Read the forum code of contact
By: 22nd September 2014 at 08:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Still right in saying that bl**dy gate and barbed wire fencing should not be there. Something more frangible needed.
By: 22nd September 2014 at 09:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-No mention of engine problems!
Regards
By: 22nd September 2014 at 09:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-...and no mention of the considerable skill and personal risk required to fly these aeroplanes.
By: 22nd September 2014 at 10:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-No mention of engine problems!Regards
Yes their is, it says the the pilot was busy with engine management tasks, a big enough problem requiring a huge amount of skill I think. Unfortunately modern airfields with defined runways are far less suitable for the operation of this type of aircraft.
Richard
By: 22nd September 2014 at 10:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Managing the engine isn't engine problems.
By: 22nd September 2014 at 15:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Unfortunately modern airfields with defined runways are far less suitable for the operation of this type of aircraft.
The airfield concerned is not a modern airfield, it has been there since before the war. It has a perfectly usable cross runway, at 90 degrees to the main runway, which was used by the Pup which landed a minute or two before the Triplane.
By: 22nd September 2014 at 17:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-A day with changeable wind direction and variable wind speed, an aircraft with an engine that requires consderable "management" at crucial points in a flight, and an airframe that is very susceptible to changes in wind speed/direction by virtue of it's low "density" in flight, and with taildragger properties on the ground, all added to a final approach over a decidely solid obstacle.
I am sure the pilot concerned never took off with the intention of bending the thing, nor of perhaps misjudging his rate of descent in combination with the unpredictable wind either. Maybe he could have kept a little more height in hand on approach, but thats easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. Another few feet of height, or a less marked change in wind speed at some point on approach and people might have been praising him for a well judged landing, rather implying the opposite.
Mistakes happen, and aviation can be a very unforgiving environment in which to make them, specially when there is a crowd of "experts" looking on who would, of course, have done so much better faced with the same situation in the same aeroplane themselves.
I am sure the pilot has gone over the events time and again to work out what he might have done differently, and I am sure he has learnt from the experience, so why not cut him a little slack...
By: 22nd September 2014 at 18:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-so why not cut him a little slack...
Because we have far too many armchair 'pilots' around here who know it all, are too quick to criticise and just LOVE shooting their mouths off!
By: 22nd September 2014 at 19:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It was an accident,it's a risk you take when you do something.Maybe more practical lessons to be learnt ie flexible ,more visible fencing.Pilot is fine and i hope soon the plane will be repaired and back in the air.
By: 22nd September 2014 at 20:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Flexible fencing would be an idea, but the visibility wouldn't have helped in the Triplane. The way the wings are set they turn into a set of blinds so seeing down ahead becomes very hard. The wing covering means no matter how visible it is, you just cant see it.
By: 22nd September 2014 at 20:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Hopefully those who posted at the time that the accident was a result of 'Poor Airmanship', will think again about their comments, and actually appreciate the skills and concentration required to fly such a machine! :rolleyes:
Cheers
Paul
By: 24th September 2014 at 16:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Because we have far too many armchair 'pilots' around here who know it all, are too quick to criticise and just LOVE shooting their mouths off!
How true, which is why I think it's always rather unedifying to even bother posting the Links here. The result is inevitable. :-/
Posts: 1,537
By: Bradburger - 22nd September 2014 at 00:48
For those interested, I note that in their September bulletin, the AAIB has published the report on this unfortunate mishap.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/september_2014/replica_sopwith_triplane__g_bock.cfm
Cheers
Paul