Wycombe air park - accident
I do have a professional licence as it happens, but my emphasis was on both "Professional" (far more a state of attitude and behaviour than just the fact of being paid), and "Network" - somewhere that we can share experiences and help each other out.
We've all used the phrase "that's not very professional" at some point - I hope we're all aspiring not to have it used of us: whether we pay, or get paid, to fly.
G
We've all used the phrase "that's not very professional" at some point - I hope we're all aspiring not to have it used of us: whether we pay, or get paid, to fly.
G
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anybody read the comment by one of the readers under that article linked in the first post?
Somebody called "luckonmyside" claims to have been a passenger on the flight.
Looks like the pilot's choice of passengers might not be the same next time
Well, not if he wants to support GA. Unless, of course, she is referring to banning property development near an airfield, which is hardly going to ever be achieved.
Somebody called "luckonmyside" claims to have been a passenger on the flight.
Looks like the pilot's choice of passengers might not be the same next time
Well, not if he wants to support GA. Unless, of course, she is referring to banning property development near an airfield, which is hardly going to ever be achieved.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARC...How very interesting....
I do know that if that aircraft is heavy and you try and hau, it off the grou d it will wallow and fuel like it is not producing enough power. It does the same thing if you try run down the runway with column pulled back in the hope of getting it off early which only serves to make the situation worse by preventing it accelerating.
On a short runway on a hot day at max weight and the nose being held to high it would give very poor acceleration. This could lead the pilot to try and yank it off the runway before it is ready to fly right on the back of the drag curve.
Just a thought.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been some very supportive and helpful comments on here which are greatly appreciated, yours being one of them. Although we may have differing opinions at times, one fact remains clear, everyone commenting has safety in aviation as a priority.
People speculate wildly
People close to an accident sometimes try to stifle any debate
In all most of us realise that speculation may be completely wrong. However speculation regarding W&B on this thread reminded me of the numerous PA-28 non take-offs that have occurred in hot weather 4 up on full tanks. Totally irrelevant I'm sure to this accident but it keeps things fresh. The majority visit PPruNe I would suggest for just this reason, to refresh, get timely reminders and when accidents happen that will always be at its highest.
I'm glad cmh67 you have not taken the route of stifling the debate and I'm also very glad that you are around to inform us.
As for the **Professional** in PPRuNe I'm lucky enough to fly at club where as a lowly PPL I can talk to numerous professional pilots - they are the worse gossips you could ever have the good fortune to meet
I'm sure I'm not alone in visiting PPRuNe on my non-flying days for the same sort of wise and educational gossip - it's not a case of are people always 'right' it's often a case of following logic and attitude that keeps one safe So back to the W&B - if limits OK the plane can take-off (given enough runway) but there is more to it as Bose says - one can check W&B is within limits but has one also checked the performance figures for the day, runway length available and also considered pilot ability - I'm not saying for a moment any of this is the 'cause' it's just a timely reminder that there is more to a safe take-off than calculating that the aircraft is within weight (mass) and CofG limitations.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you tell me exactly what the W&B calcs were so that I can do the other factoring calcs?
I have calculated that the flight would need 2 hours of fuel plus a diversion to allow return back to the mainlan in case of the legendary 100 mile an hour fog arriving. Bruning 15USG and hour that I make that a minimum fuel load of 45USG. What was actually onbaord and what was picked up at Wycombe?
Fuel 270
I make 4 x pax allowing 190 per pax = 950
Baggage 1 bag per person at 20lbs (Ryanair standard cabin bag) = 100
So I make that 1320lbs. Do you know what the max take off weight and useful load is?
This does not allow for the extra stuff in the aircraft that lives there like flight guides, oil, towbar etc.
Do those numbers look about right?
Outside temp was around 24c looking at the aftercast?
Which runway was used, grass or tarmac, length?
Eliminating the obvious stuff then allows investigation of other factors? The first thing I believe the AIB will do is look at the fuel actually onboard along with the other factsors I have listed above. They will then take into account the temperature, runway surface and slope etc and calculate the performance requirements and actuals. From there they will be able to calculate if the aircraft was performing under par. Obviously the pilots handling of the aircraft as I mentioned in an earlier post would have to be considered.
What are the pilots views on possible causes?
I am not seeking to conemn anyone, just interested to discuss the possibilities as it is a great learning excercise for us all and of course as I have direct experience of that particular aircraft.
I have calculated that the flight would need 2 hours of fuel plus a diversion to allow return back to the mainlan in case of the legendary 100 mile an hour fog arriving. Bruning 15USG and hour that I make that a minimum fuel load of 45USG. What was actually onbaord and what was picked up at Wycombe?
