I would disagree with you - If theres an engine failure after take off then the crash was because of that - The pilots subsequent attempts to salvage his life is not the fault of the crash - The EFATO is.
That's like blaming a cancer surgeon for someone dying of cancer? Its the Cancer not the surgeon that has done the damage.
If this had happened at say Southend, then the option to turn back would have been the only one since its built up for miles with nothing at the end of the runway but buildings.
Would you still blame the pilot?

If the Hudson river pilot had crashed badly killing most on board would he have been blamed??
NO WAY

Age not a factor
 

Any one who thinks the age of the aircraft in this accident is a factor is kidding themselfs, maintenance should keep aircraft airworthy and the engine would have had a hard life of 2400 hours +20% and 12 years and so would have been much younger than the airframe.

I could speculate about the reason for this accident but I will say that pure "age" of the aircraft is not a factor.

"If this had happened at say Southend, then the option to turn back would have been the only one since its built up for miles with nothing at the end of the runway but buildings."

But it wasn't at Southend, it was Cranfield, and as such is hardly short of fields.

Cheers, Howard

Runway 21 is

You are entitled to your views Ajruk, but I'm afraid mine differ. EFATO was certainly causative to the accident, but it should not result in an inevitable stall/spin (if that is what happened).

I agree but the the stall/spin is the consequence and not the cause. We could debate all day whether the pilot could've done more but the cause is the engine failure.

"Runway 21 is"

Both ends are clear of buildings, just fields, unless there has been some recent development.

If aircraft age was routinely - indeed ever - the reason for aircraft accidents, then aeroplanes would be grounded before they get old enough for it to become a factor.

There are many thousands of aeroplanes flying which are significantly older: in both years and hours, than that PA38.


I suspect that this will be a classic swiss cheese accident - with latent effects (age, maintenance, fuel useage?, design?), passive effects (instructor training and supervision, location, experience levels), and active failures (whatever caused the engine to stop, how it failed). I predict a lengthy AAIB report, although whether it actually contains any recommendations will probably depend upon whether those passive, latent and active failures were within or outside normal acceptable aviation practice as we currently understand it. On that, I hear and read many rumours and anecdotes, but ultimately will believe what I read in AAIB's report.

G

Oh come on arjuk , you are having a laugh, aren't you? EFATO options don't get any better than 21 at Cranfield. Indeed, the biggest conundrum is deciding which suitable field to use.

Let me speculate (something I ordinarily try to avoid):

AAIB will find nothing wrong with the engine. There may be a dodgy mag or some oily plugs. One fuel tank will have evidence of residual fuel, the other no evidence but this will be caveated by there having been a post-crash fuel leak. Alternatively, there will be a question over carb ice/vapour lock.

For sure, the engine stopped providing power but I will be rather surprised if anything significant 'let go'. The incident was brought about by loss of power; the (alleged) stall/spin was brought about by pilotage.

The fields on runway 21 are sufficient to avoid killing people on the ground but I certainly wouldn't want to find somewhere to land on 21 fields.

The Swiss cheese accident model requires more than a single cause Ajruk. It would appear from what has been written that this accident fits the Swiss cheese model quite aptly.

I'm sorry, but the argument 'the engine failed therefore we had a crash' makes no sense at all. If that was true we wouldn't bother teaching EFATO techniques, but simply suggest a pilot picks a religion as they inevitably hurtle towards the ground.

The thing still flies perfectly well with the engine off, so the pilot's job is firstly to maintain best glide speed and then to pick the best landing option 45 degrees either side of heading. Looking at Google Earth, there are plenty of fields under the 03 departure, which was the runway in use at the time.

Cows Getting Bigger - Im curious how many EFATO you've had to deal with in your long established aviation career? I find it personally sickening how a bunch of people are pre-judging the actions of a pilot who's too sick to defend himself against you vultures. The fact remains both have survived and will make a full recovery, so let's see be grateful and stop speculating how well you all would have done.
I would imagine you would've landed it back on the Threshold and managed to use the remaining airspeed to taxi it back to the hanger?

ZNWW - Simple as that - No pressure at all - BOSH pick a field, land in it then take out your cigar and celebrate a job well done.

Ah. That must be a different Cranfield to the one I visited last month.

Age of aircraft? If that was why the engine failed then why do we bother with all these inspections, cetificates of airworthiness, etc. Might just as well throw the aircraft away after ten years, then.

Are you trying to say that a stall is the inevitable consequence of an engine failure?

Training? Why bother training for engine failures? Let's just play it by ear, shall we?

when?
 

When did I say it was the inevitable consequence? I don't think I did?

If the engine hadn't stopped then the aircraft wouldn't have stalled - ASSUMING IT DID which we don't know yet.

I agree it shouldn't have stalled irrespective assuming it did but the cause was an engine failure. That's all Im saying.

Arjuk, in thirty years or so I have had two EFATO. One in a thruster where the prop decided to go its own way and the other in a twin whereby I was fortunate enough to have a second engine.

In the same time, I have been to a large number of funerals brought about by pilots doing a very good job of getting it wrong. Maybe you should read the link I posted on page one of this thread and ask yourself why I personally use this as an example of why turning back is a mug's game.

Well of course there's enormous pressure and being human, every single one of us can make a mistake. Personally, I am delighted that your pal and his student survived - we can all learn from such incidents.The discussion is not meant to be taking a pop at the PIC individually.

would you turn back with partial power?

Quite the opposite I suspect he would have gone for +-15degrees out the front.

And more than likely have done a lighting quick fuel tank change as well as ramming the mixture lever up as well if he hadn't trained the student to have there hand across both anyway.

There is a technique which I have seen from students of a certain intergrated school which loosens off the frictions apparently to reduce wear or some such rubbish while on the ground and doing engine checks.

And the turn back is a very American procedure the UK has been banging it out not to do it to instructors for the last 10 years. But initial training nearly always win's when the poo hits the fan which is why those initial ppl lessons are so important.

I have run a tank dry on purpose 3000ft over a runway to calibrate a dip stick. The engine picks up in under a second once the tank selector is turned. The mixture getting caught by accident either by a jacket or a finger is a pretty common one which is another reason to get students to hold their hand under the lever across both the levers during takeoff. Then when they put there hand down to get rid of flap if its being used they won't catch it.

But initial training nearly always win's when the poo hits the fan which is why those initial ppl lessons are so important.

Never a truer word said MJ !