Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Yak 52 fatalities- a terrible month.

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Blue Max
    replied
    When you do these "beat ups" at your gliding clubs i presume that you have the required exemption from the 500ft rule in place at all times
    It seems that we seem to be getting a little confused here! A pilot who is performing at a public display must hold a Display Authorisation, and that Authorisation will allow him to do the display he is carrying out. If that Display includes aerobatics then he will have been authorised to do do by a display examiner. this means that he will have displayed to that examiner he is compitent to do the said aerobatics and will not be allowed to display at low level untill he has done so. There fore we are legislated for low level aerobatics at displays allready ( the military have there own system!!)
    Low level aerobatics by GA pilots who have not been trained and not at public events is kinda hard to police and i fear that in the majority of accidents due to low level aero,s this is the case. Education is the best way to try and prevent these accidents but you willnever stop the guy who in the heat of the moment decides to have a go!!! It may look easy when you see it at a Display, it Aint!!!! If you have not been proberly shown and have the required qaulification "Dont Do IT!!"

    Leave a comment:


  • cstobart
    replied
    When we do 'beat ups' at my gliding club, we are current in flying practice and make sure there are no other gliders in circuit, we also make a 'blind call' to let other know of our intentions, and if we feel it is not safe we wont do it!
    Chris.

    Leave a comment:


  • Neil G
    replied
    Originally posted by duxfordhawk
    My Late Grandad always said "Things only become dangerous when you become over familiar with them",
    Yes my late grandfather said similar things. He having torn the undercarriage off a Tiger Moth (HM King paying) and turned over a Beech Sundowner (Insurance paying) I guess shows that to be a pretty accurate sentiment.

    Leave a comment:


  • duxfordhawk
    replied
    Originally posted by fox glider
    We perform over 5 beat-ups a week at my gliding club and have never had any accidents caused by them. we frequently reach speeds upto 140knts 5 feet from the ground!

    Sadly Accident happen when you least expect them, My Late Grandad always said "Things only become dangerous when you become over familiar with them", It only takes one oversight, One mistake and you find yourself heading to the scene of a Accident.

    As to what happened to cause the accident with G-LENA lets leave that to the experts to decide, The sad fact is whatever caused the accident 2 people never went home to their families that night and never will, Thats the only thing i feel we should think about really.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dave Barrell
    replied
    A few years back there was a fatality at a UK glider club.
    A lady and her friend were taking an evening stroll along the side of the runway when a glider landed behind them (almost silently of course), the far leading edge of one wing struck one of the ladies on the back of the head, killing her instantly.
    This particular glider was probably travelling at 40 knots or so......

    Leave a comment:


  • Auster Fan
    replied
    Originally posted by fox glider
    We perform over 5 beat-ups a week at my gliding club and have never had any accidents caused by them.
    Yet........ and hopefully there never will be.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Rix
    replied
    That sounds really sensible .

    Leave a comment:


  • duxfordhawk
    replied
    Just had my fear confirmed that it was G-LENA never knew the owner but had a personal intrest in the Aircraft because my wife's name is Lena.
    Hope the rest of the year can go accident free.

    Leave a comment:


  • ozplane
    replied
    Paul, as I understand it the UK system is for a Display Authorisation (DA) to be issued after an inspection by an approved observer. This will have a limit on the lowest permitted level at first issue and that can be amended as experience is gained. However really low-level aeros are a bit pointless at Duxford as it's such a flat arena. A previous airfield manager would always plead with pilots to keep tham fairly high so people in the back row could see what was going on. Try telling that to the Hannas though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Rix
    replied
    Discussion and speculation is inevitable after any accident, espeically those that occur at public events. The important thing IMHO is to conduct the discussion in a dignified manner so that people close to those lost would not be unduely upset if they were to read what is posted (I know first hand that they will already have more than enough to be upset about).

    Wild speculation is not helpful, but balanced and level headed discussion is not a bad thing.

    I will use the Firefly accident as an example because I am intimately familiar with that case. I drew my own conclusions to the cause of the accident months before the official report was published. I read a number of eyewitness reports (bearing in mind that most of these were not expert eyewitnesses). I also knew that the RNHF only allowed a limited number of hours on each airframe per year that included crew training and any display flying and transit flights. I also knew that this was Bill Murton's first display season on the aircraft. Taking this all into consideration, my conclusion was pretty close to what the official verdict was.

