Light aircraft down in Dundee
In the credit where credit is due department, he did avoid built-up areas when he became concerned about fuel -- and when the engine quit, he quickly made a plan that fit his perceived circumstances, stuck to it and walked away from the final result.
Now in the what to do if you are short of fuel department, one can point out several poor decisions. It seems he landed somewhere in a low fuel state to get gas but there was none. I would be most reluctant to take off again without precisely measuring my remaining fuel and having a precise route worked out to a fuel stop that allowed me an hour's reserve.
In the event that my hour's reserve was about to be used, I would most certainly climb and begin working my route from one landable field to the next. Of course once high enough, you can usually head off in the general direction as I do in a glider until low enough that I want to have a good field in my pocket.
As a private owner, I would become highly cognisant of the fuel burn plus stick the tanks against the fuel gauge readings so that I would know what they were really telling me.
In a machine with a 1000nm range, mixture can have a large effect on consumption. You can't achieve book figures or often anything near that without optimal mixture. I would definitely log expected against actual fuel consumption for at least my first flights until I knew what I could expect.
One watch I had had a countdown timer. That was set to how much time was in the tanks of the C-172's I was flying.
Getting short of fuel can happen because of diversions, unexpected headwinds, or leaks. When you are down to that know last 30 minutes or so of fuel (depending on how well you know the a/c and the gauges), a precautionary landing gives you the opportunity to check out a field before committing yourself to it.
Then there's navigation. The pilot does seem able to get from A to B and manage a diversion. But the question arises about his ability to identify airspace, work effectively with ATC and adhere to a clearance. But we do have to give him credit for contacting ATC and being honest
Somehow I suspect whichever insurer that is persuaded to take him on will be insisting on a safety pilot with specified credentials
Now in the what to do if you are short of fuel department, one can point out several poor decisions. It seems he landed somewhere in a low fuel state to get gas but there was none. I would be most reluctant to take off again without precisely measuring my remaining fuel and having a precise route worked out to a fuel stop that allowed me an hour's reserve.
In the event that my hour's reserve was about to be used, I would most certainly climb and begin working my route from one landable field to the next. Of course once high enough, you can usually head off in the general direction as I do in a glider until low enough that I want to have a good field in my pocket.
As a private owner, I would become highly cognisant of the fuel burn plus stick the tanks against the fuel gauge readings so that I would know what they were really telling me.
In a machine with a 1000nm range, mixture can have a large effect on consumption. You can't achieve book figures or often anything near that without optimal mixture. I would definitely log expected against actual fuel consumption for at least my first flights until I knew what I could expect.
One watch I had had a countdown timer. That was set to how much time was in the tanks of the C-172's I was flying.
Getting short of fuel can happen because of diversions, unexpected headwinds, or leaks. When you are down to that know last 30 minutes or so of fuel (depending on how well you know the a/c and the gauges), a precautionary landing gives you the opportunity to check out a field before committing yourself to it.
Then there's navigation. The pilot does seem able to get from A to B and manage a diversion. But the question arises about his ability to identify airspace, work effectively with ATC and adhere to a clearance. But we do have to give him credit for contacting ATC and being honest
Somehow I suspect whichever insurer that is persuaded to take him on will be insisting on a safety pilot with specified credentials
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Also saying that "“The criticism is inevitable. These people are responding to news reports and they don’t know what actually happened — I did not run out of fuel.....I had just enough fuel to get to Kinloss but what happened was that I burned my margin [which means he did run out of fuel, surely?]........he believed the engine cut-out was caused by a problem with that particular type of aircraft when one of the tanks is empty, and that the incident would lead to all models being grounded for further investigation to prevent a repeat."
Anyone with experience of this model care to comment? Has the BMAA issued a statement/advisory?
Anyone with experience of this model care to comment? Has the BMAA issued a statement/advisory?
Last edited by airborne_artist; 14th Aug 2009 at 15:10.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since Mr H is clearly reading this (judging from news articles):
Please take onboard the valid comments on here, and stop blaming everyone but yourself. Sure, there may be mitigating circumstances, but we all know that accidents often have more than one single cause, some of which appear exacerbated by airmanship.
We're all here to keep each other safe; we are not here to pander to PR and the media who will subjectively quote without understanding the larger picture. Comments here will help improve everyone's safety if they are taken onboard.
