kevin b Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I'm waiting for the guy who owns the tent to sue the pilot. It is in Amreica after all ! Then there will be the stress caused to the spectators,etc,etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Jefferies Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 In the case of an engine failure in a multi engine aircraft (and I am sure this is what we are talking about), there is a lot more to it than just whacking in full rudder towards the live engine. The critical factor is Vmca (Velocity - minimum control in the air). You may have enough airspeed to keep the aircraft in the air but that may not be enough to give the rudder enough power to control the asymmetric power from the engines. There are many other factors which also come into the equation, some of which have already been mentioned in other postings but the fact is that if the aircraft is not going fast enough, an engine failure cannot be controlled. In the fullsize world you have to calculate the critical speeds to take into account an engine failure for every take-off from every runway...... V1 (The speed beyond which you do not have room to stop), Vr (The speed at which you "rotate" and which has to be greater than Vmca) and V2 (The speed at which you should climb out to avoid any obstacles). In these respects a large model is no different to a fullsize aircraft and it becomes critical when flying in a display in close proximity to the public. That is why I said in an earlier posting that I think an extra qualification should be required before multi engined models can be flown in a public display. Thank goodness nobody got hurt. Paul Edited By Paul Jefferies on 12/07/2014 14:24:42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wright Stuff Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Posted by scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 12:15:52: Stick waggling is PART of airmanship.........decision making is a larger part.......experience didn't count for much in this case did it? But that's my point, Scott. How do we know that, without access to all the details, or having even had an account from the pilot himself? It's perfectly possible that experience DID count: perhaps a more experienced pilot would have avoided the crash and a lesser experienced pilot would have killed someone. I'm sure that pilot error was to blame. In fact, I'm 99% sure. But until I'm 100% sure, I'll refrain from publicly humiliating him until the investigation is complete... I totally agree with you and everyone else on this thread about the issue of proximity to the crowd (although to be fair I already stated that in my first post), I was really addressing the sentiment that he should have aborted once started - sorry if that wasn't clear... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wright Stuff Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 12/07/2014 12:36:55: Harsh comments perhaps, TWS, but fully justified. The strongest criticism must come from fellow model flyers, if only to convince the authorities that we are serious about safety. If we make apologetic noises, those authorities will impose their version of safety rules and that won't be very pretty. Tough on the pilot, yes, but he and the organisers really ought to be hauled over the coals for allowing that to occur - and they did allow it to occur because they flagrantly ignored all the established rules and good practise. That wasn't an accident - it was gross irresponsibility. Pete Thanks Pete, I see your point but surely there is a happy medium. If a huge media storm is caused by the model flying community then it just becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. It shouldn't push anything under the carpet either. It has to be proportionate and appropriate. Clearly the AMA attitude is unacceptable, but I felt that heavy criticism in public (and that includes this forum) perhaps pushed the sliding scale too far in the other direction. As for your second paragraph: yes, spot on. People can be forgiven for split second decisions in the heat of the moment, but there is no excuse for an inappropriate decision when months of planning and committees of organisers are involved... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott cuppello Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 You are missing the point......good airmanship means that flight should NEVER have been attempted, that was 100% pilot error.....the crash itself is an entirely different discussion. Let's look at the crash though if you wish, what additional detail do you need? It's there for everybody to see, he made a mess of it, that's it, there is no mechanical fault to blame, just poor judgement.......and it was luck, not judgement that put that model where it landed, he was not flying that thing from the second it stalled.........sorry, but the people that have condemned the pilot and organisers are very right to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wright Stuff Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Posted by scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 15:41:45: You are missing the point......good airmanship means that flight should NEVER have been attempted, that was 100% pilot error.....the crash itself is an entirely different discussion. Agreed, but it was that 'entirely different discussion' that I (and many other forum members) were having. True story: I frequently encounter learner drivers on the roads near to where I work. On one occasion, I watched a novice driver stall five times in a row, while trying to pull away. The driving instructor swapped seats with his (by now flustered) student and attempted to demonstrate how it was done. He similarly stalled time after time after time, before giving up. From this observation I can make one of two conclusions: (a) The instructor was just as poor at clutch control as his student. (b) There was something wrong with the clutch. I can only arrive at conclusion (b) if I credit the experience level of the person in control as a factor. Since you say that experience is irrelevant, I assume you would favour conclusion (a). This isn't me being flippant: I still do not see how you can be so confident that there was no mechanical problem, or that nothing the pilot did subsequently could be possibly be credited with avoiding the people at the flight line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Chaddock Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 As it is (was) a nice scale airframe but grossly over powered (compared to full size) there can be little doubt that the rudder alone would be incapable of countering the asymmetric yaw from the loss of thrust from an outer engine at critical airspeeds. Interesting that the B29 full size manual states that if there is a loss of power with an engine on take off "Unless you balance power immediately, the ailerons may not be effective enough to counteract the tendency to roll". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namustang1a Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 straight from the horses mouth. **LINK** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymaz Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Now that's interesting. You can see how much rudder he put in in an instant. Poor servo connection that was covered in oil. So what did he not check all his engines for spooling up, unless the fault was intermittent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingKade Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 So..... interviewer said he did everything perfectly..... pheww... That puts my mind to rest.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jenkins Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Well, that interview just about takes the biscuit! Clearly, he wasn't going to incriminate himself but he did a pretty good job of showing that poor maintenance may have contributed to the problem, Large aircraft like these are, in the UK anyway, classed as aircraft and should have a maintenance schedule. Also, there remains the issue of competency checks. Too often I hear cries of I've got a B and I shouldn't have to be checked. Well here, we had a guy flying in-front of the public who was slow to pick up that his aircraft performance was degraded and took the wrong actions. There is a saying that "a superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid getting into situations that require his superior skill to get out of!" As for HobbyKing putting their name to a whitewash of a serious accident - well, it beggars belief! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Privett Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Posted by KingKade on 12/07/2014 18:45:03: So..... interviewer said he did everything perfectly..... I also find that a very strange conclusion for the interviewer to come to. And the rest of his sentence about the plane being sacrificed to ensure people's safety seems entirely at odds with what happened. From the moment it left the ground the pilot was little more than a passenger in the accident that followed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 So now we have an RCG principal and Hobbyking praising the pilot. He didn't ask the two pertinent questions, did he? The only thing they've left out is mention of the two schools and the hospital which were miraculously avoided during the incident..... Still digging that hole.... Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Mackey Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 OMG .....that is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Concorde Speedbird Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 By the sounds of it, did he do a power check? If a power check had been done then the idle engine would have been spotted, and I doubt the connection broke just before the flight unless it was insufficient. A power check should always be done, especially on multis, the full size do it too. CS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cotsford Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I suspect complacency played a large part in this - the pilot had been firing the engines up and going straight into his routine for donkey's, then when something different happened he froze and went to auto response - pull back on the stick and push forward the throttle. He makes it sound as though he never registered the low rpm on #1 or the lack of smoke until he reviewed the video footage. He is no spring chicken and age takes it's toll on all of us, it's just a pity he didn't accept that it was time tr quit while he was still on top of his game. As for the youngster from HK - bum licking of the highest order with no concern for the reality of the situation. Edited By Bob Cotsford on 12/07/2014 20:43:24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Privett Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Posted by Concorde Speedbird on 12/07/2014 20:20:44: By the sounds of it, did he do a power check? It is claimed that he did in one of the comments on the video: "Yes he did a test run-up and checked it before take off, but the servo must have failed after the initial run-up. - Matt " But as the claim is from "HobbyKing Live", the video owner, then I assume "Matt" is the interviewer and I've already said what I think about his other comments... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Concorde Speedbird Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I can't see how a connection would fail in the time from a power check to take off unless it was a bad connection, and with a model as large and powerful as this the connections should be good- we all do it on our models. The overriding fact for me is that if the runway was further from the crowd line then there would have been plenty of space to simply cut power so it can safely stop (and the nose would go down restoring steering). The pilot had no time to think because of the close crowd. I do think he could have noticed earlier and cut power, especially on a model he has flown so much. A collection of errors. CS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin b Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Posted by Bob Cotsford on 12/07/2014 20:42:23: I suspect complacency played a large part in this - the pilot had been firing the engines up and going straight into his routine for donkey's, then when something different happened he froze and went to auto response - pull back on the stick and push forward the throttle. He makes it sound as though he never registered the low rpm on #1 or the lack of smoke until he reviewed the video footage. He is no spring chicken and age takes it's toll on all of us, it's just a pity he didn't accept that it was time tr quit while he was still on top of his game. As for the youngster from HK - bum licking of the highest order with no concern for the reality of the situation. Edited By Bob Cotsford on 12/07/2014 20:43:24 Interesting "spring chicken" comment. At what point does someone stop display flying and, or who tells them ? We can't be trusted to police ourselves. Look how many people still drive although they know how bad their eyesight is. I'm sure his insurers will be looking very carefully at this incident and his previous ones. He may be better quitting display flying before they stop him flying at all, if he has a problem. We all know people who push their limits (I should think most clubs will have at least one), but as long as other members are there to help and supervise, there are generally no incidents other than the odd bent aeroplane. This just can't be allowed to happen at public displays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott cuppello Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Posted by Peter Jenkins on 12/07/2014 18:49:47: As for HobbyKing putting their name to a whitewash of a serious accident - well, it beggars belief! For most I am sure and rightly so........some of us however are not shocked at such poor judgement. So it seems that as well as poor airmanship, we can add suspect building (no throttle redundancy on a 100lb multi?......and using common servo extension leads.....EH?) and poor maintenance to the list of failures.......perhaps somebody should hand the guy a large shovel so he can dig himself a deeper hole.....oh HK already did. What I find disturbing is the blind partisan attitude of many RC flyers in the USA.....unbelievable. Edited By scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 23:37:57 Edited By scott cuppello on 12/07/2014 23:38:43 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwi g Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 No need to disect what happened .. its pilots error . poor tuning , poor take off to the stage of being dragged off the ground creating a stall due to lack of speed ,more power from right side . if it had of been airbourne on the run way it would have been starting too spin looking at those props in the video . I would say it better it got off rather than turning into all the crowd earlier . Poor show .. abort abort abort come to ones mind ... simple really . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jenkins Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 You are missing the point kiwig - the pilot, who has flown this aircraft many times, should have been aware that all was not well, and closed the throttles thus removing the cause of the swing and enabling nosewheel steering and rudder to get the aircraft back on track - I doubt the aircraft would have swung into the crowd. Manifestly, he was not ahead of the aircraft as he should have been. As the old saying goes "better to be on the ground wishing you were up in the air rather than being in the air wishing you were on the ground"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwi g Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Abort the take off peter .thats what i said .. ?? point not missed . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymaz Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I'm just glad it wasn't me at the controls.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 well-my point of view is he/they made a right(think of the royle family on BBC) of it and really he was very fortunate that no one person was severely hurt.........very irresponsible all round I would say.......still with hindsight hopefully they wont replicate the situation again ....but then again...if they are arrogant...couldn't care less type's.....they will carry on regardless... ken Anderson....ne...1.......irresponsible dept. Edited By ken anderson. on 13/07/2014 09:27:13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.b0ce5e1a3a7bf02f69852ac2052002da.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.