Tiger Moth Crash

[flying-saint]

Can one of you critics advise me how use of rudder in a steep turn on a Tiger Moth aircraft (where distance travelled for full deflection is probably less than you think) in any way displays poor airmanship or more pertinently, how that would present a pilot with a foreseeable risk? If it's not that, what else is being criticised during this flight? I must say I'm struggling to understand the valid logic / basis for any criticism...

Incidentally, if I'm not mistaken, the AAIB conceded at Trial that the rudder was found deflected to the left...

[India Four Two]

There are clearly two differing points of view about this accident and new information about the trial is appearing in some of the posts. As I said before, I would like to read the transcript of the trial.

At least one poster has cast aspersions on the veracity or completeness of the AAIB report. My view is that the report is quite reasonable and that I find it very credible.

Concerning the assertion by the pilot that the rudder was jammed, I find it remarkably coincidental that it happened in exactly the same location as a low-level loop on the first flight. A friend of the pilot and passenger was watching during the accident flight - the report does not make it clear if the friend observed the first flight.

... and a loop at about 1,200 ft agl followed by a descending turn to the right at 2,330 ft/min, from 1,000 ft agl down to a height of 410 ft agl, near Witchampton. This loop was performed on a north-westerly heading, into the prevailing wind, and was started within 20 m of the position of the subsequent accident site

[flying-saint]

If you want to get to the truth, you need to step away from the seemingly 'coincidental'. While those unswayed by the pilot's version of events rely solely on the AAIB Report, that won't be achieved. By all means look into the evidence considered in depth during the 4 week trial - then we can continue with a reasoned discussion.

[Legalapproach]

It takes about 10-15 minutes to read the AAIB report.

The jury heard the best part of 4 weeks worth of evidence from a variety of experts. The case was prosecuted by a very able Queen's Counsel for whom I have a high regard who did a very thorough job. The case was summed up by a very meticulous High Court Judge whose summing up took two days. The summing up was clear and balanced.

I love the ability of PPruners to read the AAIB report and know what really happened better than the jury who heard all of the evidence and competing arguments. Oh and anyone who was present in court will know that the jury asked some extremely pertinent and clever questions. There were clearly jurors with engineering and other relevant experience.

People may find the AAIB report quite reasonable and highly credible but then, the criticism of the AAIB was they did not take all of the facts into account. Not a mistake made by posters on Pprune who clearly know what all of the relevant evidence was.

[booke23]

flying-saint, I get the distinct impression you have some kind of agenda or axe to grind in relation to this incident and verdict.

You seem to refute even the slightest suggestion that this pilot is anything other than whiter than white in regard to this incident. Further discussion seems futile.

[flying-saint]

No axe. Agenda is to ensure that one of our pilot brethren does not continue to be sold short by misinformation. Of course, I appreciate that I do have the advantage of having seen significant parts of the evidence at the recent trial. And yes, you're right, during the subject flight, I am struggling to see where the pilot fell short of what was required...

[Penny Washers]

As a matter of interest, do you, Big Pistons, teach side slip approaches? And does not that involve full rudder, held almost to ground level?

You would need to know how to do these in order to fly a Tiger Moth properly and safely.

[Jetblu]

booke23

To the contrary, flying-saint is one of the few who posts in an unbiased fashion and with no axe to grind.

Whatever this former marine (pilot) may have got up to in Afghanistan was probably not whiter than white, but hey, they wasn't criminal was it, because, the Crown said that was ok.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Penny Washers

As a matter of interest, do you, Big Pistons, teach side slip approaches? And does not that involve full rudder, held almost to ground level?

You would need to know how to do these in order to fly a Tiger Moth properly and safely.

Absolutely, however if the rudder did jam hard over when one went to straighten up you would be on a very short final. The result would be a touchdown with the aircraft crooked and a ground loop. Chance of a fatal outcome, pretty much nil.

A lot different from the full rudder required to perform the tight low level turns shown in the GPS data. Rudder jams up on one of those and you are in a whole different situation.....

A slide slip to land is a required maneuver in many conditions. A tight low level turn is a choice........

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by flying-saint

And yes, you're right, during the subject flight, I am struggling to see where the pilot fell short of what was required...

Ummm..... how about choosing to perform aerobatic maneuvers with a passenger as low time pilot with no formal aerobatic training, in a gross weight, aft C of G under powered high drag bi plane at a height thousands of feet below what is universally considered prudent.........

[flying-saint]

Big Pistons Forever, is it fair to agree that a left turn doesn't tick any of your boxes. There is no evidence of anything else done earlier during the subject flight. Presumably the subject flight is what we're interested in - the cause of the crash - right?

