Flying after bumping the wing during taxi
 

I am a heli pilot so know nothing of aeroplane flight / safety.

At Redhill yesterday I witnessed a small GA aircraft taxi along and its right wing hit a parked van. The van must have been a couple of inches taller than the clearance under the wing. The machine tipped up visibly to go over the roof, and then dropped sharply as it finally cleared the rear. So one part of the wing ran along the corner of the roof of the van. I expected the pilot to stop (I thought he must have noticed that!) but he made to line up 18.

My friend called the tower to tell them of the impact and warn the chap, and subsequently he reversed course and pulled up. Then he exited the machine and inspected his wing. He walked back to the van, and took a good look at the floor around about (he did not seem to pay much attention to the van itself). Then he got back into his machine, fired up and lined up 18 for departure.

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.

Now, being a helicopter pilot whose machine performs public transport work I would have needed an engineer to sign-off that my machine was safe to fly if I bumped anything at all.

Was this pilot's actions really all that is needed to go flying in a non-public transport aircraft?

Fatal accident not that long ago after a wing-tip collided with a straw bale at the side of the runway - the wing then collapsed in flight.

Write that up as a MOR if he just flew off.

Silly sod.

'wot Jock said.

The leading edge of an aeroplane wing is both structurally and aerodynamically utterly critical to safety. As reported, this idiot was endangering his life and that of anybody in or under the aeroplane. It needs reporting PDQ in case anybody else tries to fly it before this is inspected and if required, rectified.

Report it, quickly.

G

AAIB might be a good shout as well. The MOR's are about 3 months before anyone looks at them last time I heard. Or whistle blowers might work.

how the hell does an aircraft get within striking distance of a van anyway?

GTW, do you have a link or any other info on the a/c that crashed following hay damage, I have heard about it before but cannot find any other details on it.
Thanks.

I have to admit I was stunned that anyone would take-off after that. I was not sure if that was more a "helicopter" thing, or more a fact of my machines flying public transport so subject to tighter rules.

I was also suprised that he thought it was OK not to find the van owner and let him know he had hit it - though the red paint will likely T-Cut out.

As posted, the event was reported to ATC at Redhill. That is a full, qualified ATC service and I would hope that ATC is required to report any collision happening on their watch. My understanding is that the Pilot is required to file a report with CAA (Mandetory Occurance Report?). So that's 2x reports. If you think it would be helpful for me to also report, to whom do you suggest?

If the wingtip took an impact force, think of the moment arm and the effect on the wing root...

Air Accidents Investigation: Contact Us

Try phoning them and ask them who you should contact.

It more for the poor sod that flys it next than anything else.

By rights if there is an airside prang and ATC know about it they have to get the police in. Its actually quite serious.

JUST-local

Think this is it..

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_500558.pdf

If another is being referred to though I'd like to read about it too.

If it was true that the aircraft was not his then it sounds likely that he hoped no one would notice especially the owner and he could walk away as if nothing had happened.
The aircraft should be inspected for anything but the slightest touch as you cannot see what damage may have been done.
It would not be nice for the owner or someone else to find out later that there had been damage at their peril.

I hope someone gave a note to the owner telling him what occurred

Pace

Well you could call the CAA, Monday morning, file a CHIRP, get ATC to lodge an MOR, I assume everyone has the reg detail??

Few years ago a clown took out the fence on departing Glenforsa, and was last seen heading to Edinburgh with barbed wire, and a large post trailing behind the aeroplane:( A PA28. Pilot well known.:\

So the story goes, the next morning, takes the blue and white tape off said aircraft, and flew it to another airfield for repairs. Totally astonishing.

He kept his licence. It truly amazes me that there are still individuals who put their own life, and others at risk by doing things that seem extraordinary when you witness it.

Nah, report him asap

MJ - I emailed AAIB from the site link. Reg included.

Aircraft was a Rans-S6E SD. so you will appreciate that a Peugeot pannel van is not going to fit under the wing!

John

I would give them a ring as well and just ask. Its more to make sure some poor sod doesn't take the aircraft up to do stalling or steep turns tomorrow morning before everyone gets there poo together and starts clearing out the mail boxes.

They might not be interested and want you to call someone at the CAA.

I would definatley call then after you have put the type in.

If it was a C172 I wouldn't be that worried, they are built like brick poo houses and I have flown one after an engineering inspection with 2/3 of the leading edge battered by a bird strike. But at least its only a single seater so no one will be training tomorrow in it.

The fact he bashed his wing in the first place says enough. Muppet. Doesn't deserve to share the sky with the majority of us.

The Rans S6 ESD is a two-seater, but there will be nobody training in it tomorrow, because it is a homebuilt.

Yes, I know, the owner(s) can receive training in it, but then he probably believes he has received all the training he needs :)

Is the Rans not a permit aircraft, and as such maintenance can be done by the owner, and an inspector does the permit renewal?

