Jump to content

Light plane crash, Serpentine airfield, near Perth, WA.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Stay strong Bull, you have done the best for your mate at a tragic time. I hope I have a mate like you if things go bad. Condolences. 

Normally you could be right ,but the information i was given by witnesses at the airfield all state an attempt to return was made and the aircraft stalled at around 200 ft after almost completing a 36

The "urge" to save the plane can be strong. It's NOT uncommon and quite understandable.  I know someone who turned back and crashed (and survived ) who could not understand why they did it having been

Posted Images

5 hours ago, onetrack said:

There's no real indication this pilot tried to turn back after the EFATO. He crashed not far from the end of the runway, and just to the right of it.

Depends where the engine failed. He would normally be airborne about half way down the runway so would have had quite a bit of height if the engine stopped near the crosswind turning point for a normal left hand circuit. For anyone attempting a turnback, a turn to the right would be logical as it would keep you in relatively open country away from the hangars, and probably more into the prevailing wind as well (typically E/SE). If the engine had failed early in the takeoff he could probably have got down successfully in the open area where he finished up. Either way, a very sad event for all concerned. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all, Dylan Brady is safely at the ferry waiting to go to melbourne tonight thence on to Adelaide to park the kitfox , then the poor bugger has to fly with his mum to perth to sort out his dad,s affairs.  Bugger me you could not write a sadder story for bloody fiction.....within 24 hrs a bloke go,s from ecstatic new plane owner, to a gutted shell. My guts is still like a void DO not want to EVER have to go through that again....RIP Darren Brady......................

  • Like 3
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rgmwa said:

Depends where the engine failed. He would normally be airborne about half way down the runway so would have had quite a bit of height if the engine stopped near the crosswind turning point for a normal left hand circuit. For anyone attempting a turnback, a turn to the right would be logical as it would keep you in relatively open country away from the hangars, and probably more into the prevailing wind as well (typically E/SE). If the engine had failed early in the takeoff he could probably have got down successfully in the open area where he finished up. Either way, a very sad event for all concerned. 

Normally you could be right ,but the information i was given by witnesses at the airfield all state an attempt to return was made and the aircraft stalled at around 200 ft after almost completing a 360% turnback, this is fact not conjecture and as you say no matter what the cause, it is a very very sad event........

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The "urge" to save the plane can be strong. It's NOT uncommon and quite understandable.  I know someone who turned back and crashed (and survived ) who could not understand why they did it having been schooled to NOT do it for yonks. It's most likely everyone's immediate instinctive reaction , Like pulling the stickback when the nose drops, or lifting the dropped wing with aileron. Nev

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stay strong Bull,

you have done the best for your mate at a tragic time.

I hope I have a mate like you if things go bad.

Condolences. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Butch said:

Stay strong Bull,

you have done the best for your mate at a tragic time.

I hope I have a mate like you if things go bad.

Condolences. 

Thanks Butch,,,,not something i would want anyone to have to go through,,,,,,,,

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bull said:

Normally you could be right ,but the information i was given by witnesses at the airfield all state an attempt to return was made and the aircraft stalled at around 200 ft after almost completing a 360% turnback, this is fact not conjecture and as you say no matter what the cause, it is a very very sad event........

 

You mean 180 degrees turn back, 360 and he would be still heading the same direction as he left and that wont help.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just awful.  It's not clear to me how the PIC fits into the picture here.  I know VH-SIP has been for sale for a long time, because I've been sort of half-watching it since I live just 30 or 40 minutes from Serpentine, and if the lotto numbers ever lined up well enough, it just might have been something I would be interested in.  The Aussie register still shows the original builder as the owner/operator, so unless Mr Brady bought it very recently and the details haven't been updated yet, he doesn't seem to be the owner.  If he was just doing someone a favour, then it almost makes it all even worse.

 

For those who don't know, Serpentine is operated by a very vibrant club of owners and builders, and there are over 100 aircraft based there, many of them amateur-built.  This will hit that community very hard too.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The aircraft in question was listed for sale in the recent Lloyds aircraft auction, and I believe was sold.

 

i recall reading some of the info, which included, “ ...the aircraft has not flown for 5 years, however it has been ground run, and fluids changed.”

 

Now I don’t know if the pilot was the purchaser.

 

The one thing I do know, is just how devastating it has been for the family. 
Sincere condolences.