If, for example, you knew the aircraft to have fuel feed issues, particularly if advised by maufacturers, it is your responsibility to add sufficient margin.
Neither are "weird clouds" an excuse: unforecast winds and their effect on fuel consumption would be spotted if flight planning contained ETAs, and late ETAs resulted in recalculation of ground speed and fuel remaining.
All these are complex, but within the syllabus of the PPL; there is no shame in asking if you forget certain aspects of the syllabus post-PPL at your local flying club, indeed you should be doing so in the post-PPL stage.
While clearly we don't know all the facts, there is a large body of factual evidence of airmanship from fellow users of Scottish, and an abandonment of reason in going down the "Biggle landing" route, contrary to all PPL training.
Take note, Mr H, and good luck for the recovery. And stop talking to the media. It is that which irks people most in this case.
Read: GASIL 2009/07: General Aviation Safety Information Leaflet. The CAA Accident Prevention Leaflet. | Publications | CAA
Aviation safety and skills are not to be taken lightly, whether you are a 1 hr a month or 80 hr a month pilot.
Please take onboard the valid comments on here, and stop blaming everyone but yourself. Sure, there may be mitigating circumstances, but we all know that accidents often have more than one single cause, some of which appear exacerbated by airmanship.
We're all here to keep each other safe; we are not here to pander to PR and the media who will subjectively quote without understanding the larger picture. Comments here will help improve everyone's safety if they are taken onboard.
If, for example, you knew the aircraft to have fuel feed issues, particularly if advised by maufacturers, it is your responsibility to add sufficient margin.
Neither are "weird clouds" an excuse: unforecast winds and their effect on fuel consumption would be spotted if flight planning contained ETAs, and late ETAs resulted in recalculation of ground speed and fuel remaining.
All these are complex, but within the syllabus of the PPL; there is no shame in asking if you forget certain aspects of the syllabus post-PPL at your local flying club, indeed you should be doing so in the post-PPL stage.
While clearly we don't know all the facts, there is a large body of factual evidence of airmanship from fellow users of Scottish, and an abandonment of reason in going down the "Biggle landing" route, contrary to all PPL training.
Take note, Mr H, and good luck for the recovery. And stop talking to the media. It is that which irks people most in this case.
Read: GASIL 2009/07: General Aviation Safety Information Leaflet. The CAA Accident Prevention Leaflet. | Publications | CAA
Aviation safety and skills are not to be taken lightly, whether you are a 1 hr a month or 80 hr a month pilot.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: 6nm N of LHR
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an excellent thread this has been. Very enjoyable and thought provoking. It's waht I like about pprune and long may it continue.
Coming to it late in life (ditto flying), I can understand how a professional person can bring their "baggage" into a new realm and suspect the pilot in this case may well have done. Competency in one field sadly isn't always transferable to another.
Being a trainer, I suspect the person involved may well not have taken on board "the music in the words". Instructors may well have multiple agendas. I'm (paid) to give the course - I got good feedback - hence that's it. In an ideal world it's "when this person leaves the course, I am satisfied that they can cope without me" (a perennial problem where I work - the management believe they are paid on delivery whereas you actually get paid on acceptance of the product by the client). I suspect also that judgment by the person involved in particular circumstances may be lacking. Was there sufficient understanding by them of the principle of the "superior pilot"?
Running out of fuel (viewed from the ground) is poor planning (assuming that the fuel system hasn't sprung a leak). Discovering it in the air is different and shows us a great deal about people's judgment and motivations.
Lastly, let's address the challenge of getting someone who's been in a crash back flying again.
From conversations with insurance principals, my view would be to get the insurance people to state their conditions for issue of insurance (e.g spend 25 hours flying with an instructor, do 6 diversions, plan 10 cross country flights etc.).
Basically, instill some practice to turn someone who has a bit of paper declaring their competence into someone who has met the subtle challenges that flying throws up over at least one season.
My own log book (spread over 25+ years) has many learning examples in its bland entries.
Coming to it late in life (ditto flying), I can understand how a professional person can bring their "baggage" into a new realm and suspect the pilot in this case may well have done. Competency in one field sadly isn't always transferable to another.
