The report is out, and no doubt makes rather awkward reading for certain parties. It is reported in today’s Daily Telegraph, but they do not mention that the aeroplane was back online and flying again within an incredible 4 weeks. Human error can never be totally eradicated, lessons will be learnt, but such a ‘bump in the road’ should not detract from incredible output and very high standards at Air Leasing.
”A two-seat Spitfire tipped onto its nose in a crash-landing after its “distracted” pilot turned on an empty fuel tank by mistake, accident investigators said.
The vintage fighter, which saw combat in the Second World War before being converted into a two-seater for pleasure flights, suffered a damaged propeller and wing in the May 6 incident at Northamptonshire’s Pitsford Airfield.
Neither the pilot nor the passenger was injured when the aircraft, known by its former RAF serial number ML407, came within moments of tipping over completely before flopping back down.
The Spitfire’s 62-year-old pilot, who was not identified in Thursday’s report, had become “distracted” and selected an empty fuel tank instead of a full one while preparing to land, investigators said.
The pilot had to carry out a forced landing at Pitsford, which is three and a half miles from Sywell Aerodrome where the Spitfire was supposed to land after its Rolls-Royce Merlin engine stopped unexpectedly from lack of fuel.“The loss of engine power was attributed to fuel starvation due to depletion of fuel in the fuselage tank supplying the engine,” said the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), which added that the pilot “did not transfer the supply to the wing tanks after take-off”.
By: hypersonic - 14th October 2024 at 10:07
There is an “engine shock load” protocol. However, as the engine had already stopped running it is most likely not required in this case. So, as Prop Strike said (and with a name like that they, should know!!). Fitting a ready-to-go engine would save time – if the engine had to be removed for checks.
The engine frame and bulkhead, I would suggest, would need inspection – as I said in a previous thread on this incident. Engine removal for access to carry out the two checks seems to me to be a requirement. In other words the engine would have to come out anyway. But refitting the original engine, in this case, is a matter of choice I would suggest.
H
By: Prop Strike - 14th October 2024 at 07:46
I supposed that in the interests of speed, they possibly dropped in a ready-to-go Merlin with a new propeller assembly only because it would seem the fastest way back to airworthiness. Only speculation though, based on no actual knowledge.
By: J Boyle - 14th October 2024 at 04:41
Anyone know if there wss damage to the engine?
With the prop stopped, probably not, but it’s worth asking.
Even if undamaged, was the engine torn down for inspection?
Just curious about the protocol for a Merlin in this sort of mishap.
By: trumper - 11th October 2024 at 18:26
I guess things happen , human nature .It could have been so much worse but the holes in the cheese lined up. A learning point and hopefully won’t happen again.
Sign In
October 11, 2024 at 10:01 am