Large B-29 Display mishap - USA

[Cuban8]

Having seen far too many multis end up in bits both at club level and at shows after the loss of an engine, I would have thought that a system that monitored engine rpm and would either cut the opposite engine to maintain balance in a 'four' or kill the other motor in a 'twin' to effectively give a 'dead stick' situation which I'd have thought was much more manageable. I guess that you could make it as clever as you wanted in order to prevent multi engine models cartwheeling out of control.

In this case, the culprit appears to be a failed servo connection, so as has been already mentioned redundancy needs to built in for such a system to be effective.

[Bob Cotsford]

Posted by kevin b on 12/07/2014 22:35:32:

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.

Maybe the guy has responses to match a 30 yr old, but from his display crash history I suspect not. It would certainly be a hard call to make for show organisers but at some point someone has to make that call if the pilot doesn't twig it for himself.

Saying that - kettle - pot - black - but I don't put on public displays with overpowered monsters!

[Martin Whybrow]

Watching the various videos, it's clear that Mac doesn't have much regard for safety; in one of the videos, he's standing almost directly in front of an engine he's running up to full throttle!

[Pete B]

The apparent CD of the event has posted this over on RCUniverse:

The AMA top leaders have attended this event the past several years and have no problem with the set up. The crash was behind the people and set up tents....... so if we were back another 100 feet this would have been a major problem. Glad to see there are so many experts who were not there and have never been involved in a accident. It was a accident, and as with all accidents the result is can never be predicted. We were lucky and thank God we had the set up we had in this situation. Please have some respect for all involved in this situation.......You never know it could be you the next time you fly.

This will be my one and only comment as CD of the event and I can promise all these videos and comments are helping to eliminate this hobby we love so much. Try posting all the positive aspects of this hobby, it can only help this fight we are going to face now and in the future.

Pete and Dave Malchione
CD's Warbirds over Delaware since 1997

So the AMA, who apparently provide show guidelines, 'have no problem' with it. I'm sure they will have now.

'The crash was behind the people and set up tents....... so if we were back another 100 feet this would have been a major problem'. He seems to have overlooked the abort option more space would have provided.

'We were lucky and thank God we had the set up we had in this situation'. Really?

'I can promise all these videos and comments are helping to eliminate this hobby we love so much'. Wrong. It was his poor planning and wishing to Lady Luck that has made AMA negotiations with the FAA much more of an uphill struggle. It is the critical posts being made which might just show that the majority have some sense of responsibility and safety- consciousness.

Rather than blustering it out in public, he'd be better off getting some kneepads sorted out, to go with the sackcloth and ashes....

Pete

[John Privett]

What a staggeringly arrogant attitude the CD has. I find that quite worrying. But then with Luck and God on his side, what could possibly go wrong...

[Concorde Speedbird]

Why don't we put the crowd in front of the plane when it is taking off? Really very silly post, I have seen aborted take offs at shows here and because the crowd is a good distance- but not enough to detract from the viewing pleasure- it is never a problem. What's the point in having an unnecessary risk?

CS

[Chris Jones 7]

I think perhaps they really need to review their practices for demos and fly ins. Same event and although we can't see the cause this looks like a very similar incident - a large model crashing very close to spectators on take off, (assumed take off due to the models configuration and speed).

Here is the video, the crash is shown in the opening credits and is repeated half way through, several times. What beggars belief is that given all the criticism thrown at Mac Hodges and the event, as well as the FAA current scrutiny of modelling, that HobbyKing still chose to show another incident that appears, at first glance, very similar. Not sure I'd want to go to this show!

[Jack Banner]

The number of crashes and accidents in that video is pretty scary. The plane that looses a wheel on take-off and then an aileron just before landing is pretty poor. It surprised me that he continued to fly a display after loosing a wheel on take-off as he should have landed immediately. This is made clear as he looses an aileron as he lands. He clearly hadn't pre-flighted properly AT ALL

[Pete B]

I think you'll find that was intentional, Jack - it's clearly a take on the 'Piper Cub stolen by drunken hick' routine performed at full-size displays over there......

Pete

[Cuban8]

Posted by Chris Jones 7 on 17/07/2014 08:24:25:

I think perhaps they really need to review their practices for demos and fly ins. Same event and although we can't see the cause this looks like a very similar incident - a large model crashing very close to spectators on take off, (assumed take off due to the models configuration and speed).

Here is the video, the crash is shown in the opening credits and is repeated half way through, several times. What beggars belief is that given all the criticism thrown at Mac Hodges and the event, as well as the FAA current scrutiny of modelling, that HobbyKing still chose to show another incident that appears, at first glance, very similar. Not sure I'd want to go to this show!

Was the Brit in the red tee shirt at 9.00 the bloke that used to run 'Ace Models' at Epping in Essex during the 1980s? Think his christian name name was Ted.

