Light aircraft down near Andover

[Paul_Sengupta]

I think the reason EFATO was mentioned was that the accident site was along the climbout path of runway 29 at Bourne Park.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Paul

Thanks for that - it makes sense now!

The impression was that the aircraft was en-route as no mention was made in the press of it having just taken off or of a nearby airfield - only that it 'came down near Tangley'.

FOK

[englishal]

Don't presuppose that 'pushing' is necessarily the most appropriate action, although adopting a nose down attitude will, most likely, require a forward movement of the control column if the engine fails when the aircraft is in a climbing attitude immediately after take-off.

I don't want to get too into it in this thread, but there was an excellent article written by some extremely experienced aerobatic pilot that I read. Basically the article was along the lines that if your engine quits on take off you have moments to react properly, climb speed will normally be around minimum drag on the drag curve (and hence best glide) and when people fall onto the back of the drag curve is when the stall spin scenario often kicks in. This can happen in a very short space of time once the engine stops.

If the engine dies on take off (at low level anyway), pushing forward unloads the wings and guarantees you are not going to stall and spin (an unloaded wing cannot stall). It also gives the pilot vital seconds to come up with a course of action and also improves forward visibility. Of course if you are too low you have to accept that landing straight ahead may be the only option, but it is better to LAND straight ahead, making adjustments to your course and avoiding solid objects where possible, than to spin into the ground.

Again I am not saying that this is what happened here, I don't know. There are various reports as Paul says that state this was on the climb out from a runway, and various other reports which suggest "wobbling" - sounds like it *could* be a stall.

[Chequeredflag]

I spent 30 years as a professional competitor in the world of motor rallying. In the '70 and 80's particularly, the cars were ultra powerful, hugely quick and the events were organised in such a way that sleep over three or four days was limited to a (very) few hours at a time. It was dangerous in the extreme, and as a result, we lost a lot of fellow competitors to accidents, often caused by extreme fatigue.

In every case, it was sad indeed, and being quite a close "community", we all felt the losses deeply. Nevertheless, there was never the sense that you could not talk about these fatal accidents, their causes, and how they could be avoided in the future for fear of upsetting other people (albeit there were no public forums for such discussion a la Prune).

It was recognised as a dangerous profession, that was hugely exciting to take part in - the fatal accidents never put anyone off their total commitment to being fastest through the special stages. Looking back, we took massive risks, and I was lucky enough to retire from the sport relatively unscathed.

I guess this is why I canot personally understand the outpourings of condolences to family and friends of pilots that most of us will never have met, (though I can privately understand the anguish loved ones will feel). Nor can I understand the attempts to quell discussion about such accidents, though I totally accept the need to keep names out of the forum until they are officially announced.

I rather fear I have been hardened to death over the years, and accept fatal accidents as an unfortunate side effect of a pastime (flying) that can (and sadly does) bite from time to time. I tend to simply reflect that those concerned died doing something they loved.

There are many worse ways to meet your maker when your time is up.

[stickandrudderman]

What's this? A sensible post? Surely not? Shouldn't this kind of thing be banned from prune?
I mean, it is not pretentious, doesn't slag anyone off, doesn't quote any tedious legislation, doesn't seek to promote the standing of the poster, what on earth will be next I wonder?
Actual facts?
Probably not.

[EK4457]

Completely agree.

Mods- please ban Chequeredflag on the grounds he wants to discuss an incident in a logical, ethical and common sense way.

This is clearly not the PPRUNE protocol.

Interestingly, already we have started a discussion on EFATO and low level stalling/spinning. Even if this is nothing to do with the accident, surely a good thing from which we can all learn?

If there are some confused ethics which prevent some from taking part, simply read another forum. Dead easy.

On the subject of EFATO, I have had it drummed into me from day 1 that you push the stick forward, pitch down, maintain best glide, and LAND it 30 degrees either side of the nose. Interested as to what the more experienced FIs have to say?

EK

[foxmoth]

I would also agree with Chequered flag, all my comments were about not prematurely exposing the details of WHO was involved, not a problem with debating what happened, even when some come up with daft ideas!

And Kiltie

This has to be a PPRuNe record. 5 posts and someone is chastised for asking what is a reasonable enough question on a rumour network.

The whole point here is that many people here do NOT see asking prematurely which aircraft (thus leading to who it was) as a reasonable question
As far as

If these PPRuNe members demonstrated such confidence to patronise their fellow posters in the pub face to face I suspect there would be persistent

In the pub you do not generally worry about being overheard by the press which is a problem on Pprune - and I am sure if you got a notion in the pub that the press were in and listening you would get a quick "hey chaps keep it down" from the person who picked up on that, which is basically what I tried to do here!

[hotair67]

first post

suddenly thought perhaps if i said too much i would get chastised !!

[srobarts]

The BBC website now has the names:
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Hampshire | Light plane crash victims named

[Noah Zark.]

there have been many crashes with light turboprop aircraft over the last 6 months; there should be a safety review and I think they should only be allowed to fly when appropriate, not for a nice day out

This comment by a Mail Online reader says it all, really.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

I agree that the adoption of a nose down attitude after an EFATO should be a positive and immediate action.

