Crash on Bute today 9th August 2014
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 41
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash on Bute today 9th August 2014
I've just read about this on the BBC Two people injured in Isle of Bute light aircraft crash.
Bute is one of my favourite places to fly to. I hope both people make a quick recovery.
Edited to add: I had a scary moment taking off from Bute last summer, when I was caught out by rotor from the trees. Hearing about an accident there does give me that 'what if..' feeling.
Bute is one of my favourite places to fly to. I hope both people make a quick recovery.
Edited to add: I had a scary moment taking off from Bute last summer, when I was caught out by rotor from the trees. Hearing about an accident there does give me that 'what if..' feeling.
Last edited by swopiv; 9th Aug 2014 at 16:21. Reason: Postscript
BBC News - Two people injured in Isle of Bute light aircraft crash
Rumour is a cropduster? With two people?
Rumour is a cropduster? With two people?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC - and others - got it wrong.
It was a Strathaven-based Sportscruiser.
We have no further news on the cause of the crash or the injuries to the two POB.
An unhappy end to the day.
It was a Strathaven-based Sportscruiser.
We have no further news on the cause of the crash or the injuries to the two POB.
An unhappy end to the day.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Glasgow
Age: 33
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Report released
The accident report was released today, see below.
Fatal crash plane 'was overweight', says air accident report - BBC News
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...tin_5-2015.pdf
Fatal crash plane 'was overweight', says air accident report - BBC News
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...tin_5-2015.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Is it normal to retrofit homebuilt with modifications without certification and then fly with passengers onboard?"
You cannot certify modifications on an uncertified permit to fly aircraft. You can get the LAA (in this case) to approve uncertified modifications and other aircraft of this type have had VP props and autopilots approved. I suspect that this was a paperwork error.
Rod1
You cannot certify modifications on an uncertified permit to fly aircraft. You can get the LAA (in this case) to approve uncertified modifications and other aircraft of this type have had VP props and autopilots approved. I suspect that this was a paperwork error.
Rod1
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report says there was no traditional vane type stall warning installed but there was an EFIS stall Warning that was intentionally disabled due to false alarms. Why in the hell would you not have a stall warning unit or AOA indicator that was independent from the glass panel stuff
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The word that leaps from the page at me is discrepancies.
If ever there was a reason for having Licensed Aircraft Engineers being the only folk who can sign off an aircraft, this is it. I am not in favour of that approach, but this kind of thing will make a case for it.
Of course, no changes will get around the Pilot/Owner who will modify the aircraft between inspections.
I've seen car owners who take off their non compliant number plates when going for an MOT, bit that's not life threatening.
How can you square away the photographic evidence with the Pilot's story and LAA inspections of the Prop?
Shades of the Colin McRae crash in this report.
I await with interest, the decision by the COPFS into the question of an FAI and potential prosecutions.
Why the AAIB have not made more out of the weight situation on departure from Trumpton is unclear. How it could fly to Bute and be too heavy on departure but not when it set off is a mystery. The AAIB reckon the aircraft was almost 20 Kilos overweight when it departed Bute, so by how much was it too heavy on leaving Strathaven?
Of course, no changes will get around the Pilot/Owner who will modify the aircraft between inspections.
I've seen car owners who take off their non compliant number plates when going for an MOT, bit that's not life threatening.
How can you square away the photographic evidence with the Pilot's story and LAA inspections of the Prop?
Shades of the Colin McRae crash in this report.
I await with interest, the decision by the COPFS into the question of an FAI and potential prosecutions.
Why the AAIB have not made more out of the weight situation on departure from Trumpton is unclear. How it could fly to Bute and be too heavy on departure but not when it set off is a mystery. The AAIB reckon the aircraft was almost 20 Kilos overweight when it departed Bute, so by how much was it too heavy on leaving Strathaven?
Fact is, the LAA system is pretty robust. IF it is followed.
Mods go through Turweston for approval before you fly with them, aircraft have a W&CG report, and pilots should stay within limits.
If people work within the system, not many accidents happen.
G
Mods go through Turweston for approval before you fly with them, aircraft have a W&CG report, and pilots should stay within limits.
If people work within the system, not many accidents happen.
G
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAIB reckon the aircraft was almost 20 Kilos overweight when it departed Bute, so by how much was it too heavy on leaving Strathaven?
At least that's how I read it, but admit it could be read differently.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dublinpilot wrote:
I read that differently. I understood that they reckon it wa 20kg overweight leaving Strathaven, and lighter leaving Bute (due to fuel burned off). So it might or might not have been overweight leaving Bute, but certainly was lighter than it was leaving Strathaven.
At least that's how I read it, but admit it could be read differently.
DP, the AAIB report is very clear:
So..... even if it had been fitted with the "correct" propeller, the aircraft would have had capacity for just 1.5 Litres of fuel.