Being a trainer, I suspect the person involved may well not have taken on board "the music in the words". Instructors may well have multiple agendas. I'm (paid) to give the course - I got good feedback - hence that's it. In an ideal world it's "when this person leaves the course, I am satisfied that they can cope without me" (a perennial problem where I work - the management believe they are paid on delivery whereas you actually get paid on acceptance of the product by the client). I suspect also that judgment by the person involved in particular circumstances may be lacking. Was there sufficient understanding by them of the principle of the "superior pilot"?
Running out of fuel (viewed from the ground) is poor planning (assuming that the fuel system hasn't sprung a leak). Discovering it in the air is different and shows us a great deal about people's judgment and motivations.
Lastly, let's address the challenge of getting someone who's been in a crash back flying again.
From conversations with insurance principals, my view would be to get the insurance people to state their conditions for issue of insurance (e.g spend 25 hours flying with an instructor, do 6 diversions, plan 10 cross country flights etc.).
Basically, instill some practice to turn someone who has a bit of paper declaring their competence into someone who has met the subtle challenges that flying throws up over at least one season.
My own log book (spread over 25+ years) has many learning examples in its bland entries.
As I wrote in my earlier post:
As well as:
How prophetic!
“Mr Hagedorn… insisted today he had ‘done nothing wrong’, and had been following the instructions of air traffic controllers throughout.” That’s the first box ticked – ‘done nothing wrong’ – and of course ATC are to blame, not him.
“it was ‘weird clouds’ which had resulted in him burning more fuel than expected” Now we can add the clouds to the list of culprits, but not our hero Mr H.
“As a pilot, I did everything I should have done.” Still squarely not to blame; re-tick box 1.
“My route was chosen in conjunction with the Dundee control tower, but nobody expected the engine to stop when I still had half an hour worth of fuel.” Still not Mr H to blame for anything, but the net is cast wider to include both Dundee Control Tower and his idiosyncratic engine to blame!
“I had just enough fuel to get to Kinloss but what happened was that I burned my margin.” So apparently there is still absolutely no way it could possibly be Mr H’s fault…
“I was flying above the clouds, which were broken so there was good visibility of the ground.” So presumably he feels that this demonstrates perfectly good airmanship for an inexperienced pilot? But again, presumably still somehow not Mr H’s fault that he found himself above the clouds…
“But there were weird clouds, patches at different heights, and I got permission to fly at 9000 ft while I was going through Edinburgh airspace.” I somehow doubt very much that he gained permission to fly in controlled airspace – rather that ATC felt it better to at least be talking to him once they discovered him there…
“The higher the altitude, the more fuel you burn” Not so, but probably Mr H with his expert knowledge of all things aviation and physics will somehow once again not be mistaken, and most definitely not to blame. I wonder, did he revise his fuel consumption figures and endurance before choosing to climb higher? Possibly Biggles ought to be consulted for definitive fuel consumption figures…
“He said he believed the engine cut-out was caused by a problem with that particular type of aircraft” Absolutely true to form for characters of his sort; there is still absolutely no blame laid at his feet – it is now the fault of the aircraft!
“… [he believed] that the incident would lead to all models being grounded for further investigation to prevent a repeat.” In the vain hope that once again, it will turn out to be absolutely no fault of his whatsoever!
“I said it wasn’t a crash, it was a landing.” Oh, silly me! There I was believing that it was his crash that was being reported. I achieve well over 1,000 landings every year; thankfully they are not newsworthy and the plane or helicopter can be flown again. Other competent pilots do exactly the same. That is what tends to distinguish the difference between a landing and a crash, Mr H.
Never before have I seen such a comprehensive catalogue of deluded self-belief, where everyone and everything is to blame, but not the idiot pilot. Clearly my hopes that Mr H might just reflect on his bad airmanship and his good fortune, then start to realise his mistakes in order to become a better pilot are dashed by this defiant defence of his blameless flying.
My view is becoming loss tolerant. What a complete idiot! PLEASE Mr H, don’t even think of flying again until you can accept that you made serious mistakes, and that you need re-training. And if you do ever find yourself airboune again, please, oh please, not in the same airspace as me.
People who simply refuse to accept responsibility for their mistakes, people who refuse to listen and to learn will forever remain a danger to themselves, and more importantly, to the wider public.
...having a distinct preference for talking rather than listening, and being apparently incapable of accepting any responsibility for their mistakes... [they] never, to my recollection, ever felt they had made a mistake. It was always “because of this, that or the other factor” beyond their control.