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very sad to see the loss of yet another fellow aviator. Sincere condolences to his family and friends. The impossible turn is demonstrated to be possible by many when planned to be done. When there is an engine failure for real the mind reacts differently. There is no ability to go full throttle if things begin to go pear shaped. In those few seconds from decision to stall what is going through the pilots mind no-one will ever know. Sadly it has taken a number of very experienced pilots. I have experienced it successfully from around 400 feet as demonstrated by an instructor and I remember at the time thinking I'd never attempt that and would rather "fly as far in to the crash as possible". I have never attempted it myself and never will.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kgwilson said:

I have never attempted it myself and never will.

And hope I never will perhaps? Who knows how any of us will react until the fan goes off and the temperature rises 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kgwilson said:

I have never attempted it myself and never will.

You will find a thread on this site started by Maj Millard saying  the same thing.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was speaking about this with a professional pilot at our airfield and he explained, and it all made sense to me.

 

There is a huge difference in aircraft performance between a simulated engine failure with the engine at idle and the propeller still turning and the engine stopped and the propeller stopped.

 

"just as an example"

 

At idle any 80/100 hp engine is still producing maybe 15 hp and producing some thrust.

 

This depending on your aircraft may give you a sink rate, of let's say 300 ft/m.

 

The same aircraft with the engine completely stopped and a stationary fixed pitch propeller will significantly increase the sink rate, perhaps 500 feet to 600 ft/m sink rate. So it is substantially different and the controls will be significantly different and most probably more "mushy" because of the reduced airflow over the control surfaces and in particular rudder.

 

This all makes sense to me, this same person also told me that about 95% of pilots will never experience what their aircraft flies like with the engine turned off and in a glide, they wouldn't know the sink rate of a fixed/stopped propeller or any other performance characteristic of their aircraft because they never fly the aircraft in this configuration.

 

It was his advice that this huge performance decrease compared to what some pilots train with the engine at idle is really the big killer and catches many experienced pilots out because they are looking for a 300 ft/m sink rate and they get more than double this with the engine completely stopped and of course they pull back on the stick to try and slow the sink rate forgetting about airspeed, combined with different performance on the controls and it is all over before you start.

 

He insists that all recreational pilots must train in their aircraft (at altitude of course) with the engine turned off so you will know your actual real performance, trim requirements and aircraft outlook you should be looking for when the engine fails.

 

I have never forgotten this story because it all just made absolute sense

  • Agree 2
  • Informative 1
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that you have this the wrong way round. Stopping the prop will reduce drag. A windmilling engine is absorbing energy. Next time you fly do an aborted takeoff with plenty of room to stop easily on the runway. Note the deceleration when you close the throttle.

Motorgliders like the Xenos in glide mode will stop the prop for this reason. Also if in an aircraft with constant speed prop, go to full coarse pitch if you can do so if the engine stops. In traveling type motorgliders with variable pitch props feather mode is an extreme example which completely stops the prop easily.

  • Agree 3
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The spinning prop has the ability to produce much more drag than a stopped one. It's hard to make absolute statements but DOUBLING your sink rate  is certainly wide of the mark. as a possibility for a "stopped" prop. Nev

Edited by facthunter
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an endless thread on pratice gliding somewhere else, but for the record, if you've been out practising forced landings, and learning the most important factor, how to place the aircraft so you'll make your first choice field no matter what, sink becomes academic. If you're hiring aircraft you could easily be flyinh a dozen different aircraft, and if the engine stops, it is extremely unlikely your mind will calmy say "It's the LSA55 today, the sink rate on that with the engine off is x.

 

If, say your sink is 300 ft/min and you take 30 seconds to react, you'll lose 150' before you put it into a glide

If say your sing is 500 ft/min and you take 30 seconds to react, you'll lose 250' before you put it into a glide.

At your predetermined speed the glide might be steeper, but you will have practised the arcs and turns to keep the field close enough to get it under the nose at any time.

 

Of course if you make a practice of flying oer country you can't land on this option isn't available.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fellas, I understand that we have moved from speculation of the cause of the tragic accident to discussing the generalities of the fatal turn. But, in respect of both the deceased and his family/friends who will probably be reading this thread, can we please clarify that we do not yet know the cause of the accident, let alone attribute fault or otherwise.

 

On 28/12/2020 at 12:20 PM, bull said:

From what i have been told... <snip> and tried the impossible turn back and failed and spun in <... snip>

That is my bold, but we must remember, that it is an account, but not necessarily the account of what happened. I just want to clear that up for anyone who may be reading this who is directly affected.

 

Until the excrement hits the fan (in our case, literally), we only like to think we know how we will react. I have had in flight situations where I was proud of the way I handled them.. And then, I had a bout of press-on-itis, after years of flying and constantly reading accident reports and shaking my head at those poor souls who succumbed to it. Well, I learned not to be so judgemental as, after much frustration waiting for a cross-country test in the UK, I succumbed. My article on it was published in both Australian Flying and Pilot (UK) magazine in the readers learnings sections.

