Incident at North Shore airfield

[kiwithrottlejockey]

New Zealand Police Alert 5:00pm 1 Feb 2009 Waitemata

Location of incident: Postmans Road Dairy Flat

Incident type: Incident at North Shore airfield

A light plane has come off the runway at North Shore airfield on Postmans Road Dairy Flat.

The pilot, the sole occupant, is uninjured.

At present Postmans Road is closed.

Civil Aviation will be attending at scene and investigating.

Issued By: Inspector Jacqueline Whittaker

[Kereru]

Just confirmed ZK-SSS L-29 Delfin.

www.airliners.net/photo/Aero-L-29-Delfin/1394873/L/

Good no one hurt.

[philip]

North Shore at around 700 metres would have to be on the limit for an L-29 wouldn't it given half the runway is downhill

L-29.org has a few manuals that suggest it would be very tight.
www.l-29.org

[Bruce]

I wouldnt describe an L-29 as a "light Plane", but I guess it is smaller than a "little" Boeing 737!

[DragonflyDH90]

Yes it would, in fact it would be less than the limit for the L-29

[haughtney1]

Without wishing to assume too much, I wonder how much experience the guy flying this has on type?
How much high performance jet (relative to the type concerned) time overall?
and the weather conditions at the time.

There seems to be a trend developing (just like it did in the UK a few years back) where private owners of warbird types through a combination of lowish experience, bad luck, mis-management of risk, and perhaps poor judgement (although not exclusively so) seem to be coming a cropper on a more regular basis.
I'm not suggesting any negligence in this case, or indeed in the recent Spitfire incident, merely that as an on-going trend, these kinds of incidents seem to occur to those who operate these types on a far more regular basis as the stereotypical "weekend warrior" than those who perhaps have more of a background in either professional or military aviation.
The UK CAA was forced to act around 5 years ago when it was recognised that a spate of recent fatalities were the direct result of some of the experience and attitude short-comings in many of the individuals who were involved.
I really do hope that for the NZ warbird scene, that someone is taking a serious look at the current trend and risk.
Finally, its great to see that the pilot is ok..you can replace an aeroplane, but you cant replace people.

[Dave Homewood]

As with all crashes, PLEASE DO NOT POST SPECULATION HERE. Wait till the experts release their findings.

[Citabria]

This one's going to be interesting!

And that's all I have to say about that!

[rbwannabe]

Dave

Unfortunate

Un*for"tu*nate\, a. Not fortunate; unsuccessful; not prosperous; unlucky; attended with misfortune; unhappy; as, an unfortunate adventure; an unfortunate man; an unfortunate commander; unfortunate business. -- n. An unfortunate person. -- Un*for"tu*nate*ly, adv. -- Un*for"tu*nate*ness, n.

Accident

Ac"ci*dent\, n. [F. accident, fr. L. accidens, -dentis, p. pr. of accidere to happen; ad + cadere to fall. See Cadence, Case.]
1. Literally, a befalling; an event that takes place without one's foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and unexpected event; chance; contingency; often, an undesigned and unforeseen occurrence of an afflictive or unfortunate character; a casualty; a mishap; as, to die by an accident.

Fact

The owner of this aircraft was told by his (very experienced instructor) that he was NOT to try and operate from North Shore (where he has a hangar). He had chosen to ignore this sage and excellent advice on a previous occasion and got away with it.

Regardless of the cause of this accident the fact is that as haughtney1 says there is a problem with inexperienced persons with too much money.

Btw The spool up time on those engines is 12 seconds. To fit a plane like that into a short strip you could not have any thrust apart from idle. Figure out what would happen if a student taxied out in front of him on short final?

[stu]

Story and photos etc ...

www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10554637

Vintage jet plane crashes off runway at Dairy Flat
12:30AM Monday Feb 02, 2009

A vintage Russian military jet crashed off the runway at North Shore Aerodrome north of Auckland last night after its brakes failed. Fire Service northern communications centre shift manager Jaron Phillips said the accident happened about 5.30pm.

The pilot, understood to be alone on the two-seater L29 jet, was not hurt.