“Mr Hagedorn… insisted today he had ‘done nothing wrong’, and had been following the instructions of air traffic controllers throughout.” That’s the first box ticked – ‘done nothing wrong’ – and of course ATC are to blame, not him.
“it was ‘weird clouds’ which had resulted in him burning more fuel than expected” Now we can add the clouds to the list of culprits, but not our hero Mr H.
“As a pilot, I did everything I should have done.” Still squarely not to blame; re-tick box 1.
“My route was chosen in conjunction with the Dundee control tower, but nobody expected the engine to stop when I still had half an hour worth of fuel.” Still not Mr H to blame for anything, but the net is cast wider to include both Dundee Control Tower and his idiosyncratic engine to blame!
“I had just enough fuel to get to Kinloss but what happened was that I burned my margin.” So apparently there is still absolutely no way it could possibly be Mr H’s fault…
“I was flying above the clouds, which were broken so there was good visibility of the ground.” So presumably he feels that this demonstrates perfectly good airmanship for an inexperienced pilot? But again, presumably still somehow not Mr H’s fault that he found himself above the clouds…
“But there were weird clouds, patches at different heights, and I got permission to fly at 9000 ft while I was going through Edinburgh airspace.” I somehow doubt very much that he gained permission to fly in controlled airspace – rather that ATC felt it better to at least be talking to him once they discovered him there…
“The higher the altitude, the more fuel you burn” Not so, but probably Mr H with his expert knowledge of all things aviation and physics will somehow once again not be mistaken, and most definitely not to blame. I wonder, did he revise his fuel consumption figures and endurance before choosing to climb higher? Possibly Biggles ought to be consulted for definitive fuel consumption figures…
“He said he believed the engine cut-out was caused by a problem with that particular type of aircraft” Absolutely true to form for characters of his sort; there is still absolutely no blame laid at his feet – it is now the fault of the aircraft!
“… [he believed] that the incident would lead to all models being grounded for further investigation to prevent a repeat.” In the vain hope that once again, it will turn out to be absolutely no fault of his whatsoever!
“I said it wasn’t a crash, it was a landing.” Oh, silly me! There I was believing that it was his crash that was being reported. I achieve well over 1,000 landings every year; thankfully they are not newsworthy and the plane or helicopter can be flown again. Other competent pilots do exactly the same. That is what tends to distinguish the difference between a landing and a crash, Mr H.
Never before have I seen such a comprehensive catalogue of deluded self-belief, where everyone and everything is to blame, but not the idiot pilot. Clearly my hopes that Mr H might just reflect on his bad airmanship and his good fortune, then start to realise his mistakes in order to become a better pilot are dashed by this defiant defence of his blameless flying.
My view is becoming loss tolerant. What a complete idiot! PLEASE Mr H, don’t even think of flying again until you can accept that you made serious mistakes, and that you need re-training. And if you do ever find yourself airboune again, please, oh please, not in the same airspace as me.
Last edited by pilotmike; 14th Aug 2009 at 15:53.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't normally comment on an accident until the facts are established, media reports being notoriously unreliable. However, Mr H has already said enough in interviews his various interviews. He seems to enjoy the attention but he really isn't doing himself any favours. A few thoughts:
Running yourself out of fuel is almost unforgiveable.
Not diverting or making a precautionary landing when you still could shows poor decision making.
Putting yourself in a situation where you have no options to deal with contingencies is bad airmanship especially when you have very limited experience.
Weather, air traffic, higher burn rate, etc does not justify the accident. It's your responsibility to be prepared for unforeseen events.
Running a tank to empty on aircraft with multiple tanks is best avoided where possible.
Choosing to fly into a tree at double your stall speed based on a tale in a children's book rather than carrying out a forced landing to a suitable area (a golf course for instance) is absolutely barking mad!
There used to be an accident cause category for RAF Boards of Inquiry back when blame culture was strong, entitled 'Aircrew Error (Negligence)' I have a sneaking feeling that despite Mr H's many excuses and justifications, such a category might have some relevance to his 'accident'.
Running yourself out of fuel is almost unforgiveable.
Not diverting or making a precautionary landing when you still could shows poor decision making.
Putting yourself in a situation where you have no options to deal with contingencies is bad airmanship especially when you have very limited experience.
