Shearwater Firefly FRS1 PP462

Almost a complete waste of time and effort.

I seem to recall someone telling me that the runway at Shearwater was now closed. They fly only ageing Sea-kings from there. If this is true then there would be no possibility of the Firefly flying anyway. Still a very sad story.
Regards
Bill

I suppose that it is much easier to just do what Yanks do at Chino, and stick notices up everywhere saying that everything in the collection is airworthy. As long as they remember to put intake blanks on all the engineless jets, they usually manage to get away with it! 😉

One off flights are pretty pointless, except that they do demonstrate that the work has been completed, and to an appropriate standard. However, in theory, there will be more loss of original material by doing it this way, if the intention is only to make a static exhibit!

I guess the issue is that they are not normally an ‘operational’ museum, so may not have the procedures in place to ensure testing and flight ops are carried out as they should be.

The intention was only to make a single flight and then park it, like they did with their Swordfish. I suspect the museum has had a change of policy regarding these one-off flights in the aftermath of the Firefly fiasco.

I confess that I don’t quite understand why, after 17 years of rebuilding it, they wouldn’t repair it back to flight status?

why they wouldn’t have taken up the offer is very concerning………..

Museum politics at its worst. 🙁 The result is one wrecked aeroplane, but at least nobody was hurt.

Thank’s for the update Cam. why they wouldn’t have taken up the offer is very concerning but the damage has been done now sadly.. what a shame..

Further Update:

I happened to see some post accident pics on the weekend that were sent to me by a contact at the Museum.
It is not pretty . The aircraft has suffered substantial damage. This was a totally avoidable accident.

As is known, the Shearwater Musuem obtained and restored the aircraft to flying condition.
At this point some very poor decisons were made.
Even though, there are current Firefly pilots in Canada and their services were offered, the Museum decided to use a pilot that in the past had TPM Avenger time but none current . This was felt to be adequate
At some point someone decide that it was a good idea to c/out a high speed taxi test and as we all know this is not/never a good idea . Especially with a high performance aircraft.
I am told that during the H.S Taxi the aircraft was becoming airborne and was swinging off the runway , braking was used to try counter the swing and power was chopped decreasing the torque. At this point the aircraft continued leave the runway .
The r/h gear folded outward and the l/h gear leg punched thru the wing and ofcourse next there was a full belly skid and prop stike destroying the prop.
The result being that a historically valuable artifact has been sustantially damaged and an aircraft that had the potential to be a regular flyer will now be repaired to static condition only
A real loss to both the Museum and to the country.

I really can’t understand why they would choose a pilot that had no previous Firefly time . A TBM is quite a different animal to a Firefly.
It really does appear to be a case of a Museum that is largely made up of static displays that has no real experience in operating high performance flying aircraft.
Please note that I am not trying bash the Museum but hopefully we can all learn from an incident that was both unfortunate and also very avoidable.

So sad to hear of this. I spent several winters at Shearwater from 1996 up to 2005 (helicopter icing trials) and watched the Firefly restoration with great interest. A real dedicated team with true passion.

Nor was it’s record in military service if the number of photographs about which show them going into the nets, up on their nose, over the side or any number odf other mishaps on board carriers are anuything to go by.

Hardly fair, considering we’re talking embarked operations here. Have a look at how many Seafires, Barracudas, Sea Furies and Firebrands ended up in a snotty heap on the deck of a carrier. Naval aviation is somewhat different to land-borne operation.

Duxford 2003 ,we unfortunately witnessed that 🙁 pilot error i believe,not the aircraft.

Video pre-prang here. (sorry about the commercials !)

http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/old-warbird-the-fairey-firefly-mk-1-prepares-for-takeoff-1.1395490

The situation that arised was caused by a fast taxi . Its debatable what a taxi with 2300 rpm is going to achieve over ground running and a slow brake test.
As I said earlier you need to be able to handle what might happen -the Firefly is a powerful machine that needs careful handling – the safety record of the type
in private hands hasn’t been sparkling.

I cannot think of a type with a more gloomy record of operation as a warbird, perhaps a 100% casualty rate.

1977, a fatal loss in Lake Ontario, 1987 a terminal forced landing in Camden (Australia) , Duxford (2003) Gillespie (2012) gear collapse.

The Canadian Warplane Heritage IS a flyer, but that too had a major incident in 1992.

Nor was it’s record in military service if the number of photographs about which show them going into the nets, up on their nose, over the side or any number odf other mishaps on board carriers are anuything to go by.

The situation that arised was caused by a fast taxi . Its debatable what a taxi with 2300 rpm is going to achieve over ground running and a slow brake test.
As I said earlier you need to be able to handle what might happen -the Firefly is a powerful machine that needs careful handling – the safety record of the type
in private hands hasn’t been sparkling.

The story broke a day or two ago on WIX. Its supposedly a very heavy landing following an inadvertant take off during fast taxy trials. If its true it begs the question why the aircraft wasn’t ready for flight with a crew that could handle any situation that could arise. Its very sad.

Unless you know something about the crew, or the incident that the rest of us don’t, I would suggest that no crew can be guaranteed 100% to handle any situation that could arise. The implication in your statement is that the crew were incompetent.

A real shame. I hope it can be repaired in due course.

Pete

David

Yes I saw the update on WIX, the people involved with its rebuild must be devestated. I expect the prop is destroyed, somewhere I saw a figure of $26000 had been spent for a new set of wooden blades for it.

Richard

2013A1152 Is the report number

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?rt=NRL&rd=2013-11-29&fa=&rg=

WIX have updated this with a Transport Canada report which outlines a ground loop that has done substancial damage to the aircraft.