Edited By Cuban8 on 17/07/2014 09:27:03

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

Here is the layout drawing from the AMA Handbook, in the section "Recommended RC Flying Site Specifications"

As you can see, they put the pilots 25 feet behind the flightline, and behind a fence. Spectators should be more than 65 feet behind the flightline.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Posted by Cuban8 on 17/07/2014 09:26:39:

Posted by Chris Jones 7 on 17/07/2014 08:24:25:

I think perhaps they really need to review their practices for demos and fly ins. Same event and although we can't see the cause this looks like a very similar incident - a large model crashing very close to spectators on take off, (assumed take off due to the models configuration and speed).

Here is the video, the crash is shown in the opening credits and is repeated half way through, several times. What beggars belief is that given all the criticism thrown at Mac Hodges and the event, as well as the FAA current scrutiny of modelling, that HobbyKing still chose to show another incident that appears, at first glance, very similar. Not sure I'd want to go to this show!

Was the Brit in the red tee shirt at 9.00 the bloke that used to run 'Ace Models' at Epping in Essex during the 1980s? Think his christian name name was Ted.

Edited By Cuban8 on 17/07/2014 09:27:03

 

Not sure about the shop but it is indeeed Ted, Ted Galbraith of Horizon Hobby UK...hence the "aim here" line

 

Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 17/07/2014 10:36:19

[Jack Banner]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 17/07/2014 09:04:40:

I think you'll find that was intentional, Jack - it's clearly a take on the 'Piper Cub stolen by drunken hick' routine performed at full-size displays over there......

Pete

Hah! Now I feel silly

[Peter Jenkins]

Interesting that the AMA distances between flight line and crowd line appear not to differentiate between below 7 Kg and above and gas turbines. The BMFA recommendations, that are monitored by the CAA with visits to various shows, are:

• 30 mtrs (98 ft approx) between flight line and crowd line for up to 7 Kg
• 50 mtrs (164 ft approx) when above 7 Kg and gas turbine aircraft.

So the AMA distance of 65 ft is 2/3 rds closer for up to 7 Kg and 1/3rd closer (approx) than any distance sanctioned in the UK. If the AMA is under pressure from the FAA, who might just look at what the CAA sanctions in the UK (yes, I know, highly unlikely since the US tends to believe that it is the world authority on all things) would these distances be reviewed?

[Pete B]

I read somewhere that in the USA, the distance should be increased to 200ft for over-55lb models...

There you go, taken from AMA 520-A ( Large Model Aircraft Program):

7. Flying Site Standard (All sites must meet this standard for LMA-2 & LTMA rated
airplanes)
a. The minimum distance between the take-off/landing path and the pilot line shall
be 50 feet.
All other flying, including practice flights, shall be performed at a minimum
distance of 200 feet to any spectator.
b. Minimum set-back distances may be reduced at AMA sanctioned events if the
Contest Director determines that safety of participants and spectators is
maintained.
c. All other field layout and operation standards will be per the AMA Safety Code,
and Membership Manual recommendations

Pete

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 17/07/2014 12:25:11

[Erfolg]

I seem to be the only person who actually enjoyed the video where the B29 flight was accompanied by a very enthusiastic southern drawl commentary, it was fun.

The crash, hmm, very interesting, at many levels.

Our responses, and take on the event. I can particularly have empathy with the view, if we know some one, if they are held in high esteem, we will often be very generous, particularly when things go wrong. Along the same line, often the same said person, will see others and events as the problem, not them, to the extent that it is others, something else that is the problem, this seems a generalised universal truism.

With respect to the pilot and how he flew the model. I see the biggest issue (with the pilot) is the lack of planning, of how to deal with the "what ifs", accompanied with some execution of the envisaged actions, well away from a display. As others have commented, I suspect that the rudder and ailerons does not cope well with asymmetric thrust. I get the impression that an assumption was made, that when flying, that there was more than enough thrust from the three engines to go vertical. I think the thinking is certainly correct, other than the model would not be controllable in all circumstances. As a general point, with big (yet true for all models) there needs to be a plan of what to do when things go wrong, what ever they may be, and to have actually practiced, as far as possible how to deal with them.

Now the model, I have had many reservations with respect to big, powerful models, oh, yes I know the biggest claim was for a chuck glider, hitting some one in the eye at the battle of Hastings etc, blah, blah. The reason being, the USA model. Scott indicated the sort of systems which I would expect. That is duplication of systems and equipment. I also have some reservations with throwing a model about with great vigour without a lot checks on the structures and equipment, in conjunction with a well thought out flight plan.

With all our models, it is that though inspection process before flight, that also becomes critical, with big, or high performance models, the allowable discretion, becomes very small. Probably the easiest time to spot a problem, is at home as a after flight check over.

Now the pilot, I have been enraged, having to reach for my tranquillisers in the face of such ageism. So young people do not have accidents, do they? Hmm, I think they do, but were just pushing the envelope and were unlucky. Accidents, errors of judgements are made at all ages. With cars there are many calls for compulsory testing of the over 70s. Yet in this case, data indicates, that the group has far less accidents per mile travelled than any other groups. The most accidents occur with 18-25, apparently the 35-40 age group are involved in more accidents involving fatalities.