Weather, air traffic, higher burn rate, etc does not justify the accident. It's your responsibility to be prepared for unforeseen events.
Running a tank to empty on aircraft with multiple tanks is best avoided where possible.
Choosing to fly into a tree at double your stall speed based on a tale in a children's book rather than carrying out a forced landing to a suitable area (a golf course for instance) is absolutely barking mad!
There used to be an accident cause category for RAF Boards of Inquiry back when blame culture was strong, entitled 'Aircrew Error (Negligence)' I have a sneaking feeling that despite Mr H's many excuses and justifications, such a category might have some relevance to his 'accident'.
The CT does suffer from a known fuel situation, in that, should the a/c be flown out of balance, or indeed be parked on sloping ground, the fuel gravitates to the lower tank, when flying in this condition, the a/c does tend to drop the heavier wing, that condition will remain I guess unless the wing is raised higher to compensate and equalise the fuel. It may well be that Mr H had fuel in the lower wing which failed to reach the carb. I would imagine that this would only occur when very low on fuel.
I doubt very much that there would be any mixture control on this aircraft.
It is a very nice aircraft to fly, relatively fast and very slippery, with as previously mentioned a very low stall speed, with when required a very short landing. Probably much less than 100metres in skilled hands.
I doubt very much that there would be any mixture control on this aircraft.
It is a very nice aircraft to fly, relatively fast and very slippery, with as previously mentioned a very low stall speed, with when required a very short landing. Probably much less than 100metres in skilled hands.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr H
We've all done stupid things in the air; nobody is perfect. Learn from those errors and admit to them, as the most dangerous person is one who does not learn. We will all freely admit to doing dumb things in the clubhouse, as that is how the temprement of the pilot should be.
As someone once said, you are continually learning in aviation. If you think you have nothing more to learn, quit before you kill yourself.
We've all done stupid things in the air; nobody is perfect. Learn from those errors and admit to them, as the most dangerous person is one who does not learn. We will all freely admit to doing dumb things in the clubhouse, as that is how the temprement of the pilot should be.
As someone once said, you are continually learning in aviation. If you think you have nothing more to learn, quit before you kill yourself.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I was just north of Dundee when I checked my fuel gauges and it said it was half full, but when I checked the wing gauges, one said it was empty and the other said I had only half an hour left of flying.”
If the electronic guage is set incorrectly to start with then it is quite possible that the it could show more fuel available then there actually is - hence the reason sight guages are available in the cockpit.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish Mr H a speedy recovery, however I am firmly of the opinion that he should never fly again, irrespective of how much training he has. It is not his planning abilities, or indeed his flying skills that should ground him, but his complete and utter arrogance! There is no amount of training going to cure his self righteousness!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: dublin, ireland
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a CTSW Pilot
2C worth from a CTSW Pilot.
I am similar in circumstances to the accident pilot; in ownership, age, experience, hours logged technical background etc; having bought my rather delightful CTSW six months ago and put 60 hours up on it so far.
Mainly I want to concentrate here on the report of engine stopping in what appears to be the final turn.
The two wing tanks are 65 litres each. This puts the plane pretty much top of the class AFAIK regarding endurance. Flogging the 912 is 5.4 hrs to zero, double that if flown at the factory’s economic cruise. I have mooched around on as little as 9 l/hr.
This aircraft is sold as a microlight, VLA, S-LSA with perhaps 1800 produced to date all variants, but essentially the same plane except for:
All versions have in the wing root sight gauges, but the very flat tanks, and the CTLS slosh tank can lead to some counterintuitive readings. A detailed discussion of this is here:
Flight Design CTsw Forum.... :: View topic - CTLS Fuel Balance
In particular the words of Russ and Xrayspecs are relevant to this event.
Bottom line: fly true or else your engine will starve before all the fuel is gone.
It takes me more attention than I want to give, to achieve this result, but I have done it to within a few litres on a long trip.
Others here may know of similar characteristic in flat tanked aircraft. Is this a fault or a quirk? It may take a fatality and a court case before this question gets answered. There needs to be total clarity when specifying what “usable fuel” means here. The ongoing improvements suggest the manufacturers are responsive to the problem. I wonder what the position is in relation to older craft without the slosh tanks?