However use of the word 'push' tends to suggest that this is a semi-aerobatic manoeuvre - especially when used in conjunction with the phrase 'unload the wings'.

True the idea is not to stall and to ensure the aircraft is in the correct flight attitude.

However this should be a GENTLE and POSITIVE action - not designed to send the pilots into the cabin roof due to excessive negative g.

Students can over-react in this situation and whilst it is essential for positive action to be taken rather than delayed or no action at all, the aim is to SMOOTHLY adopt the attitude and not upset the instructor (or passengers) - or lose excessive height through being over-zealous!

This is an important topic and as others have said, worth positive comments - but without detracting from subject of the Thread.

FOK

[Paul_Sengupta]

Nord G-BGEW out of Bourne Park. Owned by Stuart.

[doubleu-anker]

As has been mentioned on this thread.

The experts say you have an excellent chance of survival in the EFATO scenario if you go in "under control". I.E., fly the thing onto the ground. It is the sudden vertical acceleration due to the sudden loss of lift that does the damage to man and machine in the stall situation, as they are not stressed for it. The vertical speed compared with the horizontal speed, will be very high, with a stalled wing. One maybe faced with trees in front or gaps in them. Fly it into them. You will loose the wings etc., but they will also absorb a lot of the impact, just like the break fall used in Marshall arts..

Keep this in the back of our minds. It is the stall that will kill us, whether it be a few feet or hundreds of feet AGL.

As for the "push" theory, if the wings are completely unloaded I.E., zero G, the wing "cannot" stall, can it?. The fun starts when the wing has to be loaded again to >1g, to execute a landing under control.

[Kiltie]

I disagree Foxmoth, there is nothing premature about asking which type it was. If we were to worry about the press watching our threads we would stifle our discussions on aircraft systems and operating techniques on all sorts of threads such as Tech Log. Stating which type crashed does not infer who was flying it.

We have to remember this is a rumour network so rumours should be tolerated regardless of their accuracy.

[englishal]

However use of the word 'push' tends to suggest that this is a semi-aerobatic manoeuvre - especially when used in conjunction with the phrase 'unload the wings'.

Call it what you want, ignore it, whatever, I don't care. The article actually said "push forward until the windscreen is 2/3 ground and 1/3 sky" as this gives a reasonable glide attitude in most aeroplanes.

Push is pretty descriptive of what you have to do, and every pilot should know about wing loading....

[T-21]

In gliding up to at least 500feet we always go ahead in the event of a winch cable break or problem on the aero-tow. Also we taught to ease not push the stick forward ,but don't prat around as time is vital in maintaining airspeed. Always have a pre take off brief regarding the wind on the day and your options. Alot of private pilots could do with a session of good ole stick and rudder handling at gliding. My own safety brief started as I was driving to the airfield looking at the wind effect and viz conditions.

Chequered flag agree with you. Having had an air experience passenger die in the cockpit and dealt with two nasty gliding accidents one does have to harden to accidents. I have had no counselling,stress management .... just live with it and time is a good healer. Society today is pampered and shows LMF (lack of moral fibre). One should remember the young men from Bomber Command who just had to carry on regardless.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Thanks for the information Paul. Everyone else on here seems to have forgotten what the thread was about.....sad.

[T-21]

Heathrow Director, No we have not forgotten the thread. Each one of us have different feelings about air accidents and deal with it ,it helps to talk about it amongst fellow aviators on this forum. Let's see more bonhomie and less shark attacks.

[cats_five]

Originally Posted by T-21

In gliding up to at least 500feet we always go ahead in the event of a winch cable break or problem on the aero-tow. Also we taught to ease not push the stick forward ,but don't prat around as time is vital in maintaining airspeed.
<snip>

Another thing drummed into us (and sometimes demonstrated at a safe height) about winch launch failures is that when unable to land ahead, wait after adjusting the attitude and check the ASI. Don't attempt a turn until airspeed has increased sufficiently (figure depends on glider type) - the results of doing so are stall/spin very close to the ground.

[Captain Stable]

LAND it 30 degrees either side of the nose.

Yes.

However, when students come out with this phrase in their Captain's Brief at the start of a flight, I sometimes wonder at the sense of it.

Certainly, trying to land more than 30 degrees either side of the nose would be a little foolhardy, but what students tend to fail to consider is the wind. If it's already 30 degrees (or more) off the runway heading, you wouldn't really consider going more acrosswind than that - I tell people to favour the side the wind is coming from.

Consider Runway 27. Wind 240/20. On takeoff he only has a 10 kt XWC. If silly stude turns right after an EFATO he then has most of a 20 kt crosswind to try to land in. But in his pre-Takeoff brief he's told me "I will look for a landing site within 30 degrees either side of the nose". No, no, no, no, NOOOOOooooooo.....