Accident report on Gipsy Moth crash (August)

Complaints about threads like this make me laugh. How many threads on here say information sought on a Spitfire crash 1942 ect,ect. Whats the difference? At least this is an official report and in 50 years time someone might be putting on threads asking about this crash! I am not a piloy but I find these threads interesting and understandable!

Phill

Most pilots will have read the bulletins anyway, we all do, mostly in the hope that we will learn something that saves us from a world of pain.

The moderators only ever act within the CoC and there is nothing in there that would warrant disallowing AAIB bulletin mentions.

Moggy

This particular accident was not investigated by the AAIB:

“These are reports on accidents and incidents which were not subject to a Field Investigation.

They are wholly, or largely, based on information provided by the aircraft commander in an Aircraft Accident Report Form (AARF) and in some cases additional information from other sources.

The accuracy of the information provided cannot be assured.”

Its only the more serious accidents that are actually investigated. I know from experience that “aircraft commanders” are not always 100% accurate in what they actually put on their report form!

#8 Yes lets ban them we don’t want the hoi polloi reading it. Sometimes peoples true colours come out about things in some posts. Before you start your outrage I frequent this forum to acquire information on aviation matters and put up with some of the cliques and holier than thou posts but I notice a lot of valued members have drifted away and I wonder why?

They are all there to read, going back to the Ark.

Oh no they aren’t. The modern reports are available online. Reports of older accidents – by which I mean are as recent as the sixties (yes, I’m getting old!) – are apparently inaccessible. I’ve contacted the AAIB direct and I’ve looked at Kew. Maybe that’s not the case for major commercial accidents – of that I can’t say – but trying to find the AIB and AAIB reports of GA accidents, going back half a century and more, is a singularly unrewarding exercise!

The AAIB doesn’t seek to apportion blame . However which ever way the facts are presented there is nothing stopping them from putting pertinent information into a report that
shows a deviation from procedure .

AAIB is under pressure financially ( who isn’t?) and staff cuts require them to do more with less.

Many of the contemporary reports are now based on a pilot’s account of events, which is a bit troubling. Human nature being what it is there is a natural instinct to protect one’s credibility, and whilst there are plenty of full and frank ‘mea culpa’ reports , others seem a bit less straightforward, such as the gear up landings despite the pilot asserting that ‘down’ was selected. Mechanical failure will always be more attractive than a human one.

The AAIB doesn’t seek to apportion blame . However which ever way the facts are presented there is nothing stopping them from putting pertinent information into a report that
shows a deviation from procedure .

Haha…..give it time…! :angel:

, this inevitably gets translated into a discussion about blame, which is a different matter and why, out of context it is singularly unedifying. Will that distinction be made is the average open internet forum? Of course not.

This thread (for instance ) does not support your theory. With one exception, views expressed have been very consensual..

@Propstrike – It’s still not the right place.
@Planemike; ‘Censorship’………who said anything about censorship??????? Threads on websites like this attract all sorts and plenty of silly comments. Mostly, it doesn’t matter a toss. However, actual incidents involving real people, alive, injured or dead are not the ideal material for uninformed comments or speculation. The AAIB reports are there by the thousand for anyone to see. Clearly, I wasn’t speculating on how well the reports were written, but on how they were read and understood. At least we are now reminded how to spell ‘Gipsy’. That’s really important. :sleeping:
@Newforest;- Glad you are interested. They are all there to read, going back to the Ark. Get stuck in.
…….and no, this still isn’t the place to start picking-apart AAIB reports.
;- For those who don’t know – the AAIB’s brief is simply to establish the facts. Inevitably, when discussed outside of that framework, this inevitably gets translated into a discussion about blame, which is a different matter and why, out of context it is singularly unedifying. Will that distinction be made is the average open internet forum? Of course not.

Yes, why not ignore all bad news and live in a rosy, perfect world.

I for one, am fascinated by the foibles and misadventures of men and machines and would be sorely deprived if any censorship of such events were to take place.

We can all learn from others’ mistakes and long may this continue.

Snoopy…………

The AAIB report is open to all. You are suggesting some form of censorship. If folk wish to make a comment that is their right and long may that be the case…….. You can choose not to read or reply in the thread.

However, they can be, and usually are, misread and misunderstood by those unqualified.

That seems to me to be a very sweeping generalisation. In my experience the reports are very well written and are readily understood.

Mods……..please will you correct the spelling in the thread title, it was a GIPSY Moth that was involved.

Planemike

Snoopy, I understand your distaste, but still feel, in moderation, they have their place, primarily by pulling together the disparate threads that make up the much-castigated ‘speculation’ which always occurs following such unfortunate events. The usual cry then is ‘wait for the report’ . In this instance, I do not think the content is baffling even to the non-flyers, though I also do not see a need for further comment simply for the sake of commenting.

There are a surprising number of pilots on here, for whom this info is worth reading, and it is surely a component of flight safety, and effective preservation of historic aircraft to know and understand the pitfalls. Perhaps this sort of material would sit more happily in the General Aviation forum, though it sometimes feels a bit of a lonely outpost over there!

I have to say I’m always rather uncomfortable with threads like this. True, – the AAIB reports are openly available online. However, they can be, and usually are, misread and misunderstood by those unqualified. This is primarily an enthusiasts website about ‘Historic Aviation’, not Flight Safety. Most simply aren’t qualified to make informed comment (Not that they will let this stand in their way..), and I’ve seen some really absurd comments about air-accidents on the web. Thus, it’s unfortunately opening a Pandora’s Box….probably best left unopened in my opinion…. I’d much rather see Moderators excluding this subject matter than the endless verbiage about things like the Burma Spitfires.

Sounds like the pilot did the best out of a bad situation.Hope they are recovering ok and the airframe will one day get airborne again.

Yes, I saw this bulletin. This report stood out amongst the usual crop of bent or destroyed nosewheels.

I am pleased the occupants survived and hope they recover fully – the aircraft will doubtless rise again

Nightmare scenario though.

Moggy