Spitfire/Hurricane Ground Collision At Galveston

This post is from somebody who is not a part of the forum and wishes to remain anonymous. It appears here as a one-off contribution to the discussion;

————————————————————————
Staggered landings , like everything in formation flying , were designed to permit a number of aircraft to execute a given maneuver
in as short a time as possible . Since the transition from air to ground is one of the most dangerous phases of flight , landings in close formation are usually declined by even the most experienced . The next most expeditious method of getting a formation back on the ground is the ” break ” followed by the ” stream ” or ” staggered ” landing , wherein the formation provides its own separation between aircraft . The separation ( certainly where smaller types of aircraft is concerned ) is provided by two factors ,
lateral , and fore and aft . Lateral separation should be used only where the runway is sufficiently wide to permit an aircraft to pass the previous one with safe lateral clearance , i.e. the runway should be AT LEAST twice the minimum width required for safe operation of a single aircraft of the type . The first lands on the left side , the next on the right etc ., depending on crosswind . Effectively , two runways side by side . The fore and aft clearance behind the preceeding aircraft should be designed as sufficient to allow a pilot to avoid the one he is following no matter what happens , even should the other intrude onto ” his side ” of the runway , or alternatively , to apply power , lift off , and ” go around ” …. while avoiding that aircraft . Stream landings on a narrow ( single ) runway should be arranged so that an aircraft touches down just as the preceeding aircraft turns off at the far end.

If the runway is too narrow , a number of possibilities arise . One aircraft may not be able to pass another without collision . Loss of , or even poor directional control means that an aircraft may either leave the runway surface or veer into the path of the follower . Both dangerous . If the fore and aft separation is too short , the follower may not have sufficient time to react and avoid the preceeding
machine should a problem occur , or , given the forward view problems of ” tail draggers ” , may not see it in time . Following too closely , no matter how wide the runway , just invites disaster . The possibilities are exactly the same as driving a ground vehicle at high speed . If the guy in front of you has a problem , available reaction time is often too small to avoid collision.

LSFM Hurricane / Spitfire “encounter”

I am just back from solo lunch at hooks airport grill. stopped by the paint hangar and got the skinny.

(same hangar where MK959 and this Hurricane were painted so nicely.. )

they were landing in trail, hurricane came in first.

apparent hurricane brake problem and it looped left and came around back on the runway… struggling to keep from pulling left.

the spitfire came in for a landing shortly behind.

he came in nose up for a 3 pt landing, never saw the hurricane…

it was not the prop that hit the hurricane. but the right Spit wing…

right spitfire wing took out rudder and elevators on the Hurricane… I think the left wing of the Hurri was also damaged… From the looks of the Hurricane in the pic, the tailwheel is kaput too, tail is crumpled, not sheard and shredded as from a prop.

spit prop came to a stop 4ft from the Hurricane pilot… way too close for comfort…

planes are locked up for investigation.

maybe the Hurricane will come back to Hooks for repair…? tbd.

Best of all, as many have said, glad the pilots are OK…

I believe the one at Paine Field (list no. 11) is marked 5429 with code Z – at least I photographed one marked as such there last year doing engine runs.

It is – re-built by Hawker Restorations and flew briefly here before export.

I believe the one at Paine Field (list no. 11) is marked 5429 with code Z – at least I photographed one marked as such there last year doing engine runs.

That news report says that there are 18 airworthy Hurricanes in the world. I thought the number was nearer 10. Would anyone like to clarify this for me?

Colin

There are twelve (if you include the incident aircraft):

1. LF363 – BBMF, RAF Coningsby, UK.
2. PZ865 – BBMF, RAF Coningsby, UK.
3. G-BKTH – Sea Hurricane – Shuttleworth Collection, Old Warden, UK.
4. G-HURI – HAC, Duxford UK.
5. G-HUPW, R4118 – Mk 1 – Peter Vacher, Didcot ,UK.
6. P3351 – Alpine Fighter Collection, Wanaka, NZ.
7. Former G-ORGI, Ed Russell, Niagra, Canada.
8. KZ321 – (Mk IV) Vintage Wings of Canada (Michael Potter), Canada.
9. RCAF 5667 – Fighter Factory, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA.
10. AE977 – Tom Friedkin, Chino Ca, USA.
11. Former G-KAMM – Flying Heritage Collection, Paine Field, Washington, USA.
12. NX96RW – Lone Star Flight Museum, Texas , USA.

Need to fill in the current registrations of one or two of those.

That news report says that there are 18 airworthy Hurricanes in the world. I thought the number was nearer 10. Would anyone like to clarify this for me?

Colin

Theres a few eyewitness accounts at WIX & Bill also posted.

ground collision

Without the benefit of details into what was exactly happening prior to the collision it is surely a bit early for speculation.

Stream landings are used in several types of operations and in themselves are not dangerous.

Imagine all that work on your Hurricane and now that happened just shortly after it was finally done. It must be a nightmare. 🙁

Jesus. 😮

They don’t look in the best of shape.

Pleased to hear both pilots are ok though,which is the most important thing.

Ken.

Sure – accidents happen but you should reduce the chances of accidents happening as much as possible.

Having witnessed many ‘end of display’ landings at Duxford there are rarely (if any) landings of aircraft, closely, one after the other on the same runway.
Sure you will have one on the hard runway and one on the grass but they are a good way apart.

I guess my point would be that after the tragic accident at Oshkosh last year the practice of ‘formation’ landing would be discouraged. Vision forward is compromised in these aircraft so it would seem like common sense to ensure good distance between them at such a time.

IF the Hurricane had been landing alone, the accident would probably still have happened (fate) but it would have been a single aircraft accident. As would have been the case if it had veered right instead of left.
As it is, because the Spitfire was behind and to the wrong side it got clobbered too.

So why do aircraft land so closely together? Any display pilots want to clarify this?

Bob,
here is a simple reply.
Any accident could be avoided, it just depends to what lengths you want to go to avoid an accident.
not putting on an airshow, not flying the aircraft at all, these steps would certainly minimize the potential of an accident,
what exactly are you looking for?

If I have, then I apologise.

I recall Moggy replying with such posts to previous ‘questions’ (as mine above) being raised about accidents.

If I misread his post then sorry.

Oh yes Moggy!!!!!!!!!:p

EDIT
I ask a simple question – guess I should have expected a simpleton reply…

I think you may have misinterpreted Moggy’s answer? I take his comment to be a reaction to the news, not your question. Happy to be told I’m wrong.

Oh yes Moggy!!!!!!!!!:p

EDIT
I ask a simple question – guess I should have expected a simpleton reply…

Oh no!!!!!

Moggy 🙁

While glad to hear both pilots are OK I wonder if this was an avoidable accident…

Bills spitfire has not long been in the air from it,s Winter Maintenence.Ouch…Glad both pilots are Ok and the aircraft aren,t too badly damaged…Machines can be fixed in time..

****** 🙁

But the good news is that all involved are OK, and the aircraft will fly again. It could have been much worse….

Both are repairable. the hurricane is worse off. The spit has main gear damage from what i read on another forum.