Finally don’t be hard on the dude, at least on this point. IMHO (amateur shrink) and to give him the benefit of the doubt, he was in some sort of shock elation (the joys of survival) and at that moment WAS Biggles. Ever been Biggles?
I am similar in circumstances to the accident pilot; in ownership, age, experience, hours logged technical background etc; having bought my rather delightful CTSW six months ago and put 60 hours up on it so far.
Mainly I want to concentrate here on the report of engine stopping in what appears to be the final turn.
The two wing tanks are 65 litres each. This puts the plane pretty much top of the class AFAIK regarding endurance. Flogging the 912 is 5.4 hrs to zero, double that if flown at the factory’s economic cruise. I have mooched around on as little as 9 l/hr.
This aircraft is sold as a microlight, VLA, S-LSA with perhaps 1800 produced to date all variants, but essentially the same plane except for:
- The earlier CT2K had fuel changeover valve, later changed to simple tee piece feed from the two wing tanks. This was the decision of the manufacturer, as the lesser risk, following in the field accident experience.
- The CTSW has these two tanks, with inboard feeds to the unvalved tee.
- The CTLS has additional slosh tanks, small inboard compartments with restricting flapvalves that trap a quantity of fuel over that feed pipe.
All versions have in the wing root sight gauges, but the very flat tanks, and the CTLS slosh tank can lead to some counterintuitive readings. A detailed discussion of this is here:
Flight Design CTsw Forum.... :: View topic - CTLS Fuel Balance
In particular the words of Russ and Xrayspecs are relevant to this event.
Bottom line: fly true or else your engine will starve before all the fuel is gone.
It takes me more attention than I want to give, to achieve this result, but I have done it to within a few litres on a long trip.
Others here may know of similar characteristic in flat tanked aircraft. Is this a fault or a quirk? It may take a fatality and a court case before this question gets answered. There needs to be total clarity when specifying what “usable fuel” means here. The ongoing improvements suggest the manufacturers are responsive to the problem. I wonder what the position is in relation to older craft without the slosh tanks?
Finally don’t be hard on the dude, at least on this point. IMHO (amateur shrink) and to give him the benefit of the doubt, he was in some sort of shock elation (the joys of survival) and at that moment WAS Biggles. Ever been Biggles?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: ESSEX
Age: 55
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here you go, from the horses mouth as it were,
There was fuel in the plane, 10 litres equates to about 45mins in that plane
Take this in the spirit it was written, Vince IS a character!!
Yes guys it IS "your" vince.
In answer to questions:
"RUNWAYTREE" was selected after MAYDAY - engine cut out unexpectedly with between 5 and 10 litres in the port tank. The AAIB will concentrate on this.
Under instruction from Dundee Tower I was where I was, doing what I was doing.
"Mayday Mayday Mayday November Hotel engine out" - River Tay too far across with hard looking dunes (with grass) and a road in the way.
Too low to consider engine restart - might have worked as 5+ litres fuel back in sightglass but if not????.
0 deg flap for best glide angle "November Hotel Heading for Crop field due North of Tay Bridge"
Did 180deg turn toward a handy crop field (noted as part of ******* safety training), but that was up a slight hill and the other side of a small group of houses. "November Hotel Negative crop field."
Discarded playing fields off to the East nice and flat but full of kids and goalposts (Oliver would have landed past the lot, he does sheep!, but I didn't fancy a scottish kid on my conscience)
All that was left was a golf course. "November Hotel - Will try golf course to Left" Looked at fairways but riddled with bunkers, trees, shrubs and dozens of golfers (later found it was their annual competition day!)
"Negative fairway."
That left terminal tree!
Recalling Biggles crashing his SE5a deadstick into a forest I threw a viscious side slip Right (to add a downwards component to velocity) and at the last moment yanked back the stick to "stall" into the tree. Biggles calls it a "pancake" and that is a good description. Going mad might suit better!
Went into tree bottom first, wings fuselage etc took the strain - the CT behaved impeccably in the air and in breaking my arrival cushioned the impact.
result - bruised ribcage - getting better with hot baths, sprained ankle - (as that and my shoulder was all that kept me from falling out through the RH door) and a few light scratches on face - makes me look rugged I'm told.
A Senior RAF instructor has told me since that this was in the manual for flying over Burma - which is 99% forest, and that Biggles had described it perfectly!
I am up and about and fine - playing Bridge tonight.
