|
Cranfield crash, 5 June 2013
BBC reporting a light aircraft down
BBC News - Two hurt in Cranfield Airport light aircraft crash Two people have been injured in a light aircraft crash in a Bedfordshire airfield, the ambulance service said. Emergency services, including two air ambulances, were called to Cranfield Airport just before 13:45 BST. An East of England Ambulance spokesman said the two casualties received "serious injuries" and were being flown to Addenbrooke's Hospital. Bedfordshire Police said the Civil Aviation Authority would be investigating. Cranfield Airport has yet to comment. The facility is used by flight training organisations, small business aircraft and private jets. |
|
Rumour has it its one of Pilot Flight Training (Cranfield) owned by Chris Alexander.........
|
I was about Cranfield today.
It is PFT, it is a PA38, it wasn't Chris Alexander. Seems to have been an instructor and their student, there were reports that they made a radio call about a rough running engine, and the impact site was somewhere around the 21 threshold. I understand that nobody has died, but both are in hospital and very unwell. AAIB are attending. That's as much as I know, other than there were a great many emergency vehicles on site. Thoughts and hopes with the two people in hospital that they make a full and speedy recovery. P |
Sad about BN, had many hours flying on it. Just a note however, the engine always had a problem with plug fouling and one had to be cautious about taxiing rich. It always liked a bit of lean to keep the plugs clean. Worse on hot days too!
So sorry for the people hurt, but there may have been something lacking in the process somewhere. Experience and knowledge of each individual aircraft's foibles is vital. |
Sad to hear of this.
I hope that the two on board make a swift recovery. |
|
How sad! I fly out of Cranfield and this has really hit home. Would hate to speculate but here are some facts regarding the school/aircraft:
1. PA38 used to be owed by Bonus (went into administration last September) 2. PA38 in question was getting towards the end of its life. Apparently bought in auction for £7000 ish 3. PFT headed up by Chris Alexander ZF |
Any idea how the two on board are doing now?
|
Originally Posted by captain_flynn
(Post 7880466)
Any idea how the two on board are doing now?
G |
Thanks very much for the information. I am glad to hear that they are not in a life threatening state now. I hope they make a swift recovery.
|
The other side seem to have already picked up on the owner's past!
|
Out of curiosity, what is the relevance of the owner or his murky past to do with the crash?
An opportunity for salacious gossip? I am more interested why an Instructor would attempt a low level turn back. The cardinal sin in my mind. It's called the impossible turn for a reason. Thankfully they have lived to learn from the mistake. Wishing them a speedy recovery. |
Oh Bose, did you really have to kick off that discussion? :eek:
IMHO, don't turn back unless you have planned it, in detail. Yes, there are a huge number of variables which can increase or decrease the chances of success but how many pilots are competent/current enough to do it? Whenever this discussion takes place, I always point people towards this accident report which has some significant personal interest. Not exactly the same circumstances but indicative of how a professional can get it wrong. |
Bosex,
I think that the guys murky past didn't go down to well at Cranfield with plenty of guys opposing down there. Who said that the instructor tried the impossible turn? I haven't heard any such thing as yet. ZF |
Wind at Cranfield 040/08. Report says: landed short of the 21 threshold.. QED?
|
Depends which way the aircraft was pointing
|
2. PA38 in question was getting towards the end of its life. Apparently bought in auction for £7000 ish Maybe there are only so many times you can replace the 'broom and handle' before it's time to throw it away? KR FOK :confused: |
Red Chillie, 'short of the 21 threshold' is either on the runway (if taking off from 03) or trying to land back on 21 with a significant tail wind, which you wouldn't normally do out of choice.. Implying a turn-back.
Of course I have assumed that they were using 03 - with wind at 040 I can't imagine otherwise. |
We don't have enough info at this stage, could have been a normal take off followed by immediate engine failure which would put the aircraft at the 21 end of the runway, no turn back required.
Let's leave it to the AAIB. I trained at Cranfield a fair number of moons ago (using Bonus) and flew the aircraft in question numerous times. Hope they recover ok. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.