Fuel 270
I make 4 x pax allowing 190 per pax = 950
Baggage 1 bag per person at 20lbs (Ryanair standard cabin bag) = 100
So I make that 1320lbs. Do you know what the max take off weight and useful load is?
This does not allow for the extra stuff in the aircraft that lives there like flight guides, oil, towbar etc.
Do those numbers look about right?
Outside temp was around 24c looking at the aftercast?
Which runway was used, grass or tarmac, length?
Eliminating the obvious stuff then allows investigation of other factors? The first thing I believe the AIB will do is look at the fuel actually onboard along with the other factsors I have listed above. They will then take into account the temperature, runway surface and slope etc and calculate the performance requirements and actuals. From there they will be able to calculate if the aircraft was performing under par. Obviously the pilots handling of the aircraft as I mentioned in an earlier post would have to be considered.
What are the pilots views on possible causes?
I am not seeking to conemn anyone, just interested to discuss the possibilities as it is a great learning excercise for us all and of course as I have direct experience of that particular aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trim Wheel
A couple of months ago I was flying that exact aircraft and didn't check the trim wheel before take off. Since I had flown in with 2 on board and departed with 5 plus a dog (only a bit of fuel) the trim was so far out that it felt ready to rotate at about 75Kts and with that weight and speed it did the whole wollowing thing in the ground effect. To all the world it felt like it wasn't producing enough power because of the high drag.
Also as a T-Tail at low speeds it requires very positive pressure on the controls for the elevator to bite. Pretty hard to convince your brain to apply hard down pressure when you're so close to the ground but to avoid a stall with the trim really out I think you'd need to.
That said it's funny how everyone always assumes it's pilot error - Let's hope something broke on the plane so the Pilot can be a hero.
It's all fairly accedemic though, so long as everyone walked away and it's insured then no harm's really done. I don't suppose anyone knows if it will ever fly again? I'll miss it... it is/was a great plane.
Also as a T-Tail at low speeds it requires very positive pressure on the controls for the elevator to bite. Pretty hard to convince your brain to apply hard down pressure when you're so close to the ground but to avoid a stall with the trim really out I think you'd need to.
That said it's funny how everyone always assumes it's pilot error - Let's hope something broke on the plane so the Pilot can be a hero.
It's all fairly accedemic though, so long as everyone walked away and it's insured then no harm's really done. I don't suppose anyone knows if it will ever fly again? I'll miss it... it is/was a great plane.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That said it's funny how everyone always assumes it's pilot error - Let's hope something broke on the plane so the Pilot can be a hero.
The discussion is really just exploring all of the possibilities rather than pointing a finger and saying pilot error.
You, yourself have just added another element for consideration. Usuing your logi of accusing pilot error your suggestion that the trimmer could have been in the wrong position makes the same intimation......
As I have said a couple of time the purpose of the discussion is not to aportion blame, it is to use the incident as a learning excercise.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose X you are asking the right questions, especially since you know the airplane...
It would be great to get the W&B, not as a conviction tool but a learning tool
It would be great to get the W&B, not as a conviction tool but a learning tool
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We seem to have gone a bit dead on the weight and balance discussion?
My understanding was that there four men and one woman on board, plus bags, mains were filled to the max and the tips partially filled. What about any weight in nose locker? It strikes me that apart from being heavy the aircraft also had a very aft CofG.
Eyewitness accounts seem to indicate a very high alpha on rotation which much as I described earlier when trying to pull the aircraft early and heavy.
Perhaps a list of the actual mass calculation carried out would help better understanding of the configuration of the aircraft?
My understanding was that there four men and one woman on board, plus bags, mains were filled to the max and the tips partially filled. What about any weight in nose locker? It strikes me that apart from being heavy the aircraft also had a very aft CofG.
Eyewitness accounts seem to indicate a very high alpha on rotation which much as I described earlier when trying to pull the aircraft early and heavy.
Perhaps a list of the actual mass calculation carried out would help better understanding of the configuration of the aircraft?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please feel free to correct me if I have been misinformed?
As I said I am trying to promote discussion of an incident that nearly cost you your life. Something that others can learn from and hopefully prevent a repetition.
If you have any comments contradictory to what I have been told please share them with us.
As I said I am trying to promote discussion of an incident that nearly cost you your life. Something that others can learn from and hopefully prevent a repetition.
If you have any comments contradictory to what I have been told please share them with us.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mains full to the max are 300 lbs, alone.
Full tips are 204 lbs. Tips 1/2 full are 100 lbs, although this can be a little difficult to judge by sight.
Bose-X, do you happen to remember what the useful load for this particular aircraft is?