There will be a full description of the manoeuvre with pictures in the Chronicle next edition and there are a couple of film crews coming - might have to get my hair tinted!!!
If you want to try it yourself, please tell me so I can be 10000000 miles away!
I came to Damyn's to get my car this morning but apart from ******* who was at least pleased to see me and ******* who definitely wasn't there was no-one there.
I am lucky my parents gave me Biggles books when young!
Incidentally that was not a "crash" which is uncontrolled but an "Emergency Landing" I am told by the AAIB. And there were NO bounces!
All the best to you all,
May drop in tomorrow if time.
Vince
There was fuel in the plane, 10 litres equates to about 45mins in that plane
Take this in the spirit it was written, Vince IS a character!!
Yes guys it IS "your" vince.
In answer to questions:
"RUNWAYTREE" was selected after MAYDAY - engine cut out unexpectedly with between 5 and 10 litres in the port tank. The AAIB will concentrate on this.
Under instruction from Dundee Tower I was where I was, doing what I was doing.
"Mayday Mayday Mayday November Hotel engine out" - River Tay too far across with hard looking dunes (with grass) and a road in the way.
Too low to consider engine restart - might have worked as 5+ litres fuel back in sightglass but if not????.
0 deg flap for best glide angle "November Hotel Heading for Crop field due North of Tay Bridge"
Did 180deg turn toward a handy crop field (noted as part of ******* safety training), but that was up a slight hill and the other side of a small group of houses. "November Hotel Negative crop field."
Discarded playing fields off to the East nice and flat but full of kids and goalposts (Oliver would have landed past the lot, he does sheep!, but I didn't fancy a scottish kid on my conscience)
All that was left was a golf course. "November Hotel - Will try golf course to Left" Looked at fairways but riddled with bunkers, trees, shrubs and dozens of golfers (later found it was their annual competition day!)
"Negative fairway."
That left terminal tree!
Recalling Biggles crashing his SE5a deadstick into a forest I threw a viscious side slip Right (to add a downwards component to velocity) and at the last moment yanked back the stick to "stall" into the tree. Biggles calls it a "pancake" and that is a good description. Going mad might suit better!
Went into tree bottom first, wings fuselage etc took the strain - the CT behaved impeccably in the air and in breaking my arrival cushioned the impact.
result - bruised ribcage - getting better with hot baths, sprained ankle - (as that and my shoulder was all that kept me from falling out through the RH door) and a few light scratches on face - makes me look rugged I'm told.
A Senior RAF instructor has told me since that this was in the manual for flying over Burma - which is 99% forest, and that Biggles had described it perfectly!
I am up and about and fine - playing Bridge tonight.
There will be a full description of the manoeuvre with pictures in the Chronicle next edition and there are a couple of film crews coming - might have to get my hair tinted!!!
If you want to try it yourself, please tell me so I can be 10000000 miles away!
I came to Damyn's to get my car this morning but apart from ******* who was at least pleased to see me and ******* who definitely wasn't there was no-one there.
I am lucky my parents gave me Biggles books when young!
Incidentally that was not a "crash" which is uncontrolled but an "Emergency Landing" I am told by the AAIB. And there were NO bounces!
All the best to you all,
May drop in tomorrow if time.
Vince
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has given me a certain amount of amusement....
as I know a fair ammount of the history of this flight but certainally would not post on this public forum the only real conclusion I will at this time come to is this guy is a total "muppet" and one that can only do those that take some thought and care into how they operate their flying machines a very bad name!! 
as I know a fair ammount of the history of this flight but certainally would not post on this public forum the only real conclusion I will at this time come to is this guy is a total "muppet" and one that can only do those that take some thought and care into how they operate their flying machines a very bad name!!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More great press for GA.
What a deluded old fool. Rather than feeling humble after escaping with his life, he still chooses to try and justify his actions within the professional flying fraternity. I myself am a low hours PPL holder, but I promise you chaps, I will never do anything as stupid as this. And, should it happen, I wouldn’t try and explain it as a perfectly normal procedure. It would make me look even more of a tit.
Words fail me.
