Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Crash at Caernarfon

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Crash at Caernarfon

Old 15th May 2014, 20:15
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,361
Crash at Caernarfon

Crash at Caernarfon

Rod1 is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 18:04
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Burnley
Posts: 38
Crash at Caernarfon

Another fatality on the EGCK 25 threshold? Has anyone made the connection between the wind turbines, and recent incidents? I think it's pretty obvious. Wake turbulence, wind shear?


Perhaps it's already too late?
The_Observer is offline  
Old 17th May 2014, 01:25
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,575
I can't make out what type the aircraft is, it looks like it's rigid wing so probably 3-axis although the proximity of the prop - looks like a pusher - to the undercarriage would indicate flex wing; any ideas?
chevvron is offline  
Old 17th May 2014, 06:56
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 1,928
It was a Mainair Blade I believe...

Not the machine pictured - for info only.
ETOPS is offline  
Old 17th May 2014, 09:58
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 37
Posts: 28
Not a Blade: it was a Mainair Flash II Alpha, judging by the smaller spats and the Aerotrak suspension strut visible in the photos.
My condolences to the pilot and his family. It sounds like a strong gust after takeoff, or maybe a rigging error?
swopiv is offline  
Old 17th May 2014, 10:28
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stockport
Age: 64
Posts: 119
Thoughts to the family first and foremost.

It appears the point of impact is on 25, perhaps about 100 metres along (judging by the position of the cars in the background), given that it was a microlight the takeoff point would not be too far along 25, sadly this is close to where the last incident occurred.

Although the positioning of the turbines looks dramatic there is a range of wind direction where the wake of the turbines travels away from the line of 25.

I don't know the exact wind direction at the time but I am very familiar with the airfield, (I can see the turbines as I write this). The position of the turbine seen in the background of one of the pictures suggest that the wake was travelling away from 25.

In relation to the previous incident I would suggest this is a very sad and unfortunate coincidence.
avturboy is offline  
Old 18th May 2014, 20:20
  #7 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,054
I think it's pretty obvious. Wake turbulence, wind shear?
From someone who clearly does not know what Wake Turbulence is, its far from obvious!
Wake turbulence is turbulence that forms behind an aircraft as it passes through the air.
Whopity is offline  
Old 18th May 2014, 21:07
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,747
I know more than most about microlight accidents and their causes, and I'd say that in the public domain right now there is virtually nothing to tell us the cause of this tragedy.

Aftercasts suggest it's unlikely to be weather, and the fact that it's within the airfield boundary suggests it went wrong during either take-off or landing. The F2a used to have a bad reputation for mishandling due to mis-rigging, but that was all sorted out by research led mandatory modifications years ago and the type has an excellent track record over the last decade or more. Which basically tells us nothing.

I'd suggest that conjecture waits until there is some kind of evidence to be considered.

Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 19th May 2014, 03:41
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,519
I'd suggest that conjecture waits until there is some kind of evidence to be considered.
In a perfect world, aviator's would know this intuitively and leave speculation of cause to the ignorant and the media. Respectful discussion would revolve around the possibility of learning and improving from the accidents and mishaps of others for the sole purpose of improving flight safety - alas we do not live in such a world.

This tragic accident, as with so many before, shows people simply cannot resist clutching at straws and posting their idle conjectures - sometimes with unfortunate consequences.

In this instance it would seem you are all quite likely to be miles off - and no I won't be elaborating or posting further.

RIP and thoughts with the family.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 19th May 2014, 14:51
  #10 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
There was a rumor that a wind turbine was built right next to an active runway.
Less than 10m from the side.

No idea if that had anything to do with it.
soaringhigh650 is offline  
Old 19th May 2014, 20:26
  #11 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Burnley
Posts: 38

I'm sure everyone is acutely aware of the definition of 'wake turbulence', now you've looked up the definition on Wikipedia I hope you're sufficiently enlightened.

In this instance I refer to 'wake turbulence' in the context of fluid dynamics. Clean air hitting a large rotating blade(s) and the effect this has on the surrounding airflow.
The_Observer is offline  
Old 20th May 2014, 07:15
  #12 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 586

The clearest bit of research I can find about wake turbulence from wind turbines. I'm not saying its got anything to do with the accident referred to in this thread.
Heston is offline  
Old 20th May 2014, 07:31
  #13 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Burnley
Posts: 38
Many thanks for posting that link Heston. With the fluid dynamics associated with these turbines, how do you mange to get one sited on an airfield?
The_Observer is offline  
Old 20th May 2014, 07:42
  #14 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,234
Caernarfon, EGCK, has two crossed runways - 02/20 and 07/25. Right next close to 02/20 they built two wind turbines, by which the runway was declared unlicensed. 07/25 is licensed still. At some wind directions the wakes from the turbines are noticable at T/O & LDG and not easy to handle. These turbines are closer to the runway then other airports I know and the field is quite open. I have no idea whether this has something to do with the accident, but, does anybody have the relevant weather data handy?
ChickenHouse is offline  
Old 20th May 2014, 08:39
  #15 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Burnley
Posts: 38
RAF Valley Wx Information 15/05/2014

Query made at 05/20/2014 08:36:19 UTC

Time interval: from 05/15/2014 13:00 to 05/15/2014 21:59 UTC

EGOV, Valley (United Kingdom).
WMO index: 03302. Latitude 53-15N. Longitude 004-32W. Altitude 11 m.