I am not for one moment saying what the pilot did was good practice, but under the permit scheme can the owner not sign off his own repairs etc.?

I am just curious if legally as pilot/owner he can claim he examined the aircraft for damage, and is authorised to deem it fit to fly with no further duplicate inspection?

Any PFA/LAA inspectors On here able to tell me the procedure?

The Aviation side aside - having caused damage to a parked vehicle and then leaving without leaving his details has he not committed a criminal offence??

Some years ago, a couple of my instructors went over to the maintenance aerodrome, so that one could pick up an aircraft after a 50 hr service....

Despite being warned by his colleague, the PIC hit a fence post with the wing tip whilst trying to turn round. His colleague suggested that they should leave the aircraft at the maintenance aerodrome and fly the other one back. But no, the PIC decided to fly back to our home aerodrome, whereupon he told me "I've had a bit of a bump"...

I went to look at the aircraft and immediately grounded it. Then we had to arrange for the maintenance people to drive over and check that it was OK to fly it, so I could fly it over to the maintenance aerodrome to have it repaired.

It was pronounced safe, so I flew it over and did a low speed handling check on the way - to find a slight wing drop at the stall. Handy to know that as the maintenance aerodrome had rather a short RW. I then waited whilst they repaired it, but we decided to leave the repair in primer until the next 50 hr was due.

A completely avoidable taxying incident. But even worse was the fact that the FI couldn't accept that his decision to fly it back was unsound. Plus it cost us 2 x road journeys for the maintainers, 2 x transit flights to take it over for repair - and I had to hang around for a few hours so wasted my own time.

We docked the price of the repairs and the maintainers' road mileage from the FIs pay, but waived the 2 transit flight costs. Had he just left it at the maintenance aerodrome in the first place, I'd have been more lenient. But his stupid decision and pig-headed reluctance to learn from the error of his ways didn't impress me. I was very close to advising him that we no longer required his services.... But I was conscious of the fact that he had no other regular source of income.

I also made him read that Robin / haybale accident to which reference was made earlier.

Before it may be flown, an aircraft must be checked by licensed maintenance personnel following even the slightest ground collision.

Fred - No, I don't think so.

On a UK road then it is an offence for a person being the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle and owing to the presence of that vehicle on the road or other such public place an accident having occurred whereby damage or injury was caused did fail to stop and give his name and address and identification marks of the vehicle.

Road Traffic Act 1988 s 170 (2)

If there are reasons for leaving without contacting the owner fo the vehicle then the accident should be reported to the Police within 24 hrs. Technically, there could still be a prosecution but if it is a non-injury accident it is not typical for that to happen.

However, this was on an airfield which has a gate and controlled access. Hence I don't think it qualifies as part of the public road (which would be the case in, say, the car park of Burger King).

John

I'm a BMAA inspector, but an LAA member.

No, he isn't allowed to sign off his own repairs, EXCEPT where it's through replacement with "identical" parts solely, and then it should normally be counter-signed by another PPL, or by an LAA inspector.

In a case like this, if there is any damage not simply fixeable before next flight by replacement of parts, he should inform LAA engineering, they are likely to suspend the permit. The LAA will then get a report on the damage, agree with the owner (or just impose) a repair scheme, which once done needs signing off by an LAA inspector (who may not have done the repair work themselves). Not unlikely that a check flight would also be required.

For major repairs, he'd also (probably) need a letter of "no technical objection" from the designer.

G

I have a sneaky feeling that if there is a prang airside between an aircraft and any form of motor you have to inform the British Transport police.

Thanks for that Genghis! I suppose it doesn't really matter if permit or CofA, if the guy flying does not have the sense to get something checked, no rules will stop him taking off.

From their website:

Two things must ye know about the Mad Jock...

The offence here may be endangerment but the pilot will, of course, get away with it.

Can the OP remember anything about the registration?

MJ. I think the BTP only have authority where railway trains are involved or on railway property. Not sure if or when they had any juristiction over aircraft.

Edited: beaten to it by Capt Hamster

Where I am based, one renter started up with the towbar attached. He took ~ 1" x 1" piece out of the prop, chucked the mangled towbar into some grass, went for a flight, landed, said nothing. I saw the dent myself. The school never got anything from him, so it was an insurance job.

Sounds completely reasonable. I mean, if you hit a stone with a lawn mower, and it runs OK afterwards, you just carry on, so why should a plane be any different? The engine looks and sounds pretty similar to a lawn mower, and is even harder to start.

I am saying this only ~50% tongue in cheek, because PPL training does not mention shock loading at all (IME) so if the "pilot" is merely trying to avoid getting into trouble, it's perhaps not all that suprising. One should judge people only by reference to their training.

FLH - post 13.

I also have photo if needed.