Words fail me.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Livingston UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vince,
I am a professional gliding instructor at the Scottish Gliding Centre (based at Portmoak, near Kinross) and this week had the pleasure of flying with Derek and Mo Jones, well known in the helicopter world, having a holiday gliding. As is my usual practice I have an earpiece and listen out on the Scottish frequency, the glider radio is set to the local gliding site frequency and I have a hand-set as back-up, usually monitoring the standard glider cross-country frequency.
During your “Triumphal” progress across the Scottish TMA, I heard the whole transgression, but did not make the connection with your arrival near Dundee.
This is not Biggles, but Flashman, bravado is no substitute for skill or experience.
So far the CAA has not promoted capital punishment for digressions; in this case I wonder how few would say nay?
If you want to fly agian, what we need to addess is what is go on in your head.
Their are lots of instuctors who can help, just because you have the money and the "CHAT" dosn't mean you cam fly.
My advice, get a good instrcutor, put your lip (ego) in a vice for a while, go gliding (no engine) open your ears; do it soon, because, very soon you will no longer be a problem to the rest of us; because you will be dead.
The tree stuff, "Biggles" may have fooled the press, but not us, just go way.
Chris
p.p.s. Or very soon you shall be dead, no BS, just dead.
I am a professional gliding instructor at the Scottish Gliding Centre (based at Portmoak, near Kinross) and this week had the pleasure of flying with Derek and Mo Jones, well known in the helicopter world, having a holiday gliding. As is my usual practice I have an earpiece and listen out on the Scottish frequency, the glider radio is set to the local gliding site frequency and I have a hand-set as back-up, usually monitoring the standard glider cross-country frequency.
During your “Triumphal” progress across the Scottish TMA, I heard the whole transgression, but did not make the connection with your arrival near Dundee.
This is not Biggles, but Flashman, bravado is no substitute for skill or experience.
So far the CAA has not promoted capital punishment for digressions; in this case I wonder how few would say nay?
If you want to fly agian, what we need to addess is what is go on in your head.
Their are lots of instuctors who can help, just because you have the money and the "CHAT" dosn't mean you cam fly.
My advice, get a good instrcutor, put your lip (ego) in a vice for a while, go gliding (no engine) open your ears; do it soon, because, very soon you will no longer be a problem to the rest of us; because you will be dead.
The tree stuff, "Biggles" may have fooled the press, but not us, just go way.
Chris
p.p.s. Or very soon you shall be dead, no BS, just dead.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of his questionable ideas and practices, fair play to VH for not rising to the name calling, judgement and spiteful remarks you lot have happily posted on here.
pilotmike. Most eloquent.
Mr H, please read and learn for your own skin's sake if not for our remaining, somewhat tattered,reputations as pilots thanks to you and others like you. Our exasperation is because this nonsense was quite unnecessary, and was easily avoided with the smallest smidgeon of that sadly rare commodity, common sense. We all get it wrong sometimes, but most of us manage a bit of sensible humility and LEARN from others, and from our mistakes. Come on man, you are old enough to know better.
What the devil do you mean 'weird' clouds? If you don't understand met, buy a book. If those were,for example, wave clouds, go talk to some glider pilots. They will soon put you right. Wave can ruin your day if you don't understand it, even in quite big aeroplanes.
C18 and hhobbit - that seems a very probable scenario. Not the first or only type to have that issue, as anyong who listens and reads about aeroplanes would be aware. I bet that occurred to several readers here. Dissapointing, but not at all surprising that it was news to this gentleman.
Vince, if you mentor, you should also know how to listen and learn. Yes?
Mr H, please read and learn for your own skin's sake if not for our remaining, somewhat tattered,reputations as pilots thanks to you and others like you. Our exasperation is because this nonsense was quite unnecessary, and was easily avoided with the smallest smidgeon of that sadly rare commodity, common sense. We all get it wrong sometimes, but most of us manage a bit of sensible humility and LEARN from others, and from our mistakes. Come on man, you are old enough to know better.
What the devil do you mean 'weird' clouds? If you don't understand met, buy a book. If those were,for example, wave clouds, go talk to some glider pilots. They will soon put you right. Wave can ruin your day if you don't understand it, even in quite big aeroplanes.
C18 and hhobbit - that seems a very probable scenario. Not the first or only type to have that issue, as anyong who listens and reads about aeroplanes would be aware. I bet that occurred to several readers here. Dissapointing, but not at all surprising that it was news to this gentleman.
Vince, if you mentor, you should also know how to listen and learn. Yes?