|
Jan 2018 AAIB Bulletin Avoidable Accidents.
There are a couple of totally avoidable accidents illustrated in this months AAIB bulletin.
Both feature PA32's flown by commercial pilots who should have known better. In both examples the outcome could have been fatal. https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...1-2018__LR.pdf Piper PA-32R-301 Saratoga SP, G-RIGH 28 August 2017 at 1016 hrs Pilot makes a forced landing when electrics fail. In the cruise, during his second flight of the day, the pilot reported that he noticed the alternator light was lit. Attempts to troubleshoot the problem did not resolve it and electrical systems progressively failed, also affecting engine indications. He briefed his passengers and elected to carry out a forced landing in a field. The touchdown was hard and the pilot reported that the right wheel “stuck in the mud” before the landing gear detached. There were no injuries. In hindsight, the pilot stated that he could have landed safely at an airfield but that the number of problems being presented to him restricted his thinking and mental capacity. The CAA publication Safety Sense Leaflet 23, ’Pilots – it’s your decision’ provides some information on human performance limitations. There is a signi cant amount of published information regarding human factors, highlighting the decision making limitations we can suffer under high workload situations. All the pilot had to do was switch off everything apart from the radio, drop the gear and carry on flying to the nearest airfield. Piper PA-32R-301T, N414AG 1 23 August 2017 at 0827 hrs Pilot continues to fly into bad weather instead of turning back. The engine failed when heavy rain was encountered while flying in sight of the ground at approximately 1,900 ft agl. A forced landing was made in a field but, before the aircraft came to a halt, it hit trees and was extensively damaged. The pilot was flying in a northerly direction from Retford (Gamston) Airport towards Bagby (Thirsk) Airfield and the forecast weather was for rain showers and a consequential reduction in visibility to six kilometres. As the aircraft approached York, in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), the pilot encountered rain and observed on his Stormscope1 a large number of returns from precipitation close to his route. He reduced power and descended to 2,000 ft amsl (approximately 1,900 ft agl) but, once below cloud and in sight of the surface, the rain became extremely heavy. While he was levelling (he was unsure if he had begun to increase the power or not), the engine suddenly stopped and the propeller then windmilled. As the pilot flared the aircraft he retracted the flaps to try to improve the braking action on wet grass, and he turned off the master switch. The touchdown and ground roll felt relatively gentle and it became apparent that the aircraft was going to pass through an old hedge line consisting of numerous trees and bushes. The pilot steered towards a gap between two trees but the right wing and associated landing gear detached upon impact with one of the trees . The outboard section of the left wing also hit a tree and sustained damage, but without detaching from the fuselage. The aircraft then skidded across the adjoining eld, losing the left main landing gear leg in the process. However, the nosewheel steering was still effective and the pilot used this to direct the aircraft between two ponds which he spotted ahead. Looking at those trees and the airframe damage the pilot was very lucky. [IMG]https://preview.ibb.co/iOCjSR/IMG_6018.jpg[/IMG] |
Hm.
First one is really odd. Just continue to the nearest (or even a nearby suitable airfield). Planes don't use alternators to stay in the air. The second one, whilst anything is possible, is it likely that heavy rain stopped the engine? I can go with full immersion stopping an engine (obviously) but 'just' heavy rain? Perhaps something else caused the engine to stop? Does this sound a bit odd: "retracted the flaps to try to improve the braking action on wet grass". Some presence of mind in the circumstances to make that analysis and decision...? |
From the same bulletin, the incident involving the Tipsy Nipper. Not to trivialise a potentially catastrophic incident, but...
"The pilot was stowing the aircraft’s restraining strap and chocks in the cockpit with the engine at idle. As he leaned into the cockpit to secure them for ight, he inadvertently advanced the throttle, causing the aircraft to move forward under its own power. The pilot attempted to stop the aircraft by holding onto the left wing. He was able to guide it onto a grassed area adjacent to the hangars, but was unable to bring it to a stop. The aircraft then completed approximately three full rotations before the pilot was forced to let go; it then continued forward until it struck the hangar doors and came to a stop." Would have loved to have seen a video... |
Originally Posted by Sam Rutherford
(Post 10019581)
Does this sound a bit odd: "retracted the flaps to try to improve the braking action on wet grass". Some presence of mind in the circumstances to make that analysis and decision...?
|
The PA28 manual (and presumably the PA32 manual too) recommends retracting flaps as soon as the aircraft is on the ground to reduce lift, increase weight on the wheels and assure braking action is effective.
We teach this from the get-go with students. However, the terms 'braking action' and 'wet grass' do seem mutually exclusive. Careful reading of this report does suggest that in heavy rain, a paper type air filter can become saturated with water to the extent that air supply is cut off. In this case in an injected engine, 'alternate air' should restore flow, like selecting carb heat to 'on' bypasses the filter with a carburetted engine. TOO |
Sorry but that first one gave me a laugh.
