Flying after bumping the wing during taxi
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the aircraft wing rode over the roof of the van and did not for example strike the van head on and spin around or anything like that. Under these circumstances most of the loading will have been in the vertical plane not the horizontal.
That makes it OK??????????
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went down to the white van, which had red paint from the wing scraped along the roof edge; so the impact was enough for that at least.
The Rans can be flown safely with one of these wing-tips damaged or missing. I know because I have seen it done. Not in the UK, of course.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: england
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a PPL & LAE, it is utter madness to take the chance after a collision like that! It is almost impossible to discover the state of the wing without a detailed inspection inside & out. 
.. The sad thing is as a lot of posters have already said, it will be the next poor sod who flies it or someone underneath the flight path who will pay the price.....
.. The sad thing is as a lot of posters have already said, it will be the next poor sod who flies it or someone underneath the flight path who will pay the price.....
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said "Devils advocate"
I am less interested in the technical aspects of this than the pprune court of justice that has condemned this guy with very little hard evidence and the statement of one eye witness who was questioning rather than accusing.
I have no evidence to offer one way or the other technically so I won't offer an opinion one way or the other, what I say is it is wrong to hang this guy without knowing the FULL facts.
Over twenty years ago now I was involved in recovering a PA38 that had been involved in a main landing gear failure while taxing, the flaps had been down when the gear failed and we recovered the aircraft without further damage to the aircraft. The next week I am having a cup of tea in the club house when on the next table I hear someone telling the assembled crowd that the flaps and wing of the aircraft were damaged beyond repair by the people who recovered the aircraft because they dragged the aircraft clear of the runway by towing it with the wing unsupported.
I may or may not think that the guy was unwise to fly this aircraft, but for me the issue is not a technical one, it is the way some of you are so keen to condem a guy with little other evidence apart from the comments of other posts that have offer little new detail of the original incident.
I have no evidence to offer one way or the other technically so I won't offer an opinion one way or the other, what I say is it is wrong to hang this guy without knowing the FULL facts.
Over twenty years ago now I was involved in recovering a PA38 that had been involved in a main landing gear failure while taxing, the flaps had been down when the gear failed and we recovered the aircraft without further damage to the aircraft. The next week I am having a cup of tea in the club house when on the next table I hear someone telling the assembled crowd that the flaps and wing of the aircraft were damaged beyond repair by the people who recovered the aircraft because they dragged the aircraft clear of the runway by towing it with the wing unsupported.
I may or may not think that the guy was unwise to fly this aircraft, but for me the issue is not a technical one, it is the way some of you are so keen to condem a guy with little other evidence apart from the comments of other posts that have offer little new detail of the original incident.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the Rans have a wooden wing spar? Wooden wing spars can hide damage very well, which was the case in the straw bale incident, and utter madness to fly without an inspection.
I know of a similar incident where one of two owners clipped something with the wing. He was going to repair it, but the other owner insisted it was inspected. Good job as there was a crack in the spar.
Metal spars are more likely to show the damage if they are damaged.
I know of a similar incident where one of two owners clipped something with the wing. He was going to repair it, but the other owner insisted it was inspected. Good job as there was a crack in the spar.
Metal spars are more likely to show the damage if they are damaged.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C.
I presume that you are qualified as an engineer and must have seen some things during your working life that have raised concerns when you have inspected them? My thoughts are that this thread is not about "trial by Ppruners" as you suggest but one of common sense. I am sure you will agree that damage following an aircraft hitting a ground based object can often be hidden within a structure and not immediately obvious to a quick visual inspection.
John who witnessed the incident is an experienced rotary pilot and in my opinion did the responsible thing by informing ATC, he has also acted as a true gentleman by not embarrassing the pilot further in public by publishing the photographs or registration of the aircraft.
The pilots actions in continuing his flight does raise questions of his attitude to flight safety, and it has rightly been said on here a failure due to hidden damage may not occur immediately so it could become an issue to someone flying the aircraft at a later date.