As a slightly curious aside (which is nothing to do with this accident), the POH for my old Cherokee 6 300 (which is essentially a fixed gear Lance) used to advise the pilot to run the inboard tanks dry first, before running on the fuel in the tip tanks - which felt a bit counter intuitive. The reason given was that the fuel load at the end of the wing helped to un-load the main spar. However, it always seemed preferable to me to use the tips first and thereby dispense with the 100 lb dumb-bell at the end of each wing.
The other oddity to the Cherokee 6, Lance and Saratoga family is that you have to concentrate quite hard on not just how much weight you have on board, but where it is stowed. It is unhappily perfectly easy to be within weight limits but have the weight in the wrong place, thus putting you ouside of the 'envelope'; for instance, full tanks and two 200 lb blokes in the front of my Saratoga is quite a long way forward of C of G. Which is why I tend to stash a couple of cases of beer and wine in the rear, whenever I 'bunker' with fuel in Guernsey - it's strictly there for weight and balance reasons....
Full tips are 204 lbs. Tips 1/2 full are 100 lbs, although this can be a little difficult to judge by sight.
Bose-X, do you happen to remember what the useful load for this particular aircraft is?
As a slightly curious aside (which is nothing to do with this accident), the POH for my old Cherokee 6 300 (which is essentially a fixed gear Lance) used to advise the pilot to run the inboard tanks dry first, before running on the fuel in the tip tanks - which felt a bit counter intuitive. The reason given was that the fuel load at the end of the wing helped to un-load the main spar. However, it always seemed preferable to me to use the tips first and thereby dispense with the 100 lb dumb-bell at the end of each wing.
The other oddity to the Cherokee 6, Lance and Saratoga family is that you have to concentrate quite hard on not just how much weight you have on board, but where it is stowed. It is unhappily perfectly easy to be within weight limits but have the weight in the wrong place, thus putting you ouside of the 'envelope'; for instance, full tanks and two 200 lb blokes in the front of my Saratoga is quite a long way forward of C of G. Which is why I tend to stash a couple of cases of beer and wine in the rear, whenever I 'bunker' with fuel in Guernsey - it's strictly there for weight and balance reasons....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cmh67
Do you have the W & B numbers for the accident flight?
If so are you prepared to share?
This will be in the AAIB report anyway but it would be nice to understand the aircraft config.
Rod1
Do you have the W & B numbers for the accident flight?
If so are you prepared to share?
This will be in the AAIB report anyway but it would be nice to understand the aircraft config.
Rod1
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im afraid it would be highly unprofessional at this stage in the enquiries to begin to publish that sort of information Steve. I am happy to allow the AAIB to make their determination on whether the maths were correct.
I am all for discussion but publishing data of this sort would go way beyond efficacy in the circumstances of an ongoing investigation.
We should know better.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People might speculate, but I reckon that in 99% of the cases of speculation then the right answer is arrivaed at far before the AAIB get anywhere near it.
Just my own gut feeling but 5+ adults off a 610m grass runway (if that one was used), even in a powerful aeroplane (and I don't know what HP this Lance has but I suspect 300HP when new), is always going to be close to the edge and won't leave much room for errors, unless it is a STOL aeroplane. If the grass was used then one has to question why the tarmac one wasn't used (which is what I would have gone from). Also IMHE, many pilots will fudge the W&B calculations to "make them correct" because it worked last time and "the fuel will burn off".
The ARC is a red herring. We all know that the ARC means nothing other than a very expensive paperwork exercise, and 9 times out of 10 the person signing the ARC doesn't even look at the aeroplane....IMHE.
I am glad no one was seriously injured.
Just my own gut feeling but 5+ adults off a 610m grass runway (if that one was used), even in a powerful aeroplane (and I don't know what HP this Lance has but I suspect 300HP when new), is always going to be close to the edge and won't leave much room for errors, unless it is a STOL aeroplane. If the grass was used then one has to question why the tarmac one wasn't used (which is what I would have gone from). Also IMHE, many pilots will fudge the W&B calculations to "make them correct" because it worked last time and "the fuel will burn off".
The ARC is a red herring. We all know that the ARC means nothing other than a very expensive paperwork exercise, and 9 times out of 10 the person signing the ARC doesn't even look at the aeroplane....IMHE.
I am glad no one was seriously injured.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
englishal - the tarmac 06 was used, not the grass.
I happened to notice that there is a website for this aeroplane with a link in the righthand margin of the "private flying" page of this website.
Here is a link to the FAQ's page.
Piper Lance - FAQ's
I happened to notice that there is a website for this aeroplane with a link in the righthand margin of the "private flying" page of this website.
Here is a link to the FAQ's page.
Piper Lance - FAQ's