    Personally I think there should be some form of legislation regarding low level aerobatics. It is a particularly unforgiving activity and should only be conducted by those with the level of experience and training that will minimize the risk involved. I think a first season displaying any aircraft should be flown with higher minimums. At least one mistake high. That will not necessarily please the crowd but it would make the whole activity far safer for all involved. On subsequent display seasons, the pilot could be assesed and if found to be ready, the minimums could be lowered (in steps).

    Leave a comment:


  • ozplane
    replied
    Cosmic Wind, your comments are harsh but true. You can add the Kingcobra at Biggin to the list of possible high viz pilot errors. And Damien I'm not sure how you think I was proposing some sort of legislation. All I was suggesting was that if the AAIB gathered the KNOWN facts and published them within 2-3 days it might stop the uninformed speculation. The thought being that they are the ultimate provider of the accident report and therefore have some gravitas. By the way I think I was just behind you in the crowd at Marham, Damien. Excellent shots and the CO was enjoying himself wasn't he?

    Leave a comment:


  • COSMIC WIND
    replied
    What on earth is wrong with discussing a 'public' accident of this nature. If an investigation proves that something further afield was amiss then so be it. Nearly all accidents are pilot error, almost without exception when low level/display. I recall the nonsense that was posted after the Firefly/Dxfd crash. When anyone screws up displaying/beat up they knew the risks undertaking anything beyond their abilities. If a frank discussion makes one person think twice before doing something they are not cabable of doing then thank god. The hero-worshiping on here sometimes, when someone stuffs it in at a show,does no one any favours!

    Leave a comment:


  • ozplane
    replied
    This subject is always well aired after a crash. The problem as I see it is that the AAIB take a long time (up to 12 months or more) to investigate and publish the report. Compare this with the NTSB who publish a statement of the KNOWN facts very quickly which I believe helps to curtail the speculation. They published the initial report on the Hunter crash in the USA within 3 days. I do however feel that any discussion on these forums which makes people think about not doing whatever appears to have led to a crash cannot be a bad thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deano
    replied
    Nicely put Melv

    Leave a comment:


  • Melvyn Hiscock
    replied
    Not suggesting it did.

    Judgement will come from investigation of the facts and, until that is published and available for comment, everything is speculation.

    Not wishing to provoke an argument or stir things up, but press reports are unreliable and eye-witness reports need to be collated with other evidence. Only then will a conclusion be drawn.

    There is rarely one reason for a crash, usually it is a series of factors that add up.

    The bottom line is that two people died and we owe them, and their familes, the dignity of a proper investigation and sensible, and non-sensationalist, conclusions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Angel
    replied
    Wasn't advocating that any rules should be changed (if you read my post correctly)...

    It just seemed "likely" that due to the spate of accidents in a very short space of time, all seemingly related to low level operations, it's plausible that all aspects of this flight area may be looked into?

    And I also heard from a reliable source that ground witnesses (pilots) also saw the event (unfortunately) sounded remarkably like the press story.... so whilst I do generally take the press with a pinch of salt... in this instance.... maybe they weren't far off. (And by the way, my post didn't make any judgement at all).

    Leave a comment:


  • Propstrike
    replied
    Angel. It is widely accepted that you cannot regulate your way to flight safety, otherwise we would simply need to issue a diktat that 'Aeroplanes Are Not Permitted To Crash'.

    The Yak 52 report will expand on the fact that it was performing a non-standard arrival which included a rolling figure. Conjecture aside, the last week does confirm what is already very well known, ie low level aerobatics are an extraordinarily dangerous undertaking for most pilots.

    Leave a comment:


  • Melvyn Hiscock
    replied
    You shouldn't believe what you read in the press.

    Why not wait until the official investigation is completed before making judgements?

    Leave a comment:


  • Angel
    replied
    Really bad month as you say - not to mention the T67 in Suffolk also.
    Don't know the circumstances of the '52 problem, but the T67 was reportedly doing low level aeros for friends/family (says the press).
    Is it time rules were tightened up on low level stuff without sufficient training and testing for currency (aka Display Authorisations)? What do others think?

    Leave a comment:


  • Moggy C
    replied
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/5207506.stm

    Picture on the link above.

    Moggy

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X