The AAIB have now published their report. The BBC are running a story on it today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-26561802

The aaib report: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Piper%20PA-38-112%20Tomahawk,%20G-BGBN%2003-14.pdf

An extract from the BBC Report:

A company whose plane crashed last year, seriously injuring two people, had used an unauthorised fuel, a report has found.

A trainee pilot and instructor were taken to hospital after the plane crashed during a training exercise at Cranfield Airport, Bedfordshire.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said Hinton Pilot Flight Training also had incomplete maintenance records.

The company is yet to comment.

The trainee pilot had been practising a touch-and-go landing, where the plane lands and takes off again without stopping, last June.

“During the climb following a touch-and-go landing, the engine began to run roughly,” the report said.

“A turn was commenced during which the engine failed and control of the aircraft was lost.”

‘Insufficient height’
The Piper Tomahawk plane was destroyed in the crash.

Investigators said they could not be sure why the engine failed, but believed a combination of carburettor icing and the instructor’s decision to make a tight turn back to the airfield, instead of carrying on straight, had probably caused the crash.

The report said the aircraft stalled “at a height that was insufficient to allow recovery”.

Investigators also found traces of unleaded motor vehicle petrol, which is not authorised for planes used for training, in the fuel tank.

Maintenance logs including fuel levels and flight times had not been completed and unqualified people had been working on the aircraft, the AAIB report said.

Hinton Pilot Flight Training is no longer in business, having had its operating licence suspended by the Civil Aviation Authority.

Its owner, Christopher Alexander, has yet to be reached for comment.

And from another forum:

The accident report has been published. It can be concluded that at times the aircraft was unlawfully worked on by an unlicensed engineer.

It also used a fuel that it was not supposed to.

The report on G-BGBN has been published today by the AAIB can be seen here:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Piper%20PA-38-112%20Tomahawk,%20G-BGBN%2003-14.pdf

It should be noted that the PA38 has a wing spar life of 11000 hours in service, after which it requires very expensive work to continue in service, normally that costs more than the value of the aircraft.

The report states that it had done 10298 hours when the aircraft had last been inspected.

It should also be noted that the AAIB found evidence that some flights which the airfield had recorded as having taken place were not recorded in the aircraft log books (as is required by law)

It is widely accepted that an Average PA38 will use 24 ltrs of fuel per hour when operated in a typical flying club environment, that is relatively short flights below 3000′ Whilst the factory figures state 19 ltrs per hour in practice that figure is only achieved on long flights at high altitude (Say 9000′) It typically takes 15 minutes at full power to climb to 9000′ in the PA38, which uses approximately 28ltrs per hour during that part of the flight.

The report talks of a fuel upload of 300ltrs for 15.6 hours of logged flying time and states that the tanks had considerable fuel remaining after the crash. (Don’t forget that the AAIB mention evidence of time that was not logged in the aircraft log books)

From that we can conclude that at best the consumption was only 19.23 ltrs per hour. That is an impossibly low figure, it would be fair to assume that during that period average consumption would have been close to 24ltrs per hour and as such an extra 74.ltrs of fuel would have been required.

The reports that the fuel had traces to confirm that it was mixed with forecourt type petrol (Mogas) which is approximatly 70p per ltr cheaper than aviation fuel, which on that quantity of fuel would have saved £52.

With respect to the maintenace Alexander/Ebbs published articles on a pilots Forum using the name “Boyztoyz” he joined the forum two days after the crash and posted the comment below on 25th July – in the context of the report the content makes interesting reading

boyztoyz
Junior Forumite
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 7:50 pm
Instructing on PPL/ Aerial work/ CPLs?

Postby boyztoyz » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:32 pm

Hi guys.
Serious question. My CAA Surveyor didn’t know the answer so I wondered what the general consensus of the real experts- you guys know.

Flying school aircraft used to be under Public Transport Cof A but that has been done away with EASA- and we just have EASA C of A and ARCs now.

Flying Instructors used to have to have a CPL with instructors rating- or for an old PPL with Instructors rating to at least have sat the CPL writtens. Now it is possible to add a Flying Instructors rating to a LAPL without having had any CPL training.

Providing there are no ADs to sign out, a pilot operator of a flying school can now under Part g sup part M -804 certify a 50 hour check on just a PPL under the controlled environment. In the sameway he can do minor defect work.

Aerial work now requires under EU-OPS things such as MELs which are not required by flying school aircraft.

THE QUESTIONS????

IS TEACHING PEOPLE TO FLY still classed as AERIAL WORK?
Is there a difference is what is required of an aircraft used for teaching people to fly to aerial work?

Many thanks