Wycombe air park - accident
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As wsmempson said - Piper PA32RT-300. Not a Wycombe resident, it flew into pick up pax and fuel for a flight to the Isle of Man.
Runway 06 in use but it never cleared the hedge at the end. 5 people on board, result was walking wounded. Happened about lunchtime.
Runway 06 in use but it never cleared the hedge at the end. 5 people on board, result was walking wounded. Happened about lunchtime.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why I wanted to know. I teach and fly for an owner of one who cant get in touch with. It's why I wantedbto know the reg. If anyone can PM I would appreciate it.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Temperature at lunchtime no more than 20 degrees.
06 at EGTB 735m. Tarmac. No up or down gradient.
FWIW I looked at a couple of very nice t-tail lances (and a couple of really horrid ones too), and a couple of non-t-tail lances also, when I was looking for something bigger after the Arrow III.
According to the POH for the T-tail that I looked at, the ground roll on take off is about 50% more than that required for the conventional tailed lance.
06 at EGTB 735m. Tarmac. No up or down gradient.
FWIW I looked at a couple of very nice t-tail lances (and a couple of really horrid ones too), and a couple of non-t-tail lances also, when I was looking for something bigger after the Arrow III.
According to the POH for the T-tail that I looked at, the ground roll on take off is about 50% more than that required for the conventional tailed lance.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other site hinted at W&B, but could it be RWY length ?
“A private aircraft carrying five people was in the process of taking off when it came down in a field next to a run way"
Max Gross of the PA 32-300 is 3600 lbs.
Assuming a BEW of about 2200 lbs and 180 lbs per occupant would leave us with 500 lbs of fuel (80 gallons). So a-priori nothing wrong with W&B there unless the pilot topped the tanks.
06/24 - 735 × 23m Asphalt Licensed, that is about 2410 feet.
Assuming Max Gross, 20° OAT and calm winds would give about 1800 feet ground roll; 2850 feet clearing a 50 feet obstacle.
Does anyone know what the height of the hedges is at the end of 06? There seems to be a 3x3 motorway not far beyond and trees before that. Not wanting to do "trial by pprune" here, but would this not seem like a risky venture to you ?
Bose, I tried to PM you but your box is full.
PP.
Max Gross of the PA 32-300 is 3600 lbs.
Assuming a BEW of about 2200 lbs and 180 lbs per occupant would leave us with 500 lbs of fuel (80 gallons). So a-priori nothing wrong with W&B there unless the pilot topped the tanks.
06/24 - 735 × 23m Asphalt Licensed, that is about 2410 feet.
Assuming Max Gross, 20° OAT and calm winds would give about 1800 feet ground roll; 2850 feet clearing a 50 feet obstacle.
Does anyone know what the height of the hedges is at the end of 06? There seems to be a 3x3 motorway not far beyond and trees before that. Not wanting to do "trial by pprune" here, but would this not seem like a risky venture to you ?
Bose, I tried to PM you but your box is full.
PP.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAUW 3,600 lb
Dry weight typically circa 2,275 lbs
Circa 1,325 lb is the usual useful load for a PA32R-300
Full fuel 84 USG = 504 lbs
Tips and tabs 66 USG = 400 lbs
Say you are a typical renter and you want 75% power for max speed 26 inches/2,400rpm. Consumption is 16.5 USGph
Or maybe the pilot is more sympathetic mechanically, he'll run at 65% power, which is 23/2,300, and gives about 15 USGph.
For flight planning purposes, you can budget on Wycombe to the Isle of Man probably being 2-2.25 hrs depending on how fast you go and whether you have a strong wind on the nose, plus an hours reserve at least, bearing in mind where the nearest divert might be. So you could go with Tips and tabs, but you'd probably want a bit more
5 Blokes might all be 180 lbs apiece, or they might not! But suppose they are, so say 900lbs.
Luggage for 5 blokes - max baggage could be 100 lbs in the front locker and 100 lbs in the rear. Pre-supposing there weren't any tents or beer...
