Navy wings Sea Fury Crash (Crew Ok)

Oracal:

We are all taught to feather a prop. The real trouble starts when they fail to.

I’m not joining the line of people telling others how to fly an aircraft they have only seen in pictures or film clips. My SLG (ASH 31 Mi) has a fixed pitch propeller and when shutting the engine down, if the speed is too high it doesn’t stop windmilling. After reducing the speed and the propeller has stopped windmilling, the sink rate is reduced considerably. Next, when in the correct (vertical) position, the propeller is retracted into the rear fuselage.

When performing a planned shut down, it is no problem maintaining the correct speed and the propeller automatically stops but if you loose power, the gut reaction may be to increase the speed which keeps the propeller windmilling. In that situation, the possibility to feather the propeller would stop it windmilling, right?

A stationary fixed pitch propeller still has the same frontal area which a featehered propeller does not but I speculate that the reduction of frontal area is not a large contribution towards a lower sink rate.

Try starting a stopped piston engine with a fixed pitch prop in the air by diving! 

Exactly, I have seen (in pictures  and film clips) that it requiers several people to manually rotate a large engine by the propeller and that force is extracted from the airflow when windmilling. When the propeller stops, that force is no longer extracted and that reduces the sink rate much more than a reduction of frontal area, right?

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. However, I’m suggesting a review of reduced engine power go arounds and that they should all be treated as though the engine is about to stop and therefore the most direct return to the airfield should be effected.

I don’t pretend to be an aviation expert nor am I say anyone has done something wrong.

I have an engineering background from which I’ve learnt to analyse and evaluate and not repeat processes or procedures that have been proven not to achieve the desired outcome.

I’m fairly sure I’ve not been critical of the choices made but rather what I’m suggesting is that lessons are learnt and shared so that we don’t lose more of our precious heritage and pilots. 
 

Merlin70: Sully did not ‘disregarding instructions to land at La Guardia’. ATC gave him options as to nearest airfield. As Captain he decided upon something else. 
Consider that airliners are not tested to land on water. Flight manuals only give advice on best course of action, although emergency checklist do provide a checklist for it. 
I had a very experienced friend who had spent most of his airforce time picking people out the water using the Whirlwind helicopter. He face a night ditching yards from the shore after both engines failed on a dark horrible winters night. He flew a textbook procedure. His landing could not have been better. He and his copilot died as a result of hitting a submerged rock that distorted the cockpit and push his head up into the overhead panel. FO drowned unable to exit his seat. Some you win, some your lose.

I’m sure the pilots of the Sea Fury wish they had your hindsight…

An afterthought. You do know why powered aircraft usually make powered rather than glide approaches? 

Oracal. It wasn’t a comparison. Sullenberger was an experienced glider pilot and meticulously studied aviation accidents and test crashes. He used his combined knowledge to get the A320 down safely disregarding instructions to land at La Guardia, changing the order of the engine out procedures and using his skills of energy management. 
it was proven in the simulator that his actions resulted in the safe water landing. The majority of pilots wouldn’t have made the choices he made nor got the aircraft down without injury or fatalities.

the initial reports of the sea Fury incident suggest that it didn’t land straight ahead but tried to return to the airfield and was lined up on approach when the engine failed completely. 
my suggestion is that a review of partial powerloss procedures could save another airframe from a similar fate.

Christer: We are all taught to feather a prop. The real trouble starts when they fail to. There have been several accidents where pilots have kept a misbehaving engine on a twin idling rather than shut it down/fx it, only to find that making a unexpected single engine go-around that the aircraft becomes uncontrollable. Always fx or put an prop at zero thrust if possible. A piston engine with a fx prop will be reluctant to windmill. Try starting a stopped piston engine with a fixed pitch prop in the air by diving! 

Merlin70: I don’t understand the point you are making re A320. Putting a tail wheel aircraft into an unprepared strip with no opportunity to go anywhere else is always going to be difficult. During my 25 years of gliding I’ve known plenty of ‘aces’ screw up a field landing. 

Oracal. I’m not saying it’s easy but this incident occurred as the aircraft was making an approach. The description given was that the engine initially lost power but failed completely on approach. 
Yes they glide like a brick but then so did the A320 that landed on the Hudson River.

gliding skills give power pilots more options 

Add to that the fact that a seized engine with a prop that may not be feathered or cannot feather, will be worse than your pulling the airbrake fully out after a cable break at 200 ft and then trying a 180; it isn’t sensible.

As a glider pilot flying SLG’s (Self Launching Gliders), we learn that the important thing when the engine fails is to stop the propeller windmilling. That reduces the drag considerably (75%?). How much feathering a propeller further reduces the drag, I don’t know (25%?) but I believe that the main thing by feathering is to stop it windmilling.

On a seized engine with a stationary (not windmilling) propeller, if possible to feather, would it reduce the drag more than marginally?

Hi Merlin70. In single engine powered aircraft we are to taught not to try and turn back after an engine failure. Reason being that the aircraft will have low energy and an attempt to do a 180 is very likely (as history shows) to end badly. Add to that the fact that a seized engine with a prop that may not be feathered or cannot feather, will be worse than your pulling the airbrake fully out after a cable break at 200 ft and then trying a 180; it isn’t sensible. 

