MERGED: Coffs Harbour Chipmunk Crash
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MERGED: Coffs Harbour Chipmunk Crash
Crime scene at Boambee Beach after light aircraft crashes | Coffs Coast Advocate
Searching for more info, I know a lot of pilots in the area. 2 POB, seems to be injuries but no fatalities from news I've found.
Searching for more info, I know a lot of pilots in the area. 2 POB, seems to be injuries but no fatalities from news I've found.
A crime scene has been established at the location and will be examined by forensic specialists.
WTF - this is not normal for a crash scene is it????
DF.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless the aircraft was stolen or undertaking criminal activities I don't see why it's a 'crime scene'...'accident scene' would seem more appropriate... unless it's not!!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The GAFA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's believed the aircraft which crashed south of Coffs Harbour this morning is a Chipmunk, specially built for aerobatic displays.
The aircraft involved is believed to be an ultralight.
Hopefully all involved will make a speedy recovery.
ATSB are now in on the act - see Investigation: AO-2014-114 - Collision with terrain involving DHC-1, VH-UPD near Coffs Harbour, NSW on 29 June 2014.
VH-UPD seen in happier times (Chipmunk Rally at Tocumwal NSW, 2009):
VH-UPD seen in happier times (Chipmunk Rally at Tocumwal NSW, 2009):
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any more information available ? I know the aircraft but I'm not sure if JM owns it any more, he doesn't fit into that age bracket from the news reports and it would be unusual for other pilots to fly his aircraft.
Folks,
Failing #1 - brakes off, on the pre-aerobatic check caused most, but not all the stall/spin losses in AU for the Chipmunk.
Sad to hear another is reduced to components, there is only a finite supply.
Tootle pip!!
Failing #1 - brakes off, on the pre-aerobatic check caused most, but not all the stall/spin losses in AU for the Chipmunk.
Sad to hear another is reduced to components, there is only a finite supply.
Tootle pip!!
MERGED: Coffs Harbour Chipmunk Crash
TV footage of the aircraft certainly looks like it had very little forward speed. With reference to spin recovery the most comprehensive document on chipmunk spinning is TNS (Technical News Sheet - English version of AD) #142 issued by De Havilland. I issued a copy to all pilots when I checked them out in a Chippy - Having operated 3 of them during the 1990s in a flying school. The TNS was written following a number of Australian Chippys spinning in during the late 1950s. VH-RSV and another chippy were tufted, fitted with spin recovery parachutes and spun many times by test pilots. The results revealed the wide chord rudder and anti spin strakes had an insignificant effect on recovery. There is a marked increase in stick forces during recovery as it is moved toward the forward stop, if you don't push through this region the aircraft will not recover. You also need to have the ailerons neutral or some pro-spin aileron during recovery, the engine at idle and as leadsled says make sure the Johnson bar (brake lever which allows differential braking during rudder application and acts as a park brake) is full forward to allow full rudder travel. The Chippy spins nicely, will continue to spin if you release the controls. It will recover, but you must use the correct recovery technique, be patient and have height! They are relatively flat when stabilised in the spin and the rate of rotation increases initially during recovery and may continue for a few turns from the time recovery is initiated until rotation stops. The Chipmunk is an excellent aeroplane!!
Last edited by roundsounds; 10th Mar 2018 at 11:46.
Folks,
Interestingly, the Chipmunks I learned to fly on in UK did not have the strakes, there was no history of problems with spin recovery.
Nor did my original VH- registered Chipmunk, in the mid-1960s.
What is the history of retro-fitting the strakes and the wide chord rudder??
Tootle pip!!
Interestingly, the Chipmunks I learned to fly on in UK did not have the strakes, there was no history of problems with spin recovery.
Nor did my original VH- registered Chipmunk, in the mid-1960s.
What is the history of retro-fitting the strakes and the wide chord rudder??
Tootle pip!!
I recall when I was an Apprentice at RAF Halton a chipmunk flying an air experience flight failed to recover from a spin and the pilot was killed in the accident, the apprentice died some time later. the incident occured in 1972 and is recorded here......
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=20364
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=20364
Roundsounds - an excellent post, thank you!
Leady:
The broad-chord rudder was introduced in 1952, probably started being retro-fitted to the RAF fleet in 1954-1955, In the preamble to this modification, it states that the intention is to reduce foot loads during protracted climbs, and to enhance rudder authority during crosswind takeoffs & landings, and during aerobatices. It does NOT state that it had anything to do with improving spin entry or recovery (a common Chipmunk myth)! My experience, for what it's worth, of flying both is that the reduced authrority of the narrow chord rudder is perceptible (but then I was alerted to/looking for this), while they both are identical in entering and recovering from a spin.