No tall trees at the end of 06, but there is a hedge and the M40 beyond (with overhead lights) and a left turn for noise abatement on climb-out.
Wycombe's runways and approaches are totally unproblematic as far as I'm concerned.
Dry weight typically circa 2,275 lbs
Circa 1,325 lb is the usual useful load for a PA32R-300
Full fuel 84 USG = 504 lbs
Tips and tabs 66 USG = 400 lbs
Say you are a typical renter and you want 75% power for max speed 26 inches/2,400rpm. Consumption is 16.5 USGph
Or maybe the pilot is more sympathetic mechanically, he'll run at 65% power, which is 23/2,300, and gives about 15 USGph.
For flight planning purposes, you can budget on Wycombe to the Isle of Man probably being 2-2.25 hrs depending on how fast you go and whether you have a strong wind on the nose, plus an hours reserve at least, bearing in mind where the nearest divert might be. So you could go with Tips and tabs, but you'd probably want a bit more
5 Blokes might all be 180 lbs apiece, or they might not! But suppose they are, so say 900lbs.
Luggage for 5 blokes - max baggage could be 100 lbs in the front locker and 100 lbs in the rear. Pre-supposing there weren't any tents or beer...
No tall trees at the end of 06, but there is a hedge and the M40 beyond (with overhead lights) and a left turn for noise abatement on climb-out.
Wycombe's runways and approaches are totally unproblematic as far as I'm concerned.
Last edited by wsmempson; 3rd Jun 2011 at 22:22.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: on short final
Age: 48
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a few years ago it apparently had difficulties producing full power, leading to a very similar incident in Fenland. It may be completely unrelated, but never the less interesting
Air Accidents Investigation: Piper PA-32RT-300, G-RHHT
Air Accidents Investigation: Piper PA-32RT-300, G-RHHT
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is undoubtably completely unrelated. I have hundreds of hours in that aircraft both teaching in it and flying it and the performance within correct loading has always been sparkling.
I suspect earlier theories will be closer to the mark.
Glad everyone was ok.
I suspect earlier theories will be closer to the mark.
Glad everyone was ok.
Last edited by S-Works; 4th Jun 2011 at 08:04.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The noise abatement procedure at Wycombe...
...a left turn for noise abatement on climb-out.
Wycombe's runways and approaches are totally unproblematic as far as I'm concerned.
Wycombe's runways and approaches are totally unproblematic as far as I'm concerned.
For anything decent like a Lance or a Bonanza at Max Gross, that would imply turning left at typically 100-200 Ft AGL. Isn't that dangerous ?
Would it make sense to
* increase the landing (departure) fee for Aircraft above 1.5 MT (3300 lbs) ramp weight for 06 departures and allow those pilots to depart 06 straight ahead; while paying the difference to the council as an "appeasement fee".
* extend the runway in the environmentally less problematic 240° direction (maybe with -> -> -> only to facilitate 06 departures)
Shoot me down if it is complete nonsense, just thinking aloud here...
PP
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proud Private, I'm going to let the people on this forum who are based at Wycombe answer your comments.
However, my view of noise abatement procedure is quite simple - if they are safe to execute in the context of my flight, then I will adhere to them. If they aren't then I will ignore them.
Having learnt to fly at Wycombe and been based there for two years, I don't think the noise abatement turn for 06 ever caused any problems, as it was performed in small increments, as and when it was safe to do.
However, this has no relevance to this accident because, AIUI, the aircraft never actually left the ground in a meaningful sense - so the turn for noise abatement never took place.
However, my view of noise abatement procedure is quite simple - if they are safe to execute in the context of my flight, then I will adhere to them. If they aren't then I will ignore them.
Having learnt to fly at Wycombe and been based there for two years, I don't think the noise abatement turn for 06 ever caused any problems, as it was performed in small increments, as and when it was safe to do.
However, this has no relevance to this accident because, AIUI, the aircraft never actually left the ground in a meaningful sense - so the turn for noise abatement never took place.