Mr Phillips said a large number of firefighters attended the scene and applied foam as a precaution. Police also arrived and the Civil Aviation Authority was investigating. North Shore Aerodrome is on Postman Rd in Dairy Flat, about 20 minutes drive north of Auckland's central business district.

Postman Road had been closed, police said.

Services available at the airfield included flight training, scenic flights and plane maintenance. Staff at the airfield, which is run by the North Shore Aero Club, declined to comment on the crash last night.

- NZPA

... or the slightly more sensational headline ....

www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=151878

Vintage aircraft burns

01/02/2009 18:32:03

A vintage military aircraft has gone off the runway at North Shore Airfield and caught fire. The crash was reported at around 5.30 and brake failure is believed to be the cause.

The pilot, who was the sole occupant on board, escaped from the crash uninjured.

A large number of firefighters are at the scene, using foam as a precaution.

Police say Postmans Road is closed. Civil Aviation Authority investigators are heading to the scene.

Not going to add anything personally as I haven't been out to the Aero Club for a month so have nothing to add.

Cheers,
Stu.

[flyjoe180]

Very unfortunate. As Andrew says, the report will be very interesting.

[stu]

Aircraft in question doing a low pass recently over the same runway it seems to have come to grief on ...
nz.youtube.com/watch?v=kt6QPYzWGhA

[philip]

Question for Stu........ I was going to ask this before the incident so this saves a new topic. Are visitors able to land at NE? I realise it's PPR but is permission easily forthcoming? I'd quite like to add it to my list of places to visit, pick up, drop off.

p.s. re the youtube clip. Interesting joining path, aren't you meant to cross the threshold on crosswind?

[Dave Homewood]

Richard, fair enough, perhaps to those who know what actually occurred, the circumstances don't look like an unfortunate accident but something different. I personally didn't know who the pilot was nor the circumstances, but I wanted to make it clear from a forum administrator's point of view that idle speculation and theories about crashes are not welcome here. Facts are fine so long as the poster is confidnent that they are facts and that those involved in the accident will not take offence to the information being made public.

This forum is never anywhere near as bad for wreckless speculation as other forums I've seen, but it still occurs sometimes and can be very frustrating and perhaps damaging to those involved when they read strangers talking about theories and opinions of circumstances that are way off the mark from the truth. The recent Spitfire accident at Masterton is a case in point; there were some fairly confident statements put forward by some that are in fact patently wrong, and people actually involved with that Spitfire do read this forum (as do most people involved with NZ warirds it seems) and they have seen those statments, and are not too pleased to see some of the nonsense written (not just on this forum by the way, there was worse stuff elsewhere). An official statement with first hand facts is expected soon from the engineer on that particular case to clear up several misconceptions in that case once the engineers have completed the damage assessment.

I'm sure that you you will understand my reason for asking people not to post speculation. My post, by the way, was not directed as a rebuttle to Haughtney's post specifically, just a general warning to all as it seems this is L-29 incident just the sort of crash that will get the tongues wagging, if you see what I mean.

[FlyNavy]

Certainly will be interesting to know when the official accident report/investigation is released. The video (to me) seems to show an aborted approach to whatever runway it is. If it is a deliberate 'go around' I could not say. IMHO.

[stu]

Feb 2, 2009 17:41:07 GMT 12 philip said:

Question for Stu........ I was going to ask this before the incident so this saves a new topic. Are visitors able to land at NE? I realise it's PPR but is permission easily forthcoming? I'd quite like to add it to my list of places to visit, pick up, drop off.

p.s. re the youtube clip. Interesting joining path, aren't you meant to cross the threshold on crosswind?

Hi Phillip.

Being a club member this is something I hadn't really thought of before... I guess that as long as you pay landing fees they'd be happy as there seems to have been a suitable supply of visitors at times that I've been out there. Maybe give them a call beforehand to be sure (09 426 4273).

Re: the circuit join - as runway 21 seemed to be in use you would be correct for an overhead rejoin and if I was coming in from the coast that would be how I'd join. It is kind of hard to tell as there is an edit just after passing near the threshold and it's a bit hard to guess the exact altitude so, given the speed involved, perhaps a jet needs more room when joining ... any jet pilots out there who can help as I am but a mere low-hour, prop powered weekend warrior at present

Cheers,
Stu.

