Two men dead in North Yorkshire aircraft crash

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 2,024

More sad news;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36176991

Original post

Member for

20 years

Posts: 3,902

A terrible accident, awful.

The wreckage distribution has some distinctive features, and the AAIB will no doubt look very carefully to see if spinning was a component in this event.

''The General Aviaition Safety Council made a study of spinning accents and found the T67 so highly represented it was subject to a special study''

http://www.gremline.com/index_files/page0053.htm

That is NOT to say it spun in, time and investigation will tell, but one would be naive to disregard the troubled record of the Slingsby T.67.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Didn't the Yanks trash a lot of them for the same reason ?

Member for

10 years 7 months

Posts: 2,748

What same reason - that they crashed?

...The Commander of the Air Education and Training Command stood down the entire T-3A fleet in July 1997 as a result of uncommanded engine stoppages during flight and ground operations. A major factor driving the decision were the three T-3A Class A mishaps. Three Air Force Academy cadets and three instructors were killed in these T-3A mishaps. The Air Force Accident Investigation Board [5] report summary attributed the three fatal accidents to:

i. 22 February 1995: The instructor pilot (IP) failed to apply antispin rudder as directed in flight manual. The IP’s spin academic instruction, flying training, and error analysis experience did not adequately prepare him to recognize his improper rudder application.

ii. 30 September 1996: During a simulated forced landing, the engine quit for some unknown reason. After the engine quit, the aircraft entered a stall from which the IP was unable to recover prior to ground impact.

iii. 25 June 1997: The aircraft departed controlled flight for an unknown reason during the turn to downwind. The IP’s failure to recognize this departure and take immediate positive corrective action was the primary cause of the accident. (The AIB President found no clear and convincing evidence of mechanical failure.)

The British-built planes had been purchased for $32 million, and following the third accident, $10 million was spent on fixes to make them airworthy after grounding. "The Air Force found the cost of getting the aircraft or any of the aircraft's components in airworthy condition for resale was prohibitive" and "In September 1999, the chief of staff of the Air Force approved termination of the T-3A EFSP, and AETC declared all T-3A aircraft excess to the command's needs. In 2000, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force requested a new mission be found for the T-3A; however, a study completed in 2002 did not recommend a follow-on mission." [3] "The remaining T-3A aircraft were then stored without maintenance at the Air Force Academy and the Hondo Airport. In the 2002 to 2003 timeframe, the 53 aircraft at the Air Force Academy were disassembled, crated and trucked to Hondo."[6] On September 9, 2006, it was announced the remaining 53 (114 were originally purchased) disassembled T-3 aircraft, which had been declared in excess need for over six years, would be scrapped...

...Certified on 15 December 1993, the last military version of the T67 family was the T67M260-T3A, of which the entire production run of 114 was purchased by the United States Air Force, where it was known as the T-3A. The T-3A was basically the T67M260 with the addition of air conditioning. Although the US media claimed the aircraft was to blame after the three accidents, no engine stoppages or vapour-lock problems with the fuel system were found during very thorough tests at Edwards AFB. Indeed, the instructors were found to have come from large-transport flying backgrounds with little or no aerobatic experience. This, combined with thinner air at the higher density altitude airfields, meant spin recovery was delayed or wrong techniques used. Parachutes were another factor. Following these accidents, the fleet was grounded and stored without maintenance until being destroyed in 2007...

...Unlike the United States, there were no serious operational or maintenance issues with the Fireflies in Canadian military service...

Accidents (T-3A)
Fatal Crash February 1995: US Air Force Academy T-3A failed to recover from a practice spin. Both instructor and student were fatally injured.

Destroyed Aircraft April 1995: Hondo Texas T-3A crashed on landing. The instructor pilot suffered a minor injury, the student pilot was uninjured.

Fatal Crash September 1996: US Air Force Academy T-3A engine failure / stall / spin / crash. Both instructor and student were fatally injured.

Fatal Crash June 1997: US Air Force Academy T-3A entered an unintentional spin / crash from the Academy Airfield downwind. Both instructor and student were fatally injured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingsby_T67_Firefly

Being Wiki there are contradictions - USAF either purchased 113 or 114 T-3A, for example, but the jist of the story is that they used instructors with little experience of flying small aeroplanes and virtually no acrobatic experience so that when something out of the ordinary happened the inevitable result was a fatal crash. This would not, obviously, be the result on every occasion but it didn't help that the Firefly was not an America design; would the same thing have happened with a Cessna or Piper design?

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

"what same reason?"

Suspect spin recovery technique was talked about at the time.

At about the same time in this country, a friend of mine, an instructor was killed along with his student in a T67 during a full spin recovery. It was a long time ago and I don't remember all the details.

Member for

10 years 7 months

Posts: 2,748

You are speculating about the fatal crash of an aircraft before the appropriate authorities have made any proclamation? Thought that wasn't the done thing in these parts...

But if you read what has been said elsewhere the witnesses have spoken.

Speaking to the BBC, eyewitness Andrew Moutrie, 54, said he saw the crash scene while travelling to a football match.

He said: "It looks like the aircraft attempted a crash landing. It looks like it came through the hedge towards the field."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/two-raf-pilots-killed-north-7872593

To me it looks like it came down in a flat spin but I didn't see it (and I guess you weren't there either), and the witness says different, so why not wait until the finding before declaring the type a widow maker...

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

I speculate continuously and so do you: "it looks like it came down in a flat spin".

Is that comment a result of your many years of aviation experience as a pilot, perhaps on the T67 ? If so, I bow to your knowledge.

Member for

20 years

Posts: 3,902

All the 'right thinking' zealots who are so keen to put the lid on observations/debate/ advice ( lump it together and call it 'speculation' if you like) never seem to have much to say when the accident reports actually are released.

If these sad events are neither discussed when they have our full attention, nor many months later when the AAIB have pronounced their findings, however shall we draw out the facts and circumstances which may one day save us, and our passengers ?

I am highly suspicious of 'group-think' wherever I come across it.

Member for

9 years 6 months

Posts: 1,613

Observations/debate/advice wasn't very welcome in Shoreham threads, I seem to recall. A bit odd to see it being defended now.

Member for

20 years

Posts: 3,902

Observations/debate/advice wasn't very welcome in Shoreham threads, I seem to recall. A bit odd to see it being defended now.

Yes, yes you are right of course.

I realise now that everything I thought about and tried to express was entirely wrong-headed.

Meddle wins (again) .

Member for

9 years 6 months

Posts: 1,613

I stand by my point, and I don't think I am contradicting you here or trying to win anything either. Perhaps the difference with this accident is that neither deceased in this case were a friend of any forum members? Post Shoreham there was a definite circling of wagons (or collective burying of heads in sand) on here and other forums. I do find the inconsistency a little odd; that is all. Anybody flippant enough to start commenting on certain known handling characteristics of Hunters, for example, were shot down quickly. A phrase as irreverently worded as 'didn't the Yanks trash a lot of them for the same reason' would have been met with hostility.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Speculation in connection with aviation accidents is a necessary accompaniment. Hasty conclusions before all the facts are known should be avoided. The T67 by even the most charitable interpretation has a flawed operational reputation. That is a fact.

That is a shame. Over the years, I've flown two variants of this aircraft entirely without incident. If investigations have shown nothing technically wrong with the aircraft then, the conclusion must be - after dismissing weather inputs and any other extraneous influences - that the correct spin recovery techniques were not being used.