The spin recovery strakes appeared in 1958, allegedly a "political fix" to cure a perceived problem. Certainly the exhaustive DCA report into spinning (referred to by Roundsounds) was very dismissive of their effectiveness, and the entire idea was also completely ignored by the RCAF when specifying their Chipmunk T.30's (the last production Chipmunks).
I'm not sure if I quite agree with Roundsounds' assertion that a Chipmunk will recover from a spin by simply letting go of the controls - from the often mistaken for a spin spiral dive yes, from a fully developed spin, I think not.
Another factor contributing to the failure to recover is that some Chipmunks certainly "wind up" the spin when anti spin inputs are initially applied. This actually is an indication that the inputs are working, but in the confusion/stress of the moment it may cause some pilots to reduce the inputs.
Regarding the failure to apply full forward stick when necessary, to ensure that students overcame the greatly increased forces and actually reached the forward limit, some aero clubs painted witness marks on the stick/floor pan, and students were instructed to check the alignment during recovery.
But it is a lovely perfectly safe aeroplane, if handled correctly.
Leady:
The broad-chord rudder was introduced in 1952, probably started being retro-fitted to the RAF fleet in 1954-1955, In the preamble to this modification, it states that the intention is to reduce foot loads during protracted climbs, and to enhance rudder authority during crosswind takeoffs & landings, and during aerobatices. It does NOT state that it had anything to do with improving spin entry or recovery (a common Chipmunk myth)! My experience, for what it's worth, of flying both is that the reduced authrority of the narrow chord rudder is perceptible (but then I was alerted to/looking for this), while they both are identical in entering and recovering from a spin.
The spin recovery strakes appeared in 1958, allegedly a "political fix" to cure a perceived problem. Certainly the exhaustive DCA report into spinning (referred to by Roundsounds) was very dismissive of their effectiveness, and the entire idea was also completely ignored by the RCAF when specifying their Chipmunk T.30's (the last production Chipmunks).
I'm not sure if I quite agree with Roundsounds' assertion that a Chipmunk will recover from a spin by simply letting go of the controls - from the often mistaken for a spin spiral dive yes, from a fully developed spin, I think not.
Another factor contributing to the failure to recover is that some Chipmunks certainly "wind up" the spin when anti spin inputs are initially applied. This actually is an indication that the inputs are working, but in the confusion/stress of the moment it may cause some pilots to reduce the inputs.
Regarding the failure to apply full forward stick when necessary, to ensure that students overcame the greatly increased forces and actually reached the forward limit, some aero clubs painted witness marks on the stick/floor pan, and students were instructed to check the alignment during recovery.
But it is a lovely perfectly safe aeroplane, if handled correctly.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is turning into a spinning thread, and we should still acknowledge we do not know what caused this accident.
With regard to spin recovery of today's Chipmunks, what is the effect of the removal of the old STRX (?spelling) radio and consequent rearward movement of CofG, on spin recovery of current Chipmunk, especially with a passenger? It is now very easy to exceed rear CofG limit with a passenger (yes - we should check balance each time before flight).
Apparently there is a TNS addressing the rear CofG movement after removal of the original radio.
With regard to spin recovery of today's Chipmunks, what is the effect of the removal of the old STRX (?spelling) radio and consequent rearward movement of CofG, on spin recovery of current Chipmunk, especially with a passenger? It is now very easy to exceed rear CofG limit with a passenger (yes - we should check balance each time before flight).
Apparently there is a TNS addressing the rear CofG movement after removal of the original radio.
Last edited by rjtjrt; 1st Jul 2014 at 02:03.
Trying NOT to turn this into a Chipmunk spinning thread!
I'm simply answering points already made.
rjtjrt:
I absolutely agree, currently we can only surmise as to the cause of the VH-UPD accident. I hope nothing I've posted, nor am about to post, detracts from that position - at the moment we simply don't know. Like you, I'm anxious to learn more about this.