Perhaps if I reflect on my own experiences of issues with aircraft through damage that was not blatantly obvious, it will help explain why on a personal note I feel quite strongly about the pilots attitude to the damage. Some twenty plus years ago I shared a hangar with a well known aerobatic pilot, he had a very casual approach to fear - for his day job he was a deep sea saturation diver... His style of aerobatics was to say the least aggressive. One day he asked my opinion about the top wing of his Pitts special - at face value it looked fine. However when you tapped the top of the dbox construction near the center it sounded dead and pushing it with your fingers showed a surprising about of deflection. I suggested that needed checking by an engineer. He took my advice, he did not fly that day and when I saw him two weeks later he bought me a beer!! He explained that the engineers had discovered that the wing had failed, the glue had separated from the wood and the wing was close to a catastrophic failure - all not visible by quick inspection. Brian sadly died some years later when an aircraft he was flying in the middle east suffered structural failure in flight. The cause was thought to be due to previous unseen (and uninspected) over stressing of its construction that led to an in flight failure.
If someone in a car has a bump, its not too life critical. if it fails - you can pull over and walk. If you bump a boat and there is unseen damage below the waterline you have a chance if you can swim. However in an aeroplane its hard to pull over in flight and even harder to try to fly on your own (I have not seen anyone with feathers who can fly).
I presume that you are qualified as an engineer and must have seen some things during your working life that have raised concerns when you have inspected them? My thoughts are that this thread is not about "trial by Ppruners" as you suggest but one of common sense. I am sure you will agree that damage following an aircraft hitting a ground based object can often be hidden within a structure and not immediately obvious to a quick visual inspection.
John who witnessed the incident is an experienced rotary pilot and in my opinion did the responsible thing by informing ATC, he has also acted as a true gentleman by not embarrassing the pilot further in public by publishing the photographs or registration of the aircraft.
The pilots actions in continuing his flight does raise questions of his attitude to flight safety, and it has rightly been said on here a failure due to hidden damage may not occur immediately so it could become an issue to someone flying the aircraft at a later date.
Perhaps if I reflect on my own experiences of issues with aircraft through damage that was not blatantly obvious, it will help explain why on a personal note I feel quite strongly about the pilots attitude to the damage. Some twenty plus years ago I shared a hangar with a well known aerobatic pilot, he had a very casual approach to fear - for his day job he was a deep sea saturation diver... His style of aerobatics was to say the least aggressive. One day he asked my opinion about the top wing of his Pitts special - at face value it looked fine. However when you tapped the top of the dbox construction near the center it sounded dead and pushing it with your fingers showed a surprising about of deflection. I suggested that needed checking by an engineer. He took my advice, he did not fly that day and when I saw him two weeks later he bought me a beer!! He explained that the engineers had discovered that the wing had failed, the glue had separated from the wood and the wing was close to a catastrophic failure - all not visible by quick inspection. Brian sadly died some years later when an aircraft he was flying in the middle east suffered structural failure in flight. The cause was thought to be due to previous unseen (and uninspected) over stressing of its construction that led to an in flight failure.
If someone in a car has a bump, its not too life critical. if it fails - you can pull over and walk. If you bump a boat and there is unseen damage below the waterline you have a chance if you can swim. However in an aeroplane its hard to pull over in flight and even harder to try to fly on your own (I have not seen anyone with feathers who can fly).
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goldeneaglepilot
Firstly I did not criticize the person who started this post, all he did was report the incident and ask a few questions about fixed wing aircraft.
I think that by informing ATC and getting the pilot to stop and inspect the aircraft he acted in the correct way, by objection is to the uninformed posts that have been made by people who have not had a chance to look at the aircraft and have not the first idea of the scope of the damage.
Please remember that the pilot has had a chance to look at the damage and decide what he wants to do, I don't have the luxury of seeing the damage ( like most of the forum that have commented above) and so am not in a position to comment due to not having the data to do so.
I am deliberately playing devils advocate here simply because I see a growing tendency on these forums to jump to uninformed conclusions ( the worst are the drunk pilot threads!).
I would rather like to think that pilots would take a balanced view of things once all the facts were avalable but it would seem that in the days of 24 hour rolling news we are all expecting instant answers and so descending to the standard of the likes of The Daily Mail in what is written in these pages.
I think that by informing ATC and getting the pilot to stop and inspect the aircraft he acted in the correct way, by objection is to the uninformed posts that have been made by people who have not had a chance to look at the aircraft and have not the first idea of the scope of the damage.
Please remember that the pilot has had a chance to look at the damage and decide what he wants to do, I don't have the luxury of seeing the damage ( like most of the forum that have commented above) and so am not in a position to comment due to not having the data to do so.