Best case, from the Pilot's position, would be that the AAIB have over estimated the weight of both on board, they took on fuel at Bute, and planned to stop at Prestwick for more on the way home.
This of course depends on the Pilot not knowing that the "wrong" prop was fitted, not being aware that the autopilot weight was not included in the W&B figures and oh yeah, how did they plan on getting to Bute with so little fuel when they departed Strathaven.
But..... if the Pilot hasn't been swapping Props for the LAA inspections, and I'm not suggesting that he did, how exactly did the paperwork, photographs and reality all get so confused?
I read that differently. I understood that they reckon it wa 20kg overweight leaving Strathaven, and lighter leaving Bute (due to fuel burned off). So it might or might not have been overweight leaving Bute, but certainly was lighter than it was leaving Strathaven.
At least that's how I read it, but admit it could be read differently.
DP, the AAIB report is very clear:
Weight and Balance
Aircraft empty weight and balance
The last documented weight and balance of the aircraft was dated 18 January 2010. While
the documentation did not record which propeller was fitted, the initial flight test report,
dated 30 June 2010, stated that it was a Woodcomp Klassic. LAA inspectors who undertook
the inspection for the issue and renewal of the Permit to Fly between 2011 and 2014 all
recorded that the Klassic propeller was fitted. However, there is photographic evidence that
shows that G-EWZZ was fitted with the Woodcomp SR/3000/3 variable pitch propeller on a
number of occasions between 2011 and the date of the accident. The pilot also stated that
when he purchased the aircraft in September 2013 it was fitted with the Woodcomp variable
pitch propeller and that he had at no time removed or replaced this propeller. The fitment
of the heavier variable pitch propeller would have an effect on the weight and balance of
the aircraft.
The Maximum Takeoff Weight of the SportCruiser is 600 kg and the operating Centre of Gravity (CG) range is 405 to 507 mm aft of the aircraft datum. The aircraft weight and balance report, dated 18 January 2010, made no reference to an autopilot having been fitted to the aircraft and recorded the empty weight and position as:
Empty weight 373.70 kg
Empty CG 441.64 mm aft of datum’
Following the accident the empty weight and balance was calculated by the LAA, with the
Woodcomp SR 3000/3 variable pitch propeller and autopilot fitted, as:
‘Empty weight 393.7 kg
Empty CG 368.3 mm aft of datum’
Aircraft weight and balance at the start of the accident flight
As a result of the fire damage, and injuries sustained by the occupants, it was not possible
to make an accurate calculation of the weight and balance of the aircraft at the start of the
accident flight. Both the pilot and passenger’s weights would have increased as a result of
their medical treatment and therefore the weights were estimated by reducing their postaccident
weights to give a predicted pre-flight weight of 100 kg and 110 kg.
The amount of fuel on the aircraft was unknown, but to allow for the planned flight, with a
small reserve, it was unlikely to be less than 20 ltr of fuel weighing 14.8 kg.
The minimum aircraft weight, and position of the CG, was estimated at the start of the
accident flight to have been:
‘Aircraft equipped with Woodcomp Klassic propeller
Take-off weight 598.5 kg (limit 600 kg)
Take-off CG 539 mm aft of datum (limit 405 to 570 mm)
24 © Crown copyright 2015
AAIB Bulletin: 5/2015 G-EWZZ EW/C2014/08/01
Aircraft equipped with Woodcomp SR 3000/3 propeller and autopilot
Take-off weight 618.5 kg (limit 600 kg)
Take-off CG 536 mm aft of datum (limit 405 to 570 mm)’
Aircraft empty weight and balance
The last documented weight and balance of the aircraft was dated 18 January 2010. While
the documentation did not record which propeller was fitted, the initial flight test report,
dated 30 June 2010, stated that it was a Woodcomp Klassic. LAA inspectors who undertook
the inspection for the issue and renewal of the Permit to Fly between 2011 and 2014 all
recorded that the Klassic propeller was fitted. However, there is photographic evidence that
shows that G-EWZZ was fitted with the Woodcomp SR/3000/3 variable pitch propeller on a
number of occasions between 2011 and the date of the accident. The pilot also stated that
when he purchased the aircraft in September 2013 it was fitted with the Woodcomp variable
pitch propeller and that he had at no time removed or replaced this propeller. The fitment
of the heavier variable pitch propeller would have an effect on the weight and balance of
the aircraft.