Roundsounds:
PM sent
Leadsled:
On re-reading yours, I haven't quite answered your query regarding the history of the strakes/broad-chord rudder. Despite being developed & tested over 1951, with the relevant Modification issued in 1952, DH produced virtually all Chipmunks with the narrow-chord rudder, then constructed the replacement item which were slowly retro-fitted to the RAF fleet (an nice little "double-dip" into the UK taxpayers' pockets perhaps?). By now however the RAF's Reserve Command had been disbanded and a large number of Chipmunks were already in storage pending disposal. Understandably, these stored aircraft were not modified; a significant proportion were subsequently exported to Australia. With any Chipmunk gathering, it's possible to see all four tail configurations; no strakes/narrow rudder, strakes/narrow rudder, no strakes/broad rudder & strakes/broad rudder.
Respectfully and seriously, would you like to expand on this please?
A few years ago, I did attempt to analyze Australian Chipmunk spinning accidents; the Register has 6 Chipmunks accidents where the dreaded word "spinning" appears. Contacting ATSB I found that they haven't retained any Chipmunk accident files; some (only about 20%) are with the NAA, a few are with State Libraries - the majority have simply disappeared. There are also the old DCA Quarterly Accident Reviews plus I have some newspaper clippings. As an aside, given the considerable discussion about the abysmal standards of journalism recently, it's worth noting that the press were getting it totally wrong back then, too! So my baseline is short and incomplete, but nowhere have I come across the implication that an aircraft crashed because partial brake was selected. Aft CofG was implied in the VH-MOR accident, while the coin-stuck-in-the control-column-housing was blamed for the infamous VH-FTA accident. The remainder were basically attributed to "incorrect recovery technique".
I don't doubt that the brake being left partially on caused some of the early RAF accidents; indeed when I learnt to fly in 1961 ensuring that the handle was off was dinned into me repeatedly, but do you know of any here where this was the cause?
I'm simply answering points already made.
rjtjrt:
I absolutely agree, currently we can only surmise as to the cause of the VH-UPD accident. I hope nothing I've posted, nor am about to post, detracts from that position - at the moment we simply don't know. Like you, I'm anxious to learn more about this.
Roundsounds:
PM sent
Leadsled:
On re-reading yours, I haven't quite answered your query regarding the history of the strakes/broad-chord rudder. Despite being developed & tested over 1951, with the relevant Modification issued in 1952, DH produced virtually all Chipmunks with the narrow-chord rudder, then constructed the replacement item which were slowly retro-fitted to the RAF fleet (an nice little "double-dip" into the UK taxpayers' pockets perhaps?). By now however the RAF's Reserve Command had been disbanded and a large number of Chipmunks were already in storage pending disposal. Understandably, these stored aircraft were not modified; a significant proportion were subsequently exported to Australia. With any Chipmunk gathering, it's possible to see all four tail configurations; no strakes/narrow rudder, strakes/narrow rudder, no strakes/broad rudder & strakes/broad rudder.
Respectfully and seriously, would you like to expand on this please?
Failing #1 - brakes off, on the pre-aerobatic check caused most, but not all the stall/spin losses in AU for the Chipmunk.
I don't doubt that the brake being left partially on caused some of the early RAF accidents; indeed when I learnt to fly in 1961 ensuring that the handle was off was dinned into me repeatedly, but do you know of any here where this was the cause?
Last edited by Dora-9; 1st Jul 2014 at 04:29. Reason: grammar
Dora
You certainly know what you are talking about
I had the great privilege of learning some basic aerobatic skills in this wonderful aeroplane. The only disconcerting thing with the Chipmunk was the engine cut-off if you stayed inverted for more than a few seconds.
My dad used to call it the poor man's Wirraway. He trained many people on both.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Chipmunk will not recover from a developed spin without very positive and coordinated input. Full forward elevator is a must, especially if the CofG is at aft limits.
Great to see some really useful stuff being posted.
You certainly know what you are talking about
I had the great privilege of learning some basic aerobatic skills in this wonderful aeroplane. The only disconcerting thing with the Chipmunk was the engine cut-off if you stayed inverted for more than a few seconds.
My dad used to call it the poor man's Wirraway. He trained many people on both.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Chipmunk will not recover from a developed spin without very positive and coordinated input. Full forward elevator is a must, especially if the CofG is at aft limits.
Great to see some really useful stuff being posted.
ATSB summary states:
Video footage taken by witnesses showed the aircraft established in a slow, upright spin. The on‑site evidence was consistent with the spin continuing until the impact with terrain.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...-2014-114.aspx
Video footage taken by witnesses showed the aircraft established in a slow, upright spin. The on‑site evidence was consistent with the spin continuing until the impact with terrain.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...-2014-114.aspx