As one of those who has posted on another site, I think this incident is worthy of comment. To me it is a classic event whereby a number of issues have contrived. In no particular order:
Very marginal weather. TAF and METARs below published IAP minima; it was always going to be challenging.
Wind – strong southerly which doesn’t favour the most sensible runway. Landing with a tailwind (planned or not) needs careful consideration.
RW length/condition – St Mary’s isn’t the longest of runways.
Payload – heavier than usual?
Fatigue – timothy has clearly done a reasonable amount of flying over the last few days. Did fatigue play a part?
Bias – was there an unusual driving reason to undertake this flight?
Peter makes a very valid point about personalities getting involved and potential skewing of the facts. However, a quick look at the scenario indicates that the risk would have been greater than one may ordinarily expect.
AeroPlus wrote:
He did see the runway lights at minima for straight in, but was below circling minima.
What do you mean by this? That he intended to do a circling approach (to land into wind), but couldn’t get visual at the circling minima. Then he still continued descend to the straight-in minima on the opposite runway (because that would have lower minima), to finish the approach?
That’s a LOT of wind to do a tailwind approach, judging from the METARs! (even if it was planned)
I can’t tell as I don’t know more. All he mentiined that it all happened at a speed of at most 5 knots and that he misjudged the tailwind component. He did not hit a wall but a small rim or edge.
Assuming he had hull insurance: Given the weather and other circumstances, could it be the insurance will “bail out” due to “reckless operation”?
At this point we don’t know which runway he chose. From the ones with IAP, 27 would have been best considering the wind but very short, 32 longer but with a strong tailwind. 14 would have been best but no official IAP.
Circling wouldn’t make sense in this weather, that must have been a misunderstanding.
Assuming he had hull insurance: Given the weather and other circumstances, could it be the insurance will “bail out” due to “reckless operation”?
If the weather was within his minima and the calculated runway length (including factors for tailwind, slope, surface, water/contamination) shorter than the runway available they have no case against him. Otherwise they may be tempted to make things difficult for him. Don’t know what the legal situation is in the UK, but in Germany the insurer would have to prove (e.g. through an expert’s report) that the pilot has been acting grossly negligent, which is difficult to impossible in most cases.
Where does the idea of “reckless operation” come from? The approach was legal, the runway more than sufficient for a light Aztec, even with a tailwind. The unusual features of the airfield caught out the pilot, resulting in a very low speed overrun – what’s reckless about that? I’ll bet this is not the first overrun at St Mary’s.
Given the characteristics of the runway perhaps it is not a good idea to have a drain running across the end! Or at least they could level the drain with compacted gravel.
Given the earlier photo and the low speed I hope there is a very good chance the damage is not too extensive. Aztec’s are very well built and possibly have a greater chance of fairing reasonably well. I agree with Peter I hope this doesnt turn into the usual unwarranted speculation as I am sure the story will quickly be laid out from which we will all have something to learn. With a fiar bit of time on the Aztec it is a persoanl favourite and I for one will hope that the aircraft can be fully restored.
Yes, but it really doesn’t take much to total an aircraft like that. Given that the value of these old MEPs is purely in their engine residual value (plus maybe a bit in their avionics), I think that the cost if two props and two shockload inspections far outweighs that. Not even considering sheet metal and other mechanical repairs as well as the landing gear damage.
It’s loke a very minor road crash in your 1980 Ford. Doesn’t make sense to even touch it. Bring it to the scrapyard.
boscomantico wrote:
It’s loke a very minor road crash in your 1980 Ford. Doesn’t make sense to even touch it. Bring it to the scrapyard.
Only considering you can find a replacement, and that you can afford (or is willing to pay) that replacement. How would you replace that aircraft with another one? It is the utility (value) that often is of interest, that’s why there are so many old aircraft around in the first place.
