up and well over limits.
Condolences to all involved. Please though let this be a lesson to the rest of us!
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was a performance take off used? ie full power on the brakes and one or two stages of flap. I never saw it applied once when I was sat watching for an hour or so. I applied this and was airbourne in half the length. Come the end of the runway I was cleaning up with a good positive rate. But then again I wasnt full up and well over limits.
How many times do I have to say it....
Speculation is useful, and has brought home the words DENSITY ALTITUDE to a group of pilots who probably hardly knew what they meant. that can't be bad.
But jumping to conclusions about the cause of the accident, based on few definite facts, is inappropriate and wrong.
I'll keep repeating that till I'm blue in the face if you all insist, but I'd rather not.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I for one have flown a PA28 140, four adults with useful fuel for distance of trip and 45 mins reserve
The problem with that is this: the "useful fuel" is likely to be say 1hr - the average UK flight perhaps. If you have 1:45 of fuel the fuel level in a PA28 will be below what can be visually inspected. If one keeps doing that (depart with fuel below visual inspection level, without precise fuel flow instrumentation) one is going to get a suprise one day.
The problem with that is this: the "useful fuel" is likely to be say 1hr - the average UK flight perhaps. If you have 1:45 of fuel the fuel level in a PA28 will be below what can be visually inspected. If one keeps doing that (depart with fuel below visual inspection level, without precise fuel flow instrumentation) one is going to get a suprise one day.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: staffordshire
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I for one have flown a PA28 140, four adults with useful fuel for distance of trip and 45 mins reserve
The problem with that is this: the "useful fuel" is likely to be say 1hr - the average UK flight perhaps. If you have 1:45 of fuel the fuel level in a PA28 will be below what can be visually inspected. If one keeps doing that (depart with fuel below visual inspection level, without precise fuel flow instrumentation) one is going to get a suprise one day.
Exactly correct, I was planning flights just over one hour and toured Ireland doing so, (although fuel was not below visual inspection level and well understand your point) paying great attention to wind direction etc for timing of flights. I firstly spoke in depth with my CFI, he gave me a sectional diagram of a PA28 fuel tank giving quantities from empty to front corner of tank, then tabs and full. I also drained the tank and spent some time at the pumps to test the figures and also take the time to make myself a personal fuel gauge.
Thanks for your advice, with proper planning and further advice and tips from instructors and the forum I hope not to get the suprise you suggest.
Thanks again.
The problem with that is this: the "useful fuel" is likely to be say 1hr - the average UK flight perhaps. If you have 1:45 of fuel the fuel level in a PA28 will be below what can be visually inspected. If one keeps doing that (depart with fuel below visual inspection level, without precise fuel flow instrumentation) one is going to get a suprise one day.
Exactly correct, I was planning flights just over one hour and toured Ireland doing so, (although fuel was not below visual inspection level and well understand your point) paying great attention to wind direction etc for timing of flights. I firstly spoke in depth with my CFI, he gave me a sectional diagram of a PA28 fuel tank giving quantities from empty to front corner of tank, then tabs and full. I also drained the tank and spent some time at the pumps to test the figures and also take the time to make myself a personal fuel gauge.
Thanks for your advice, with proper planning and further advice and tips from instructors and the forum I hope not to get the suprise you suggest.
Thanks again.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash victims now named. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/6933745.stm
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: bradford
Age: 57
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of factors to consider. I'm trying to get my head around airlaw which does explain this and makes you think about the many variables. Considerations to take off run available, wind speed, outside temperature, whether the runway is grass/tarmac etc all can make a huge difference to take off performance and passenger carrying capability.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can an aircraft designed with four seats, designed to carry four people, where the weight of a full tank of fuel will have been known during the design, possibly be overweight in such circumstances?
If there are two of you then you can go a long way with full tanks. If you want to take 4 people then you can only take a bit of fuel.
You could fit a big engine but this then gets expensive.
So thats why the W&B in the POH is so important and varies between different models of the same aircraft.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you can possibly take two light adults and two kids with full fuel, although I don't actually know if you can with this particular aircraft. But as Zulu Alpha says, 4 seats gives you flexibility. And even with a two- seater, you need to calculate weight and balance; you often can't take two large people and full fuel. You certainly can't in the R22!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: one dot low as usual
Age: 66
Posts: 537
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hooloovoo, I fly a 400 seat aircraft and we can't take a full load of pax & cargo with full tanks either. As ZA says, it's to do with flexibility of aircraft use.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the others have said, it is done for operating flexibility.
However, different aircraft designs have the compromise at different points. I think it's fair to say that a Warrior has the compromise rather a long way down, and while it was probably quite a flexible design when it was new 50+ years ago, when the average Yank or Brit male was say 60kg as compared to 100kg today, it is nowadays only a 2-seater if going on any decent trip.
