Read the forum code of contact
By: 9th April 2013 at 20:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-What a wonderful term 'Failed to land correctly'. :) Glad both are OK by the way.
By: 9th April 2013 at 21:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The goings-on at Earls Colne this weekend sounded even more alarming.
By all accounts somebody left the runway on their second landing attempt and collected a couple of parked aircraft.
Moggy
By: 9th April 2013 at 22:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-What a wonderful term 'Failed to land correctly'. :) Glad both are OK by the way.
Comes from me initially writing 'failed to take off' and then having to correct it. Does sound poetic doesn't it! :diablo:
By: 10th April 2013 at 09:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The goings-on at Earls Colne this weekend sounded even more alarming.By all accounts somebody left the runway on their second landing attempt and collected a couple of parked aircraft.
Moggy
The bare details! ;)
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/10338846.Earls_Colne__Planes_crash_on_runway/
By: 10th April 2013 at 16:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The aftermath
http://s32.photobucket.com/user/buttino/media/photo2_zps389cd09f.jpg.html
Moggy
By: 10th April 2013 at 16:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Ouch!
Could have been a whole lot worse, though, couldn't it?
Adrian
By: 10th April 2013 at 16:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-You mean they could have been nice aircraft?
Moggy ;)
By: 10th April 2013 at 16:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Oooh, saucer of milk for MoggyC!:p
Actually I meant that a low wing monoplane hitting a high wing monoplane is probably not a bad recipe for wingtips and the like missing vital bits like occupants (though anyone in the Cessna at the time might have had their hairstyle, and underpants colour, changed)...
...but I take your point!
Adrian
By: 10th April 2013 at 18:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I was only teasing anyway. Those two types are the workhorses of the aviation world and have worked with many a harassed student to help him through those 40-45 hours of doubt and uncertainty.
I was pleased enough to punt one (Warrior 160) all around Northern France shortly after I had qualified.
They may not be the most exciting flight in the world, but (generally) they don't bite - which makes you wonder what went wrong here.
Moggy
By: 10th April 2013 at 21:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Not pretty and as mentioned - could have been much worse...
Anyone else notice the irony of one aircraft is G-AVEC which is French for "with"??
By: 12th April 2013 at 12:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Reported over on FLYER to be a Wellesbourne-based Warrior and the two pictured were innocent bystanders (so to speak)
Moggy
By: 20th April 2013 at 17:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Not pretty and as mentioned - could have been much worse...
Anyone else notice the irony of one aircraft is G-AVEC which is French for "with"??
Would have been even more ironic if it had gone into the line of aircraft a couple of spaces away, where I gather G-BUMP was parked!
Wicked Willip :dev2:
By: 21st April 2013 at 17:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-That registration really is tempting providence
Moggy
Posts: 8,847
By: Newforest - 8th April 2013 at 14:08
G-DEWE failed to land correctly on Saturday. Pilot and passenger uninjured. :)
http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/10339905.Plane_crash_at_Old_Sarum/