 

You would have thought I would have learned. Nope.... A perfect storm of various human factors we all read about conicided to drill the holes in the Swiss Cheese - again. Even when I took off, I knew it was going to be a challenge that was likely to exceed my skill level, but I pressed on. Eventually, sandwiched between two layers of stratoform cloud with no horizon, I reluctantly turned back - reluctant because I knew what I had just flown through and didn't want to again. All I wanted to do (under various external pressures) was to see my son before he took off on a big trip, but I can guarantee, I almost never got to see my son again. I think I was half-a-hole in the Swiss Cheese away from you reading about me in an AAIB report.

 

Let's make sure we let the ATSB do their stuff. I don't want to stifle the conversation on generalties of these situations as we always learn a lot. I just want people to know we do not make any judgement, as we don't yet really  know what happened.

Edited by Jerry_Atrick
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be lucky to get a timely ATSB report and in any case speculation does no harm and explores possible scenarios. I don't think anyone is being judgmental.

 

Further to the drag issue, when the CAFE foundation measures aircraft L/D they don't turn off engines etc. They have a sensor for the prop position fore and aft and set the engine up at zero thrust by finding where the sensor makes and breaks. With idling engine the prop is pushed back by the airflow implying greater drag.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In matters such as this there's a line between serious discussion where some valuable learning can take place and proper respect for the individual.  SPECULATION on actions and performance is often unfair and hurtful. The CIRCUMSTANCES should be able to be deal with respectfully and productively for us all.. . Relying on ATSB is a maybe and perhaps provides little and comes late. .Learning from experiences has been an essential part of aviation development from the beginning.  The ONE good that comes from some disasters if we understand and learn. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike Borgelt said:

Here are details of type:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyn'Aéro_MCR01

 

The fuselage is on top of the wing in the accident images because it is a low wing aircraft.

I can’t find a wing loading stat for this type, but unless the quoted wing area means per side, it should glide like a roof tile.

The wing of this aircraft has a chord as short as 0.80 m (31 in) and an area of 5.20 m². “

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

I was speaking about this with a professional pilot at our airfield and he explained, and it all made sense to me.

 

There is a huge difference in aircraft performance between a simulated engine failure with the engine at idle and the propeller still turning and the engine stopped and the propeller stopped.

 

"just as an example"

 

At idle any 80/100 hp engine is still producing maybe 15 hp and producing some thrust.

 

This depending on your aircraft may give you a sink rate, of let's say 300 ft/m.

 

The same aircraft with the engine completely stopped and a stationary fixed pitch propeller will significantly increase the sink rate, perhaps 500 feet to 600 ft/m sink rate. So it is substantially different and the controls will be significantly different and most probably more "mushy" because of the reduced airflow over the control surfaces and in particular rudder.

 

This all makes sense to me, this same person also told me that about 95% of pilots will never experience what their aircraft flies like with the engine turned off and in a glide, they wouldn't know the sink rate of a fixed/stopped propeller or any other performance characteristic of their aircraft because they never fly the aircraft in this configuration.

 

It was his advice that this huge performance decrease compared to what some pilots train with the engine at idle is really the big killer and catches many experienced pilots out because they are looking for a 300 ft/m sink rate and they get more than double this with the engine completely stopped and of course they pull back on the stick to try and slow the sink rate forgetting about airspeed, combined with different performance on the controls and it is all over before you start.

 

He insists that all recreational pilots must train in their aircraft (at altitude of course) with the engine turned off so you will know your actual real performance, trim requirements and aircraft outlook you should be looking for when the engine fails.

 

I have never forgotten this story because it all just made absolute sense

This is a very good point I have practiced impossible turns at height. I can turn around withing 4-600 feet. I climb at about 65 kt (Vy is 54). After I have cut power and waited three seconds, my speed drops to about 45 kt. To get around as fast as possible, I have to push the nose way down, bank to 45 to 60 degrees and, as speed increases, put in a fair bit of back pressure. I don't even want to practice any more because I'm worried I will over stress the plane do an accelerated stall. There area at either end of my runway is very built up. I don't think I'll attempt to turn at less than 800 ft. Which means, not unless I have already turned downwind at 500 ft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, facthunter said:

High wing loading just means you have to fly faster. (Design wise)...

Yes, but the the weight and wing area figures would seem to dictate a higher stall speed than the 43 and 47kt quoted.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...