The Maximum Takeoff Weight of the SportCruiser is 600 kg and the operating Centre of Gravity (CG) range is 405 to 507 mm aft of the aircraft datum. The aircraft weight and balance report, dated 18 January 2010, made no reference to an autopilot having been fitted to the aircraft and recorded the empty weight and position as:
Empty weight 373.70 kg
Empty CG 441.64 mm aft of datum’
Following the accident the empty weight and balance was calculated by the LAA, with the
Woodcomp SR 3000/3 variable pitch propeller and autopilot fitted, as:
‘Empty weight 393.7 kg
Empty CG 368.3 mm aft of datum’
Aircraft weight and balance at the start of the accident flight
As a result of the fire damage, and injuries sustained by the occupants, it was not possible
to make an accurate calculation of the weight and balance of the aircraft at the start of the
accident flight. Both the pilot and passenger’s weights would have increased as a result of
their medical treatment and therefore the weights were estimated by reducing their postaccident
weights to give a predicted pre-flight weight of 100 kg and 110 kg.
The amount of fuel on the aircraft was unknown, but to allow for the planned flight, with a
small reserve, it was unlikely to be less than 20 ltr of fuel weighing 14.8 kg.
The minimum aircraft weight, and position of the CG, was estimated at the start of the
accident flight to have been:
‘Aircraft equipped with Woodcomp Klassic propeller
Take-off weight 598.5 kg (limit 600 kg)
Take-off CG 539 mm aft of datum (limit 405 to 570 mm)
24 © Crown copyright 2015
AAIB Bulletin: 5/2015 G-EWZZ EW/C2014/08/01
Aircraft equipped with Woodcomp SR 3000/3 propeller and autopilot
Take-off weight 618.5 kg (limit 600 kg)
Take-off CG 536 mm aft of datum (limit 405 to 570 mm)’
So..... even if it had been fitted with the "correct" propeller, the aircraft would have had capacity for just 1.5 Litres of fuel.
Best case, from the Pilot's position, would be that the AAIB have over estimated the weight of both on board, they took on fuel at Bute, and planned to stop at Prestwick for more on the way home.
This of course depends on the Pilot not knowing that the "wrong" prop was fitted, not being aware that the autopilot weight was not included in the W&B figures and oh yeah, how did they plan on getting to Bute with so little fuel when they departed Strathaven.
But..... if the Pilot hasn't been swapping Props for the LAA inspections, and I'm not suggesting that he did, how exactly did the paperwork, photographs and reality all get so confused?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...CTSW_08-11.pdf
I'm wondering if there is a connection here............
I'm wondering if there is a connection here............
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi AP,
Just wondered because Trumpton episodes always ended with the Fire Brigade Band playing... and, of course, we had a major fire here at Strathaven five years ago this month!
http://www.bmaa.org/files/16_inspect...44ab99aaa93046
(not for which, but to my satisfaction nonetheless, the neighbour who was the cause of it was sent to jail in January! Yes, it is a little soap opera here!)
Businessman who tried to buy Rangers is jailed - The Scotsman
Just wondered because Trumpton episodes always ended with the Fire Brigade Band playing... and, of course, we had a major fire here at Strathaven five years ago this month!
http://www.bmaa.org/files/16_inspect...44ab99aaa93046
(not for which, but to my satisfaction nonetheless, the neighbour who was the cause of it was sent to jail in January! Yes, it is a little soap opera here!)
Businessman who tried to buy Rangers is jailed - The Scotsman
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing sinister in the Trumpton reference, although the Fire Brigade link is very relevant to where we got the nickname from.
I'm told that the Pilot involved in the subject of this thread lost an aircraft in that as well. True?
I'm told that the Pilot involved in the subject of this thread lost an aircraft in that as well. True?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, I can't remember exactly whose aircraft was in the hangar at that time. I am trying to put that hangar fire behind us, and having only settled the insurance claim less than a year ago am only just succeeding!
It has no relevance I can see to present days, our neighbour Mr Mackenzie admitted to the police that he moved his disposable BBQ, which was the root of the fire, "for safety reasons" and is not an associate or friend of anyone at the airfield - then or now!
I was at Strathaven Airfield the day of the Bute incident and had the duty of breaking the news of the crash to the family, even before the emergency services were aware of people's identities.
I appreciate pprune is a rumour network, and no criticism of that, but this is one case where I don't think it appropriate for me to contribute.
I just found the Trumpton description odd and had to ask!
It has no relevance I can see to present days, our neighbour Mr Mackenzie admitted to the police that he moved his disposable BBQ, which was the root of the fire, "for safety reasons" and is not an associate or friend of anyone at the airfield - then or now!
I was at Strathaven Airfield the day of the Bute incident and had the duty of breaking the news of the crash to the family, even before the emergency services were aware of people's identities.
I appreciate pprune is a rumour network, and no criticism of that, but this is one case where I don't think it appropriate for me to contribute.
I just found the Trumpton description odd and had to ask!
Last edited by xrayalpha; 15th May 2015 at 19:27. Reason: Edited to add ref to "aircraft in hangar" in 1st sentence to avoid confusion, the post I was replying to seemed to have gone.
even if it had been fitted with the "correct" propeller, the aircraft would have had capacity for just 1.5 Litres of fuel.
FBW