John

I don't have to imagine that. I have seen the damage that was done to the spar and spar box of a PA28 after a more or less similar taxi incident. The wingtip was dented but that was the easy fix. Fixing the spar box was a major structural repair job that lasted three months or so.

But that taxi incident was duly reported and the aircraft immediately grounded.

Wings are designed to take load mostly in the vertical. In the horizontal plane they're relatively weak. In fact, glider wings have a special diagonal spar in them to handle the horizontal loads that result from a winch launch.

peter 337, Don't get me started on towbars!

My aeroplane had a towbar incident just like you describe (before I owned it). I am absolutely firm about this; You fit the towbar, move the aeroplane then remove the towbar and leave it on the ground beside the nosewheel. I am up to here with telling people not to leave the towbar on the noseleg :=:=:=

Instructors have a responsibility to demonstrate this sort of thing when moving aeroplane on the ground - it's all good airmanship!

Happy landings

3 point

Terrible airmanship and the straw bale accident immediately came to mind. He is not just endangering himself but also anyone who flies that aircraft in the future. If I was the van owner I'd be pretty irate as well.

My little aeroplane pulled its tiedowns out of the ground and ran free during a night of rain and gales on a landaway nightstop some time ago. I had a nasty feeling a wingtip might have hit the ground during its escapade before it was apprehended. I inspected the thing at great length but was not willing to fly it until I had an LAA inspector check the wing internals himself. To knowingly hit the wing and fly anyway is shocking. Perhaps the same mentality as the supermarket moms who grind down the side of adjacent cars trying to nose into parking slots and then hope nobody noticed.

John,

Post 13 doesn't help. G-INFO doesn't have a matching aircraft. Do you mean its reg ends in the letters SD?

There is no harm in posting an undoctored photograph here for all to see.

Frankly, this sort of event is just another disappointment in the catalogue of woeful behaviour from a minority of people who call themselves pilots but are incapable of exercising the judgement which that term assumes. Almost as bad as the authorities' (and their peers') unwillingness to tackle them.

Peterh, once again your post marks you out. Is common sense not a facet of the human condition in Brighton?

I once grounded a C 152 before an instructional flight. Even if my student has done a full preflight inspection, I always do a walk around the aircraft before getting in mostly looking for things hanging/dripping/loose.

This time something didn't look right on the horizontal stab. When I looked closer I realized there was a faint diagonal spanwise crease. When the engineer looked inside he found the spar was kinked:eek:. The damage greatly decreased the structural strenght of the tail.

Nobody fessed up but three flights earlier a dual spin lesson was flown (the spin is a required exercise for the Canadian CPL flight test). Knowing the instructor in question I am sure he grossly abused the aircraft with a over the redline pull out.

The bottom line is simple. If you think you have hurt the aircraft you must report it. Even small bumps can manifest themselves in major hidden damage which often will not be obvious on an external inspection.

Devils advocate
 

While all above seem to want to hang draw and quater this guy I think it is time to play devils advocate.

What if the owner was an LAA inspector & licenced engineer who having inspected the aircraft has decided that the damage is a few scratches to the paint and a dented pride ? He will also have concluded that there is no structural damage to the aircraft and it is safe to fly.

The fact is that few of you above have the technical knowlage to asses the damage to this aircraft and none of you have actually inspected the aircraft.

On these pages the press is condemned for gross mis-reporting of aviation incidents and yet here we have the very people who cry fowl when the press mis- reporting jumping to conclusions with little or no hard evidence of the facts.

Trial by prune...........don't you just love it !

A and C

I suggest you re read the opening post.

So you are basically saying that the LAA standards for inspectors and licensed engineers allow for the kinds of people who need to be told by ATC to go and inspect their aircraft after hitting something while taxing:hmm:

I don't think I would be very impressed with that logic if I was a LAA licensed person......

If the impact was hard enough to remove the paint then I would hope if it was being piloted by an inspector or engineer then the inspection would be more than a simple glance at the wing, especially as at first the impact was ignored

A & C is pushing his advocation a bit methinks:sad:
With any aircraft it is not necessarily the pilot who ignores potential damage, it is the person who flies some time later, even maybe the next owner years later, who will have no indication of a fuse running....:=

"For non-urgent requests" use email, from the AAIB.

I'd ring them if you don't hear from them soon, John. I feel for the next person who flies it, or for the persons house that plane next flies over.

Let us know how you get on.

Lets be honest, any good pilot would have swayed on the side of caution and returned the aircraft to stand for a proper inspection. I know I would have, but then I value my life and don't take unnecessary risks.

Just to pick up on A&C's devil's advocate point. As I understand it from the OP, 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??????????

How can anyone guess at the unseen damage? At the very least it needs properly inspecting. What a stunning display of airmanship (NOT) I hope red van man reads this thread - he can't be impressed either