Better to plan to land ahead after an EFATO and walk away from a damaged aircraft.

Once, when I used to fly 4 or 5 hrs a day glider towing I had a progressive engine failure that started at 100 ft. After throwing the glider off I started a turn back to try to fly a circuit. Unfortunately the Gipsy engine seized after I reversed direction and, because of active winch and landing gliders I couldn’t land crosswind. The resulting downwind landing I got away with, but it’s not something I would ever want to do again in an Auster!

Perhaps a rethink of EFATO procedures is appropriate.

Glider pilots encountering a problem after take off such as a winch failure would look for an immediate place to land. If necessary crosswind or downwind.

powered aircraft pilots appear to spend too long joining the circuit and following a standard approach. Perhaps powered aircraft pilots should spend some time flying gliders which might offer additional options for EFATO survival.

would this airframe have been more intact if they’d reversed course or taken to one of Yeoviltons cross runways?

This is not a criticism of the pilots who no doubt were following training and procedures. Its perhaps time to take a pragmatic look at procedures.

tin hat at the ready!

The aircraft is designed to not only fly but also protect the crew during an accident. As such, much like a car, loads will have been transmitted through the structure and absorbed. In doing so, primary, secondary, and tertiary structure is highly likely to have become damaged. The full extend of any damage will only become apparent when qualified engineers carry out a full inspection. 
At the moment all that can be said from pictures is (and this is very technical terminology), ‘it won’t buff out’. 

Fuselage looks not to bad if you remove the tail section and crumpled front skins.Hopefully when its put on the jig the framework will be straight.Same with wings,remove damaged skins and see if spars are tweaked.New power cell and fix other damaged items.Its rebuildable but cost will be a factor.

I understand your reservation about non-indigenous types, and it is not the perfect answer, but it is not ideal either to have an organisation  mainly defined by a list of wrecked Sea Furies.  The Sea Vixen is finished as a flyer,  the Sea Hawk in deep storage,  so there is certainly scope for new direction, funds permitting.  A Gannet project is not what they need, their hangar is full of projects. They are a Historic Flight, and they need to be out there flying historic aircraft.  

If you can think of another significant historic British FAA type with an honourable service record which could be acquired ready to go, for under , say, £500,000, it would be interesting to hear it   Edit  (   I have now just checked ALL types operated by the FAA, there is nothing else out there)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Fleet_Air_Arm

The Firefly option is the most attractive, but an Avenger has a lot going for it. It has to be about the most affordable WW2 warbird available, and would be unique in the UK.  I am a great admirer of Navy Wings, and really hope they can turn things round.  I am mindful it is perhaps impertinent to presume to tell them what they should be doing , but it is in the spirit of creative encouragement. 

It’s more of a wish list idea tbh PS, but having previously operated a Sea Vixen I would of thought a Gannet to be well within their remit. 

Perhaps a chat with the lads at Horizon Aviation at St Athan about AEW.3 XL500 and it’s potential for flight might be worth the cost of a phone call. And on a personal level – Navy Wings operating a US type as their flagship doesn’t really float my boat, much in the same way that they didn’t decide on operating a Sea Fury with an American donk.

That would certainly turn heads,  and would be a popular sight for enthusiasts. My concern is that the Gannet is complex and rare,  and that is TWO engines to potentially misbehave. Admittedly, if one failed you are still flying,  but I wonder if overall it is just too much of a challenge right now.

Well, there is of course one sure fire way for Navy Wings to grab the publics attention at airshows (he says with everything crossed);

I believe they should park their airworthy Sea Fury aspirations for now and introduce some much-needed confidence and stability into the operation.  If the concept ( my suggestion above) of a Firefly was too expensive, then how about a Tarpon, and right now one can presently be acquired for £360,000 (Platinum Fighters website) . Big, impressive, able to operate off grass in places like Old Warden, well understood engine, and good wartime FAA pedigree.

Even if it is just a place holder for a few seasons, it gets them back in the game, in front of the public, generating some positive PR. 

What’s not to like?

Looks like the engine was dead on  contact with the ground, how lucky were they !!!

More pictures here – it looks in slightly better shape than was apparent from the original press pictures; but the damage is severe.

Sea Fury T.20 VX281 Update – Navy Wings

It’s interesting to note that, despite having different engines although they are both radials, both Sea Fury ‘Invincible’ last August and VX281 this April have both crashed soon after a long period of being dormant because of respective lockdowns!

Just for clarity FNHT is a civilian charity, the old RNHF was disbanded a few months ago. I don’t for a minute think that this accident will be the end of the road for FNHT, they seem to be on a sound footing and they have other aircraft such as the two Swordfish and the SeaHawk as well as the single-seat SeaFury. They also seem to have very good relations with other operators who can potentially “fly the flag” for FNHT when stand-ins are needed.

I have my doubts that VX281 will ever be rebuilt, I’m pretty certain the costs of doing so would be above the asking price of another airworthy example. Very sad to see her in such a state, but also very glad to hear the crew are OK.

The idea of crowdfunding for repairs has been talked about in a couple of places, but I do wonder if crowdfunding for a Wildcat, Corsair, Seafire or Firefly would be a better option given the relative ease of maintenance of American radials and the RR V-12’s. We can but dream…

All the best to everyone at FNHT.