AAIB Report-DH53 Crash-Old Warden 2012

But here we had a historically fairly insignificant aircraft, with presumably limited visual and aural impact (I admittedly never saw it fly myself) and (in my opinion) severe and known… and instrumentation (airspeed indicator) issues.

From the report, did it mention the ASI, other than a retrofit to some aircraft in the recommendations? Altimeter, yes

‘Altimeter u/s….altimeter is of small scale type
which is of little practical use to the pilot at low levels.’

I’m just questioning whether it is always worthwhile, but am admittedly not much of a risk-taker myself.

He was an exceptionally talented aviator, with what can really only be described as an exceptional level of experience (15,000hrs for an ex-RAF FJ pilot was good going). He was experienced enough to make his own decision, which in this case was endorsed by his “superior” at the collection.

Hopefully some processes will be put in place to make the decision making process, and the data available on which to make the decision, better.

What a sad loss of life.

The main point, agreed. A loss to everybody.

Archer -I am not entirely sure the wind was ‘unknown’ -I recall the day well and whilst some distance away I was suprised to hear that the D.H 53 was flying .

The report is pretty clear and I’m glad that the BBC have taken only the salient points from it, without any inference.

I agree that given the handling qualities of the DH53 one would have to think twice about flying it but on the other hand this was the ideal situation for it. An operator with sensible practices for operating the craft, a competent pilot with all the needed qualifications and lots of experience and so on. The only thing that was an unknown and turned out to be the killer on this day was the wind. It is easy to underestimate the wind from ground level, especially when sudden changes or as in this case large trees influence the local winds. The fact that the chief pilot and the other DH53 qualified pilot observed the take off and did not see cause for concern tells me that the pilot may never have seen this coming. Sad.

I’m a pilot myself and have been to numerous air shows in the course of many years, so I’m fully appreciative of pilots’ feelings, the risks they take and the value of a flying display (even “the less than exciting ones” which I often tend to prefer).

But here we had a historically fairly insignificant aircraft, with presumably limited visual and aural impact (I admittedly never saw it fly myself) and (in my opinion) severe and known reliability (engine), controllability (ailerons) and instrumentation (airspeed indicator) issues.

I’m just questioning whether it is always worthwhile, but am admittedly not much of a risk-taker myself.

What a sad loss of life.

It is difficult to stop pilots from flying, it’s what they do.

Trevor Roche paid a high price, as many before him have, we just have to be grateful that they are prepared to demonstrate these lovely aircraft for us.

Appreciate every display you see, even the less than exciting ones. Somebody is putting their lives at risk for a mixture of your enjoyment, and theirs.

Moggy

In view of the description of the aircraft in the report I’m surprised that anyone would want to fly it at all.

Very sad and as usual rather aviodable. Some interesting changes to operating procedures at the end of the AAIB report. Mention of fitting ‘accurate instrumentation’ to old aeroplanes rather strange. Simply only fly them in suitable weather would suffice.