Who decides to randomly land in a field after having an alternator failure? :eek: |
As a very low hours (first cross country flight post PPL issue) I suffered what I later found to be an alternator failure on my C150 leading to complete electrical systems failure
I continued the flight and landed at my intended destination. I needed an engine rebuild as the driveshaft for the alternator had been sucked into the engine - metal in oil etc etc. So, perfect landing (walked away, plane could be flown) but I ended up paying. Whereas our hero in the story here only made a good landing (walked away plane couldn't be flown) but his insurance company will pay. Maybe there his some logic in his actions:ugh: |
Originally Posted by Sam Rutherford
(Post 10019581)
Hm.
First one is really odd. Just continue to the nearest (or even a nearby suitable airfield). Planes don't use alternators to stay in the air. The second one, whilst anything is possible, is it likely that heavy rain stopped the engine? I can go with full immersion stopping an engine (obviously) but 'just' heavy rain? Perhaps something else caused the engine to stop? Does this sound a bit odd: "retracted the flaps to try to improve the braking action on wet grass". Some presence of mind in the circumstances to make that analysis and decision...? The K&N filter is claimed to be the best on the market for the Piper Lance, It is the least restrictive of all filters which translates into improved fuel economy and increased manifold pressure. Cotton is also supposed to be better than foam. The flap retraction idea does not make sense to me. Once on the ground the flaps produce more drag than lift. I always leave them down until I park. I hope whatever was happening in Thirsk that morning was worth it. |
No idea about my filter type, will go look!
|
Foam-type filter in my Lance - I'm pleased to say. That report did make me check though...
Raising flaps to improve braking performance isn't too hard to get your head round. Anything which reduces the lift of the wing places more weight on the wheels and improves braking force. Expecting great results on wet grass is where this particular story went wrong. |
I do lots of very short landings in mine, I'm afraid (it's a contentious issue I think!) I reach for the flaps lever the moment I have all three on the ground.
|
Originally Posted by Jay Sata
(Post 10020389)
I hope whatever was happening in Thirsk that morning was worth it. Very cryptic := |
Case 1
Diamond Twinstar: forgot to lower undercarriage. Nature of Damage: Damage to both propellers and engines, the underside of the fuselage, antennas and entry steps Commander’s Licence: Airline Transport Pilot’s Licence Commander’s Age: 74 years Commander’s Flying Experience: 15,100 hours (of which 25 were on type) Last 90 days - 52 hours Last 28 days - 17 hours ========================== Case 2 Pawnee Commander’s Age: 74 years Commander’s Flying Experience: 14,100 hours (of which 75 were on type) Last 90 days - 3 hours Last 28 days - 2 hours The pilot was taxiing the aircraft from Runway 09N towards Runway 09S in a strong crosswind. He reported that, as the aircraft approached the end of the taxiway, a gust caused it to yaw to the right and pitch forward simultaneously. He closed the throttle and applied full rearward deflection of the control column but the tail continued to rise causing the propeller to strike the ground. Perhaps a safety case can be made for letting, and enabling, commercial pilots retire at age 55 or 60 or somesuch age? |
Originally Posted by Cazalet33
(Post 10020620)
Perhaps a safety case can be made for letting, and enabling, commercial pilots retire at age 55 or 60 or somesuch age? |
In the cruise, during his second flight of the day, the pilot reported that he noticed the alternator light was lit. Attempts to troubleshoot the problem did not resolve it and electrical systems progressively failed, also affecting engine indications. He briefed his passengers and elected to carry out a forced landing in a field. |
A 34 year old CPL with 303 hours and he does not know how the aircraft systems work.
How on earth did he get this far? |
|
Originally Posted by FC80
(Post 10019729)
Sorry but that first one gave me a laugh.
Who decides to randomly* land in a field after having an alternator failure? :eek: * Y'know, that word doesn't mean what you think it does. |
I wonder which pub the pax didn’t pay to go to........
|
Maybe a better idea would be to ensure that proficiency checks are meaningful before dismissing every septuagenarian, or sexagenarian, or quinquagenarian, and so on, because one person of a similar age may have had a very bad day. I agree with you, but then I have a vested interest. I’ve been flying for 50 years, still have a Class 1 medical and hope to emulate George Neal, the ex-DHC test pilot, who was flying in his 90s. I was chatting with a fellow tow pilot about degradation of skills with advancing years and said “I hope that someone will tell me if it’s time to quit.” He said “Don’t worry, you’ll know. Nobody will have to tell you!” The oldest pilot who has flown me was 84 years old, in command of a DH Dominie, that was not much younger than him! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:07. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.