Blenheim: Initial AAIB Report

Out of interest, I have just read from ‘spreading my wings’ by Diana Barnato Walker.

“The Blenheim was a nice twin to fly, but its single-engine safety speed (115-120mph) was above its final approach of 90mph, which meant that if one engine packed up on finals, and you were under safety speed ( which you had to be if you were flying it according to the maker’s specifications), then you simply went in – bang!
Of course, if you were coming in on a ‘Barnato Bomb Approach’, which was Derek’s name for my pulling both engines right back, then gliding in from a great height in this way with no power needed on finals, you wouldn’t drop a wing and stall in, if an engine suddenly stopped on you.
Derek, [ Wing Commander Derek Walker DFC, and Diana’s future husband] who was a very experienced pilot , naturally disapproved of my ‘BBA’, even though I explained that I couldn’t be caught out on finals as I was above single-engine safety speed, so didn’t need any engine power to drag me in.”

Reading the posts, it looks like many of you are expecting a further report from the AAIB. I would suspect that this bulletin is the final and definitive word on the accident.
If the type was widely used in a public transport context, then a Formal Report would have been commissioned. As the Fairchild Bolingbroke (as the AAIB correctly call it) is irrelevant to public transport, I would imagine that this Bulletin is all that the AAIB will publish.
As several people have pointed out, the AAIB do NOT apportion blame, only attempts to establish facts. If you read the bulletin, it looks like they have.
I would imagine the rarity of the Bolingbroke makes any further investigation not to be worthwhile (in a purely financial sense)

1. the flyby at luton came about because of air traffics permission to route direct duxford and not skirt their zone

2, the comment about the known fuel problem prior to flight is incorrect, read the report , it was a problem which developed.

3. its easy to be critics

The Blenheim DID do a flypast @ Luton… The quote below is from an ATCO on another forum…

I worked John Webb in the Blenheim through the Luton Zone on his way home last night. He kindly performed a fly-by along the Luton’s runway which was much appreciated by the Tower. Very sad to think that the flight ended in disaster a few minutes later but very relieved to hear nobody was hurt.

If there was a mechanical reason for the engine failure then fine – lets move on…

If the pilot didn’t uplift enough fuel then the CAA will see him in court…

Nuf said…

nige

I agree with MotF, you are very welcome Dan.

My comments were aimed at trying to prevent this thread diving rapidly towards inappropriate speculation and unintentional defamation, no more than that!

ooooh hark whos being paranoid. :rolleyes:

Another case of newer members opinions being unwelcome here?

Dan it was nothing of the sort. There was an accident. In the UK we have the worlds finest Accident Investigation Authority the AAIB. Let them get on with their work and please quit speculating. It does no-one any good. If the end result of the report is that the Pilot made an error, then so be it. (note AAIB reports dont apportion blame, they merely explain what happened).

Without knowing how to fly a Blenheim or how much fuel was on board when the flyby occurred, any comment of the nature you made is speculation. IMHO That is unwelcome from anyone not just you.

FWIW as far as I am concerned you are very welcome here.

Hi Danohagen,

Welcome to the forum. I’ve only posted here for a few months myself. Please have a look at my earlier posts – and at the risk of banging on, for the third time, all I’m pointing out is if someone (new or old!) says something defamatory or inacurate, there is a chance that they’ll can get sued. Frankly, I’m just sounding a note of caution, by all means ignore it.

That’s all. We are all entitled to our opinions – thoughtful or not. If you post them, be prepared to have to support them – after all David B always gets me to check my facts… (Thaks David!)

Cheers
James

Its speculation repeated by others on this forum. Another case of newer members opinions being unwelcome here?

Dan, that is pure speculation. Please read JDK’s post from earlier today and think carefully before making such rash comments

I’m sure I read somewhere just after the accident that on the evening in question the Blenheim had performed a flyby for the tower at Luton airport. Rather foolhardy if the fuel situation was in any question whatsoever.

Hi David,
I was just pointing out tht it’s easy to criticise from a keboard, and sometimes those criticised bite back if the poster says something defamatory.

One issue being discussed here is the nature of the accident; pilot error or technical problem. The AAIB report is quite clear in what it says – but we are not privy to the discussions in ARCo offices, nor the decisions as to what ARCo intend to do. That was my point.

The Canadian Warplane Heritage (for one) have a long term Bolly restoration underway; next to a superb looking Bristol engined Lysander, due to fly ‘soon’ I think they’ll be interested, even if the Bolly is not Bristol driven…

Cheers
James

JDK – The report on the crash I believe is the interim report. I cannot imagine that a lot more will be added to it in future as it’s very type specific and doesn’t have any implications directely
affecting anyone else unless another Bolingbroke flies.
I do not think that justice is an issue – nobody as far as I can see has been wronged or deprived of anything that needs
a remedy through the courts. This is a accident and nothing more.