We could talk at length about weight and CofG for this aircraft and how the AAIB computations were corrected by the Defence expert (together with his correction of the aircraft handling characteristics to that presented by the prosecution expert, which was then conceded by the prosecution expert). However, I'm not sure we need to go there as with a steep left turn at 2,000ft, where is the relevant criticism?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Saint

Are you seriously arguing that the flight profiles of the pilots earlier flights have no relevance to this accident ? That he did low level aerobatics despite his lack of training and experience as well as aggressive low level maneuvering on his first flight but on the second flight he was just bumbling along at normal altitudes with normal bank and pitch attitudes when the rudder suddenly jammed hard over and caused him to crash ?

Do you really feel the accident pilot did nothing that day that contributed to the likelihood and severity of a crash, that he bares no responsibility for what happened ?

[27/09]

It appears that many on here have read the AAIB report and taken it as gospel. As has been posted on here there are some parts of the report that need further clarification.

We have seen posts like

The pilot was unfamiliar with spins, so should have kept his flying a long way away from spinning, until competent. Did the pilot conduct the flight so as to avoid regimes of flight in which there was an increased risk of a spin?

and

how about choosing to perform aerobatic maneuvers with a passenger as low time pilot with no formal aerobatic training

Then, quoting Legalapproach, we find out

1) He had been taught to loop in a Chipmunk. He had been shown a loop in the Tiger and had demonstrated one himself to the instructor. He had not had further aerobatic training but did not fly other aeros - only the loop.
2) He had spin training (not on the Tiger) but had been shown a spin on the Tiger during his 5hrs + of check out.
3) He had received spin training and was checked out for spinning.

I think there is also confusion with some of the evidence both on here and in the report.

While I have used one quote here to illustrate my point there are several others examples. I must admit it takes a bit of unraveling to figure some things out.

Legal Approach has told us:

:
As an example the retired airline pilot who it was claimed had seen the fatal 'loop' had clearly seen the first loop and not the fatal manoeuvre as the timings simply did not fit. She had seen the aircraft perform 3/4 of a loop before trees obscured her view without it having departed from controlled flight. This could not have been the failed loop claimed by the AAIB and the prosecution

.
Honestly, if a retired airline pilot saw 3/4 of a loop - it was a loop, you don't have to see the last 1/4 to know it was entered!

There are two things that tend to show that the retired airline pilot wasn't observing the accident manoeuvre when she spoke about the loop in the quote above.

Firstly as mentioned the time of day was wrong. Secondly the spin in the fatal flight had been entered prior to the top of the loop (assuming it was actually a loop that was being attempted). The retired airline pilot sees a loop completed past the top of the loop, so she wasn't observing the accident flight. I think AAIB report even shows some confusion over this point.

While I have my concerns about the quality of airmanship in doing low level aerobatic manoeuvres with passengers I don't think some of the comments being made about the pilot are fair.

I don't think it has been proven the pilot was attempting to carry out a loop when the accident occurred. There is reasonable evidence to show the accident occurred exactly as he said. Yes, he may have been intending to carry out a loop or loops during that flight, but was he actually doing so when the accident occurred?

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the possibility of the passenger accidentally interfering with the rudder pedals. There was a fatal accident over here a few years ago involving a Pitt Special with a very very experienced aeros pilot. The conclusion was the passenger had accidentally interfered with the controls.

[flying-saint]

Big Pistons Forever,

I think Legalapproach has already dealt with the pilot's training and I think that with a like for like scaled graphical analysis of the raw GPS data for the first flight of the day or other flights where loops were successfully undertaken (with prior clearing turns and dives to pick up speed from the height demonstrated to the pilot by his instructor) with lighter passengers vs. the GPS profile plot for the accident flight, you could for yourself determine the totally different flight profiles and absence of loop on the accident flight.

In fact he was heading to a specific point to take photographs of a building on the accident flight until turned away from a busy controlled zone and then heading back home.

And yes, based upon the totality of evidence I have seen, I believe the pilot did not fall short of what could be reasonably expected of him or any other competent qualified pilot of that experience during the accident flight and particularly the accident sequence.

[flying-saint]

27/09

The cause of the rudder jam remains uncertain. The pilot vividly described the onset of the jam feeling like he went over a tennis ball (not in the literal sense).

The possibility of a jam via the passenger's foot was a potential possibility. Regrettably the footwear he wore was destroyed before inspection was possible.

Another possibility was the passenger's SLR camera, on which the last image was a rear facing selfie of passenger and pilot taken by the passenger while taxiing - note, no photos once airborne.