Did the pilot make mistakes, well yes, yet much was down to less than good planning, recognising what the best actions were, and implementing that plan, with quick series of events, that involve taking of, particularly when things are apparently going haywire.

The one thing that really frightens me, is that I do not always get things right, even though I really try

[Allan Bennett]

Isn't it a "rule" with all model aircraft, especially with multis, that if one or more engines fail during take-off or climb-out, you shut them all down and glide (if you can) to a landing straight ahead? I've seen too many people at our field crash because they try to go-around to land on the runway when their engine fails on take-off, when a straight glide into the rough beyond the runway would be feasible.

If you're already at flying height when failure occurs, of course you have more opportunity to see how the model behaves on one or three engines, and maybe come in for a powered landing.

[Jon H]

Im not sure if anyone has spotted this but his no1 engine (left outer) is noticeable down on rpm. The frame rate of the video shows it very clearly. He should have felt this and aborted no question.

I have flown many twin and 4 engine models and you must keep the airspeed up in an engine out situation. Using the cut it and glide method will result in a crash every time as you will invariably need some extra power at some point but will be too slow to maintain control. Often full power will be required on the remaining engine to keep in the air. 4 engine models do not suffer so badly if they loose one. This is all fine if the model is already flying, if its on the ground like our friend here then he needs to give up and abort.

This also highlights why I thing standing to the side of the model when taking off is more dangerous than being behind. While I accept that its more difficult to judge airspeed from behind the track of the model is far easier to judge.

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Jon Harper on 12/09/2014 13:57:14:

Im not sure if anyone has spotted this but his no1 engine (left outer) is noticeable down on rpm. The frame rate of the video shows it very clearly. He should have felt this and aborted no question.

He clearly know something was wrong as you can see he's feeding in full rudder (freeze the video at 0:41 secs and its very obvious) the nose wheel is airbourne and the port wing is lifting, so he has no directional control at all as his airspeed isn't enough to give enough rudder authority - time to hit the kill switch

As far as I can tell he didnt hit the kill switch at all even after he starts to cartwheel into the spectator area very clearly totally out of control

[Allan Bennett]

Posted by Jon Harper on 12/09/2014 13:57:14:

... I have flown many twin and 4 engine models and you must keep the airspeed up in an engine out situation. Using the cut it and glide method will result in a crash every time as you will invariably need some extra power at some point but will be too slow to maintain control. ... This also highlights why I thing standing to the side of the model when taking off is more dangerous than being behind. While I accept that its more difficult to judge airspeed from behind the track of the model is far easier to judge.

If the model has enough speed to get off the ground it'll be able to glide after a fashion. The point is, though, that it'll go in a straight line if the power is cut, and not veer into spectators. Going in a straight line also usually means that the landing is not too bad in my experience, compared to my mates who tried to return to the runway and ended up each time stalling, clipping a wing and cartwheeling.

I agree 100% about the benefit of standing behind the model on take-off. We all do it in our club. Personally I also like to stand on the runway when landing, so that I can better judge the approach line and rate of descent!

[John Privett]

Posted by Jon Harper on 12/09/2014 13:57:14:

Im not sure if anyone has spotted this but his no1 engine (left outer) is noticeable down on rpm. The frame rate of the video shows it very clearly. He should have felt this and aborted no question.

Yes we did spot it - first mentioned back on page 1 of this thread by cymaz! And I posted a frame from the video on page 2 where very clearly the port outer is running much slower than the others.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Jon Harper on 12/09/2014 13:57:14:

 

This also highlights why I thing standing to the side of the model when taking off is more dangerous than being behind. While I accept that its more difficult to judge airspeed from behind the track of the model is far easier to judge.

Interestingly, some of the most hazardous incidents I've witnessed have involved pilots standing behind models rather than on the flight line. There seems to be far less of a reluctance to abort a take off where a model is heading towards the pilot box when the pilot is standing in it!

For some years, we've taught take offs from the side and encouraged all pilots to stand in the pilot box with the result that I feel that the standard of directional control has improved dramatically. Quite frankly, if someone is unable to assess the track of a model from the side within acceptable limits, they aren't ready to take the A test. After all, it is easier to judge the line during take off than it is on the approach and landing as the model is on the ground during the critical phase.

Edited By Martin Harris on 12/09/2014 23:23:31

[Erfolg]

For me the suggestion, that if a take off with a multi goes pair shaped due to a motor problem, that the motors should all be shut down and then the model glided dead stick to a safe landing, seems fine. If the model is written of, well, that is just one of those things, we modellers have to accept, particularly where crowd safety in particular is concerned.

The point being made with respect to the flight line and the crowd, also seems valid. They did seem far to close, just using common sense rather than any regulatory measures.

I still return to my own criticism, that is the lack of planning. The pilot should have had in his mind, what to do, if the model swung towards the crowd. Which in my opinion should not include press on. In this respect, I think that the pilot, believed that he would have more than enough thrust from three engines, if one went sick. What he did not count on, is that model may not respond well or in the extreme be controllable.