I am deliberately playing devils advocate here simply because I see a growing tendency on these forums to jump to uninformed conclusions ( the worst are the drunk pilot threads!).
I would rather like to think that pilots would take a balanced view of things once all the facts were avalable but it would seem that in the days of 24 hour rolling news we are all expecting instant answers and so descending to the standard of the likes of The Daily Mail in what is written in these pages.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the Rans have a wooden wing spar?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cambridge, United Kingdom
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ex-Rans S6 owner who knows how solid that leading edge tube is, I'd be more worried about the mini-van! 
However, the guy didn't do himself any favours by pretending nothing happened. I'm sure if he'd parked up immediately and given it a good look over, and perhaps left a note on the mini-van, this thread wouldn't be here. The S6 has the benefit that you can easily access all the important bits to check for any obvious damage, as patowalker alluded to above. I've not been to Redhill, do you often have mini-vans on the airfield?
However, the guy didn't do himself any favours by pretending nothing happened. I'm sure if he'd parked up immediately and given it a good look over, and perhaps left a note on the mini-van, this thread wouldn't be here. The S6 has the benefit that you can easily access all the important bits to check for any obvious damage, as patowalker alluded to above. I've not been to Redhill, do you often have mini-vans on the airfield?
At parts of Redhill (esp where I fly from, Hangar 8) road vehicles share the taxiway in front of the hangars. So, yes, vans do use the airfield .. so do bloody great wagons !
The road to the control tower and the taxiway are also one and the same.
Indeed one of the runways (07 - 25) is part of the old perimeter road - and only as wide.
Joining Procedures - Redhill Aerodrome
The road to the control tower and the taxiway are also one and the same.
Indeed one of the runways (07 - 25) is part of the old perimeter road - and only as wide.
Joining Procedures - Redhill Aerodrome
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Merriott, Somerset, UK
Age: 78
Posts: 229
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been several collisions with vehicles at Redhill over the years.
Its no more dangerous than any other airfield...........if you keep you wits about you and look where you are going!
Tony
Its no more dangerous than any other airfield...........if you keep you wits about you and look where you are going!
Tony
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Hotels
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am deliberately playing devils advocate here simply because I see a growing tendency on these forums to jump to uninformed conclusions ( the worst are the drunk pilot threads!).
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North West UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a PPL and also a radio control model flyer, I have seen at first hand on the model aircraft how little impact is needed to damage a wing. (I had a wing fold part way round a loop, following an earlier heavy landing, with no visible damage).
I'm sure someone more erudite will correct me, but I understand that lifting an aircraft by its wings for maintenance has to be carried out at specific points, designed for the purpose. Lifting at the wing tip, especially 'suddenly', is surely likely to cause damage, as the load is not distributed. No doubt the design of the wing will determine if it's still flyable or not.
RF.
I'm sure someone more erudite will correct me, but I understand that lifting an aircraft by its wings for maintenance has to be carried out at specific points, designed for the purpose. Lifting at the wing tip, especially 'suddenly', is surely likely to cause damage, as the load is not distributed. No doubt the design of the wing will determine if it's still flyable or not.
RF.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that with a metal wing spar the danger is less, as metal tends to deform and so damage is more apparent. Wood (and presumably composite materials) doesn't and so you could have no deformation but quite some damage hidden.
I am sure there are exceptions, but presumably this chap assessed the impact and deemed it safe to fly the aeroplane after a thorough inspection??
I am sure there are exceptions, but presumably this chap assessed the impact and deemed it safe to fly the aeroplane after a thorough inspection??
The general position with any structure is that for reasons of economy (eastern European tractors excepted) their strength lies in the direction in which they are designed to carry their forces or loads.
In other directions they can be decidedly easy to damage by applying a load for which they were not designed and which the certification (or design approval) permitted.
If an incorrectly applied (or correctly applied but excessive) loading occurs, it is always essential to have an appropriate inspection by a suitably qualified person before further use.
I can recall such things as DC-10 engines removed from the aeroplane in an un-approved way with a fork lift truck.
In other directions they can be decidedly easy to damage by applying a load for which they were not designed and which the certification (or design approval) permitted.
If an incorrectly applied (or correctly applied but excessive) loading occurs, it is always essential to have an appropriate inspection by a suitably qualified person before further use.
I can recall such things as DC-10 engines removed from the aeroplane in an un-approved way with a fork lift truck.