G’day all,
Just a little worried by the tone of this thread. It’s good to chat and learn, but while we are privy to a lot of the info we don’t have the full picture – yet, and drawing public conclusions without all the facts is a good way to end up in court – yes, even from here. (Not that I’m saying stop, jus’ think twice, post once, eh?)

As a long term ARCo and Blehheim supporter I’m keen that we learn from our mistakes, stop it happening again (yes, I know, but going on about it isn’t helping – fixing the problem better the second time is helping). I was vastly disapointed the accident happened. But I’m not running away now they need us again.

Please let’s all remember that there for the grace of god etc…

I don’t believe anyone posting here hasn’t driven off in their car with the handbrake on at least once; or s-t-r-e-a-c-h-e-d the gas to the next petrol station – and that’s a mild personal embarassment compared to what happens when you make exect same error in an a/c.

No-one was hurt. We can move on. I have confidence in Graham Warner, John Romain and the AAIB that they will take the appropriate steps to sort the problem. I certainly hope and believe they will be open and honest about those steps so we can see justice is done.

As Graham says in his first book, it was with hindsight that he catalogued the errors made by Roy. He says himself he should have taken steps earlier. Let’s all acept armchar experts equipped with hindsight are great, as long as they recognise they are sitting safe, and show some care over thier opinions. Mark 12 – Suprised you haven’t read it – I’d thoroughly reccomend it – a fair amount of insight as well as a true but heartrending story. All three of Graham’s Blenheim books are tops too.

I’d like to have the Blenheim back in the air. Let’s focus on that eh?

Cheers

Would it figure in the equation the fact that JR runs the fuel farm at Duxford!

It would not be the first time that fuel was not taken on board an aircraft because it was cheaper elsewhere or back at home base.

Accidents rarely have one cause, usually it’s a chain of events.

Lancman – if you own an aircraft and you have a concern about the way it is being flown the sensible course of action is to stop that pilot from flying her. Regards the runway length – whilst fairly short the Blenheim is a lightly loaded aircraft compared to a wartime example and it should have been quite capable of operating safely from it.
The fact that the Blenheim made the runway at Duxford
seems incredibly lucky – thankfully for him nobody was hurt -it could have been a lot worse.

David-I was just repeating what John Romain has said about the runway at Denham being fairly short, and the fact that Blenheim 1 touched down a fair way into it-i.e, well past the threshold, thus reducing the amount of limited space even further, leaving the struglging aircraft even less room to gather itself and get going again.

I don’t think there’s much to be done in the way of defending Roy Pullan; Graham Warner is in print saying how he suffered many other ‘rushes of blood to the head’ on prior occasions, and remember, the ‘touch and go’ was NOT authorised by the owner, and they had agreeed not to do any such thing; Pullan went ahead and did it anyway, and then thoroughly, thoroughly c***ked it up.

The CAA prosecuted him, and as is also on record, he then said and did anything he could to get the final report considerably toned down; he refused to just hold his hands up and say ‘Sorry, my fault’.

He took a brand-new and beautiful aircraft, and quite literally threw it away.

John Webb-based on what little we all know about it so far-comes nowhere near that.

Originally posted by David Burke
Lancman – I was always under the impression that the Blenheim was doing a ‘touch and go’ manouver at Denham so the issue of landing deep on the runway wasn’t really a factor.

Just because you are doing a touch and go, doesn’t mean that runway length is irrelevant. 24 at Denham has a LDA of 670m, compared with 1353m at Duxford (and,to give a silly comparison, 3048m at Stansted). So, Denham is pretty short and accuracy would likely to have been important.

Lancman.

From your graphic description of the last intact seconds of Blenheim 1, I geuss you do not hold the pilot in very high esteem.

Lets have some fair play here.

If ,as has been circulating since day two of the Blenhein 2 accident, and there was insufficent fuel and reserve for the sortie carried out, you could equally say:-
Why did the pilot do a reported flyby at Luton?
Why did the pilot do a reported circuit of Duxford rather than a straight in approach?
Why did the pilot not elect to land away from base, say at Fowlmere?

You could also say. Can you imagine the agony of th co-pilot watching the guages on the stops?

What is the difference?

Well I for one, with the information to hand, cannot see any difference in these two accidents. They both appear to be errors of judgement by well qualified captains. That is life. You put your faith in the captain and stand by him.

I will be very interested to see how this plays.

Mark

Lancman – I was always under the impression that the Blenheim was doing a ‘touch and go’ manouver at Denham so the issue of landing deep on the runway wasn’t really a factor.
Regards the book well anything you print can have a habit of coming back to haunt you – I wonder what the next book will contain.

Oh and D’oh! I meant John Webb earlier of course, sorry!!!