[haughtney1]

I think its very important that we respect Daves' position on uninformed speculation...now that may sound a bit rich in light of my previous post on this thread..however I tried to be sure to clarify that I have no information one way or the other in respect of this incident or the unfortunate occurance in Masterton.
My comments are based on a very very similar set of circumstances that have occured here in the UK laterly, and the course of action the regulator was forced to take.
I say this as a former "weekend warrior" turned airline pilot..turned corporate pilot.
My post then and now is not INTENDED to presume or assume anything other than the information already reported.

[FlyNavy]

Fair enough about no speculation without facts etc. However flying safety requires open, honest enquiry with reporting of the same. If someone is annoyed by that then they had better stop reading NOW! ;D

By no means am I suggesting that ill informed speculation is worthwhile, that in itself (speculation) is pointless.

Stu, to get to your question about jet aircraft. Bear in mind I have not flown an Lwhateveritis and have no clue about the airfield under discussion so my points are very general in nature. For sure a jet requires more airspace because it covers a lot more ground during circuits. From a quick reading of the L (Learner?) manual it would seem it is quite slow for a jet but faster than your average lightie I guess.

It is difficult for most jets to enter a circuit other than either under direct Radar and Speed / Height control or through the tried and true military 'break and enter' method. In this way the jet is at reasonable manoeuvre speed coming into the circuit; being able to see all aircraft downwind so that it can then 'break' [down] wind as required quickly slowing to landing speed etc. Usually a jet circuit is wider because of higher speed.

The brakes on an L need specially handling from my quick read of the PDF manual; but what exactly is not clear to me. Breaking (brakes) too hard to overheat them will diminish their effectiveness on a short runway. Not a good recipe for safe ops. Hence there must be some minimum landing field length - what I don't know.

[philip]

We get pretty used to fast aircraft at Ardmore. From Mustangs to Lear jets. The beauty of Ardmore is the long approaches possible and ability to come in on long finals from either direction.

I went up to North Shore a few months back for a look-see and did an overfly on 21. To say it's tight is an understatement. It's a similar length to Te Kowhai but seemed a lot shorter due to the topography. You sit a lot higher on final therefore the runway looks a lot shorter. Crossing the 03 numbers, doing downwind checks and getting lined up above the highground and trees to the east ended up me way too high even for a go-round. Landing would require a considerable re-think of my visual cues due to be spoilt by Te Kowhai, Ardmore, Whitianga, my usual haunts. And thats in a microlight!

Tricky little place I'm looking forward to having a proper go at.

[Dave Homewood]

Feb 2, 2009 20:19:00 GMT 12 haughtney1 said:

I think its very important that we respect Daves' position on uninformed speculation....

Thanks. As I mentioned, my statement was not directed specifically at you, but was a general notice to all. What people don't realise is that when they post speculation which may be way off the mark, they're often posting under an assumed identity and have the benefit of their anonimity, whereas I as forum administrator am usually the one who hears all about it later via email from unhappy people who are being talked about and seeing misinformation posted about them; and I then have to make amends and sometimes edit others' posts to smooth things over whilst the rest of the forum is blissfully unaware, and most who read the wrong info go on thinking it's right!

Remember that a simple "I think such and such has happened" type post, or worse "I heard that such and such did this..." could be conceived by others (those actually involved in the incident) as breaching Rule 1 of the forum rules which says, "If you won't say what you are posting to someone's face, or put it in a letter to them, don't post it here. We don't want gossip, libel or slander." Making assumptions and posting them in public can sometimes harm reputations and relationships. Think before you post, please. Check facts, or keep it off the forum.

Now, to make this clear - I am talking about when you are mentioning specific cases that are still under investigation, like a crash. I am not saying that this applies to the general discussion of historical events where the causes and findings have been released by experts, or when making generalisations of trends (as Haughtney1 was saying). These of course can be voiced, feel free to do that so long as it is not used to speculate on a recent uninvestigated event.

I hope I have written the above clearly enough. Sorry that these restrictions have to be there, I know it's human nature to natter and theorise, etc, but in doing so there are consequences, and they may not be directed at you, it'll be me that gets it in the neck for not stopping your theories (even if I haven't got a clue what went on and what you're on about...). It's not an easy life keeping the peace on a forum.