A PA28-140 with four average adults is likely to be overloaded unless it is carrying so little fuel that the fuel level is way below inspectable level (which itself is a dim way to do things) so a large percentage of them are routinely overloaded, and people get away with it because they are coming off a long runway.
PPL training has a lot to answer for. In 2000 (UK), I did W&B but density altitude was never covered, I never saw the handbook for anything that was being flown, and certainly never saw a proper takeoff performance chart of the sort that takes into account elevation, temperature, weight, runway-end obstacle clearance, etc.
I am not suggesting this accident was caused solely by overloading and density altitude though, for the reasons I gave earlier. The aircraft was already airborne, apparently out of ground effect, so some loss of engine power seems a likely possibility. This may or may not be evident in the AAIB report; they can't find what they can't find... I have read many of those reports and while their speculation is educated it is often just that... speculation.
However, different aircraft designs have the compromise at different points. I think it's fair to say that a Warrior has the compromise rather a long way down, and while it was probably quite a flexible design when it was new 50+ years ago, when the average Yank or Brit male was say 60kg as compared to 100kg today, it is nowadays only a 2-seater if going on any decent trip.
A PA28-140 with four average adults is likely to be overloaded unless it is carrying so little fuel that the fuel level is way below inspectable level (which itself is a dim way to do things) so a large percentage of them are routinely overloaded, and people get away with it because they are coming off a long runway.
PPL training has a lot to answer for. In 2000 (UK), I did W&B but density altitude was never covered, I never saw the handbook for anything that was being flown, and certainly never saw a proper takeoff performance chart of the sort that takes into account elevation, temperature, weight, runway-end obstacle clearance, etc.
I am not suggesting this accident was caused solely by overloading and density altitude though, for the reasons I gave earlier. The aircraft was already airborne, apparently out of ground effect, so some loss of engine power seems a likely possibility. This may or may not be evident in the AAIB report; they can't find what they can't find... I have read many of those reports and while their speculation is educated it is often just that... speculation.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daventry UK
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPL training has a lot to answer for. In 2000 (UK)
The Cessna POH has concise performance tables showing takeoff at different elevations and temperatures, inherantly taking into account the density altitude and climb to 50'. No-one who has been checked out in a 152 or 172 can possibly fail to have seen these easy to understand tables.
I was once with a US FBO when 4 well built British lads with luggage turned up for a Warrior rental to go touring. They seemed genuinely surprised when the FBO scuppered their plans. I know they were well built because I gave them a lift to the hotel and the car grounded on a speed ramp!
There really does seem to be a cultural difference over this.
The only reason it is the first thing mentioned is because it is usually very important. I have just returned from Colorado Springs where I have been doing a little mountain flying.
The field I flew from - Meadowlake - has a unicom with automated "ATIS" and it always gives a caution about the density altitude. As the field is at 6,800 above sea level, performance is almost always critical even with a 6,000 foot runway, when the DA is almost 9,000 feet.
Last Thursday we flew 2 up, restricted our fuel to less than half tanks in a 172 R and did a lot of gradual climbing to get to just under 12,000 to safely circle Pikes Peak, 14,100.
Denver is at over 5,000 feet and much of the countryside around is flat but 9,000 above sea level (no QFE then !!!)
Because in our cool climate and low altitudes (my home field is 81 Ft AMSL) we generally don't need to worry about density Alt, doesn't men that on the wrong day it isn't out there waiting for us.
The field I flew from - Meadowlake - has a unicom with automated "ATIS" and it always gives a caution about the density altitude. As the field is at 6,800 above sea level, performance is almost always critical even with a 6,000 foot runway, when the DA is almost 9,000 feet.
Last Thursday we flew 2 up, restricted our fuel to less than half tanks in a 172 R and did a lot of gradual climbing to get to just under 12,000 to safely circle Pikes Peak, 14,100.
Denver is at over 5,000 feet and much of the countryside around is flat but 9,000 above sea level (no QFE then !!!)
Because in our cool climate and low altitudes (my home field is 81 Ft AMSL) we generally don't need to worry about density Alt, doesn't men that on the wrong day it isn't out there waiting for us.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NW England
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, i really don't think speculating over the cause of a tragic accident like this is going to do anyone any good.
I just hope there are as many people who will read and learn from the accident report as there are those who speculate on this forum.
I just hope there are as many people who will read and learn from the accident report as there are those who speculate on this forum.
Why would you not want to speculate?
There have been all kinds of suggestions on this thread about the cause of the accident and every one of us will now take that little bit of extra care when we take our next flight - that is why it is good to speculate about the cause of accidents - it broadens the mind and opens it up to possibilities.
It may well be that this Pilot did everything right but then his engine ran rough or lost a bit of power - problem is that he had sliced his luck into a wafer thin portion due to all of the other actions and an engine problem proved to fatal as opposed to an inconvenience. That is complete speculation of course but maybe next time you are convinced that a heavy take off is safe - it may just make you think about the engine and prop and wonder if your assumption that your calcs - based on a correctly functioning engine and prop - are up to scratch.