Notably, despite no mention of this in the AAIB report. The broken camera lens and battery pack were spotted by the Defence team in the accident scene photos in the immediate vicinity of the rudder pedals within the wreckage.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by flying-saint

And yes, based upon the totality of evidence I have seen, I believe the pilot did not fall short of what could be reasonably expected of him or any other competent qualified pilot of that experience during the accident flight and particularly the accident sequence.

I think we are so far apart that further discussion is futile. As I admitted earlier I do now agree that a criminal prosecution of the pilot was not correct given the facts presented.

However as an aerobatic instructor I feel very strongly about the requirement for a proper course of instruction before flying any aerobatic maneuver. This instruction will deal with all the bad things that can happen when flying aerobatics even for the simple maneuvers. All credible aerobatic training will also emphasize the importance of conducting aerobatic maneuvers at a safe height.

I find the flight profile of the first flight frightening in its recklessness and simply do not find it credible that the same style of flying was not carried out on the second flight and that it contributed to the accident.

Given the level of training and experience of the pilot and the fact that the aircraft passenger was a large and very heavy man, a local slight seeing flight at a sensible altitude and with moderate turns with no aggressive maneuvering would have been appropriate and would have greatly reduced the probability of an accident.

I know that sounds judgmental but respecting the limits of ones abilities as bounded by the pilots experience, training, the aircraft flown and other relevant factors is the essence of responsible pilot decision making. The pilots first flight represents the antithesis of that decision making and thus will inevitable colour my view on what happened on the second.

[27/09]

BPF

However as an aerobatic instructor I feel very strongly about the requirement for a proper course of instruction before flying any aerobatic maneuver. This instruction will deal with all the bad things that can happen when flying aerobatics even for the simple maneuvers. All credible aerobatic training will also emphasize the importance of conducting aerobatic maneuvers at a safe height.

This pilot had received training in loops and spinning.

I find the flight profile of the first flight frightening in its recklessness

I agree, yet the previous passenger who wasn't a novice to flying didn't think there was an issue.

and simply do not find it credible that the same style of flying was not carried out on the second flight and that it contributed to the accident.

Given the level of training and experience of the pilot and the fact that the aircraft passenger was a large and very heavy man, a local slight seeing flight at a sensible altitude and with moderate turns with no aggressive maneuvering would have been appropriate and would have greatly reduced the probability of an accident.

Apparently the second flight was planned to be "a local slight seeing flight " to photograph a building, no aeros.

In fact he was heading to a specific point to take photographs of a building on the accident flight until turned away from a busy controlled zone and then heading back home.

In general terms most of what you say is correct, however the specifics of this accident make some of what you say less relevant.

[booke23]

This pilot had received training in loops and spinning.

Really?......discounting the 13 hour dual military flying grading evaluation course 20 years previously, he had 1 hour of stall spin awareness training in a Cessna 172 and a few loops shown to him when he joined the tiger moth group.

Not even close to any aerobatic rating syllabus I have ever seen.

[flying-saint]

Amongst the critics, there appears to be a continuing tendency to confuse the issues. On the subject / accident flight, I am yet to see the legitimate criticism.

If you wish to talk about other flights, where there were successful loops (at or about the height demonstrated by the instructor for this simple manoeuvre) allowing for differences amongst aircraft, we can probably all agree that the more height the better for the inexperienced. Other than that, what else?

booke23:-

Really?......discounting the 13 hour dual military flying grading evaluation
course 20 years previously, he had 1 hour of stall spin awareness training in a
Cessna 172 and a few loops shown to him when he joined the tiger moth
group.

Not even close to any aerobatic rating syllabus I have ever seen.

So not that it is relevant to the accident beyond the speculation which was dismantled at trial, but regarding loops, you appear to take it upon yourself to discount the grading course as relevant experience. Where there is no requisite aerobatic rating for aircraft type, (and indeed some of the best aerobatic pilots are self-taught) would you say that experience of 50+ loops, many of which were with an instructor in the demonstrate, follow through, perform environment has probably resulted in the pilot being able to perform a loop (this number not including all those he did subsequently in the TM)? Or have you just made your mind up...

[Freefly170]

The number of loops flown with or without an instructor isn't confirmation of an individual pilots ability to safely conduct aerobatics. A more meaningful criteria would be the ability to recover from a manoeuvre that has gone wrong. Does he/she know how to recover safely if the aircraft gets slow and flicks out of the top of a loop or tailslides out of a stall turn. That's what most aeros checks are about, ensuring that a pilot can fly the manouevre safely and take the corrective action if something goes wrong or they make a mistake. Good spin training( including accelerated spins) and recovery from unusual attitudes is standard in most basic aerobatic courses.