METAR/SPECI from EGOV, Valley (United Kingdom).SA15/05/2014 21:50->METAR EGOV 152150Z 15005KT CAVOK 12/11 Q1035 BLU=SA15/05/2014 21:20->METAR EGOV NIL=SA15/05/2014 20:50->METAR EGOV 152050Z 17003KT CAVOK 12/11 Q1035 BLU TEMPO 7000 BR WHT=SA15/05/2014 20:20->METAR EGOV NIL=SA15/05/2014 19:50->METAR EGOV 151950Z 19004KT CAVOK 12/11 Q1035 BLU TEMPO 7000 BR WHT=SA15/05/2014 19:20->METAR EGOV NIL=SA15/05/2014 18:50->METAR EGOV 151850Z 21005KT CAVOK 12/11 Q1035 BLU=SA15/05/2014 18:20->METAR EGOV NIL=SA15/05/2014 17:50->METAR EGOV 151750Z 22005KT 9999 FEW020 BKN220 15/11 Q1035 BLU=SA15/05/2014 17:20->METAR EGOV NIL=SA15/05/2014 16:50->METAR EGOV 151650Z 20005KT 9999 FEW020 SCT140 15/12 Q1036 BLU TEMPO 7000 BR WHT=SA15/05/2014 16:20->METAR EGOV NIL=SA15/05/2014 15:50->METAR EGOV 151550Z 22006KT 9999 FEW012 SCT140 15/12 Q1036 BLU TEMPO 7000 BR WHT=SA15/05/2014 15:26->METAR EGOV 151526Z 22007KT 9999 FEW012 BKN250 15/12 Q1036 BLU TEMPO 4000 VCFG FEW001 GRN=SA15/05/2014 15:20->METAR EGOV NIL=SA15/05/2014 15:06->METAR EGOV 151506Z 23006KT 9999 7000S FEW012 BKN250 14/12 Q1036 WHT TEMPO 4000 VCFG FEW001 GRN=SA15/05/2014 14:50->METAR EGOV 151450Z 23007KT 9999 4000S VCFG FEW001 SCT140 BKN250 14/12 Q1036 GRN TEMPO 2000 VCFG YLO2=SA15/05/2014 14:35->METAR EGOV 151435Z 23008KT 9999 2000SW VCFG FEW001 BKN180 14/12 Q1036=SA15/05/2014 14:20->METAR EGOV NIL=SA15/05/2014 13:50->METAR EGOV 151350Z 22007KT 9999 FEW012 BKN250 15/12 Q1036 BLU NOSIG=SA15/05/2014 13:20->METAR EGOV NIL=

short TAF from EGOV, Valley (United Kingdom).FC15/05/2014 21:19->TAF EGOV 152119Z 1521/1603 CNL=FC15/05/2014 19:38->TAF EGOV 151938Z 1521/1603 18005KT CAVOK PROB40 TEMPO 1521/1603 4000 BR PROB30 TEMPO 1521/1603 0500 FG SCT000=FC15/05/2014 16:37->TAF EGOV 151637Z 1518/1603 21005KT 9999 FEW002 PROB40 TEMPO 1518/1603 4000 BR PROB30 TEMPO 1518/1603 0800 FG SCT000=FC15/05/2014 16:31->TAF AMD EGOV 151631Z 1516/1524 23005KT 9999 FEW002 PROB40 TEMPO 1516/1524 4000 BR PROB30 TEMPO 1516/1524 0800 FG SCT000=FC15/05/2014 14:57->TAF AMD EGOV 151457Z 1515/1524 23005KT 9999 FEW001 TEMPO 1515/1519 4000 VCFG FEW000 PROB30 TEMPO 1515/1519 0800 FG SCT000 BECMG 1519/1521 0500 FG BKN000=FC15/05/2014 14:37->TAF AMD EGOV 151437Z 1515/1524 23005KT 9999 FEW001 TEMPO 1515/1524 0500 FG BKN000=FC15/05/2014 13:37->TAF EGOV 151337Z 1515/1524 23005KT 9999 FEW010 PROB30 TEMPO 1519/1524 4000 BR=
No large TAF reports from EGOV during solicited interval in the database.
The_Observer is offline  
Old 20th May 2014, 20:43
  #16 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 541
I wonder how many other airfields are going to generate some income by
installing these wind turbines.... It could be more profitable than the odd GA landing fees.

What's next? Solar panels on the runways?

phiggsbroadband is offline  
Old 20th May 2014, 21:49
  #17 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 55
Posts: 47

Howard Long is offline  
Old 21st May 2014, 01:14
  #18 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 162
Now all they need is some very long extension cord for the electric aircraft... And today we're limited to 3 in the circuit due to clouds
Pirke is offline  
Old 21st May 2014, 17:38
  #19 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 876
Dear The Observer,

If you own the airfield, you can put anything on it you like: many people choose houses!

(Of course, whether it is any actual use as an airfield afterwards is another matter.)

At Caernarfon, with the south/south westerely in the forecast/METAR, I can't see the turbines being an issue except that it meant 02/20 was not available - and that would have been the runway I would have chosen to fly off in an F2A in that wind direction.

But then many airfields - like Cumbernauld, Glenrothes, Edinburgh, Glasgow Gatwick, for instance - only have one runway. So the use of them is then down to the pilot's discretion.

In this case, it was also down to the instructor who signed out the solo student. And I presume they know their home airfield better than most.

All airfields are under pressure. People want lower costs, airfield operators (and flying schools and aircraft owners etc) face higher costs. The difficulty for all is to make sure safety is not compromised in the process of saving money.

We have successfully objected to wind turbines in the vicinity of Strathaven Airfield because being unable to use certain runways in certain wind directions would have a serious impact on our traffic levels and economic viability.

But that was our decision, in our circumstances. Other airfields will have different situations.
xrayalpha is offline  
Old 22nd May 2014, 00:14
  #20 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,747
Originally Posted by Howard Long View Post

Looks great to me, although I'd quite like to know that the mounts on those panels were reasonably frangible if I hit them.

Money from power, workable airfield, easy to spot from the air. Win all round, surely.

Genghis the Engineer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.