This pilot had no margin for error at all left in his bag of luck and that is why it had tragic results.
I vote for speculation all day long especially if it makes us think twice about our own performance and limitations.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would you not want to speculate?
All the bleating about showing respect for the dead and wait for the AIB that comes every time we have a discussion/speculation on an accident is more often than not a result of guilt from our own mistakes rather than respect for people we don't know. Millions die every day, we have to live with it.
If I pop my clogs from a flying accident I hereby actively encourage you all to speculate to your hearts content on what happened. See how close we can get to the AIB's speculation and see if we learn from it!
further speculation:
Four adults on a trip to France were probably going to stay overnight or longer, and would have needed baggage.
I've been scoffed at for the care I take in weighing baggage, but in a case like this one it could really have been the last straw. Something the AIB will be looking for amongst the wreckage.
Four adults on a trip to France were probably going to stay overnight or longer, and would have needed baggage.
I've been scoffed at for the care I take in weighing baggage, but in a case like this one it could really have been the last straw. Something the AIB will be looking for amongst the wreckage.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is jet fuel safer in crashes ?
If you would have jet fuel in your tanks instead of the highly flameable 100LL and you crash in a field,..
do you believe you would have more chance to survive and not get into an inferno ?
do you believe you would have more chance to survive and not get into an inferno ?
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too agree that speculation is a positive thing. If one person reading this thread now decides to do a mass and balance calculation when in doubt in future then it's been worth it surely? What one needs to remember is that speculation is possible without passing judgement. That can wait until the AAIB report is in and only then can the innocent man cast the first stone.
VFE.
VFE.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I've said twice already on this thread - but I'm going to say it again because it's relevant and important - speculation is fine. What isn't fine, however, is jumping to conclusions based on little evidence but only assumptions.
We STILL don't know that they were overweight. We don't know what these four people weighed; they could have been super-fit jockey-sized types for all we know. We don't know how much fuel they had. They could have been travelling very light where luggage is concerned - I've flown to Paris for a weekend with only one spare teeshirt, and spent 5 days in France with only one change of clothes...and no extra shoes, and I'm a woman!!! Sorry for emphasising that. but my co-pilot at the time just couldn't believe that any woman could manage on one pair of shoes for 5 days. Well, I didn't like it, but I'd done my weight and balance checks, and needs must.
But I digress. Speculation is fine. In this case it was indeed a hot day, and being overweight was a distinct possibility. So discussing that is useful. But the discussion keeps on and on leading to assumptions that this was the definite cause, and that might not have been the case at all!
DOES ANYONE ON HERE UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING?????
We STILL don't know that they were overweight. We don't know what these four people weighed; they could have been super-fit jockey-sized types for all we know. We don't know how much fuel they had. They could have been travelling very light where luggage is concerned - I've flown to Paris for a weekend with only one spare teeshirt, and spent 5 days in France with only one change of clothes...and no extra shoes, and I'm a woman!!! Sorry for emphasising that. but my co-pilot at the time just couldn't believe that any woman could manage on one pair of shoes for 5 days.
Well, I didn't like it, but I'd done my weight and balance checks, and needs must. But I digress. Speculation is fine. In this case it was indeed a hot day, and being overweight was a distinct possibility. So discussing that is useful. But the discussion keeps on and on leading to assumptions that this was the definite cause, and that might not have been the case at all!
DOES ANYONE ON HERE UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING?????
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all please count me in - if I ever snuff it in an accident, please speculate to your hearts' delight !
Secondly, IMHO this is NOT about W&B but about density altitude and t/o performance in general. While the weight (or mass) part of the two obviously is related, they are two different beasts entirely. You can be well within W&B but don't have the power to achieve a successful t/o. It may well be that this is an area that's neglected in the UK, possibly because so much flying is done near the standard temp/pressure (15 deg C / SL). It is however, of importance not only in the US or Africa (where it is vital), but in many parts of Europe. As people can and do fly beyond the confines of the UK, PPL training there probably really has a lot to answer for.
In any case, a PA28-140 is not exactly the hottest ship around and with three adults and one adolescent plus (presumably) some luggage more likely than not was very close to MTOW. Add 10 degs above standard and a grass strip.....
Secondly, IMHO this is NOT about W&B but about density altitude and t/o performance in general. While the weight (or mass) part of the two obviously is related, they are two different beasts entirely. You can be well within W&B but don't have the power to achieve a successful t/o. It may well be that this is an area that's neglected in the UK, possibly because so much flying is done near the standard temp/pressure (15 deg C / SL). It is however, of importance not only in the US or Africa (where it is vital), but in many parts of Europe. As people can and do fly beyond the confines of the UK, PPL training there probably really has a lot to answer for.
In any case, a PA28-140 is not exactly the hottest ship around and with three adults and one adolescent plus (presumably) some luggage more likely than not was very close to MTOW. Add 10 degs above standard and a grass strip.....