HEON Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 New 19 rego Morgan Sierra 100 crashed on what was beleaved to be its first flight at Warwick this afternoon. The aircraft was completely destroyed by the crash and fire. The pilot suffered major burns to nearly all of body except the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest burbles1 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Dreadful news. My thoughts are with the pilot and family. http://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/story/2011/03/11/pilotrsquos-miracle-escapebreaking-a-pilot-has/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 wow. thats really sad news. Am pleased to hear that the pilot is still alive, even though he suffered major burns. Hopefully he recovers well. Thoughts to his family! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spin Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Awful news, my thoughts are with the pilot and his family. A post accident fire is a scary prospect - where does the Sierra carry its fuel, wings or fuselage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I just saw WINs coverage of that accident, looks like the pilot was a lucky man to be alive. the plane is a total write-off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 My thoughts are with the pilot and his family... What a tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spin Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Thanks Ignition, not an uncommon configuration but still a worry. Sadly if the burns are as serious as reported, surviving the accident itself isn't really the issue. Lets hope it isn't as serious as all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgmwa Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Sad news. Hope he recovers well. Fire on impact is probably every pilot's biggest worry. Some fuel tank locations may be better than others, but I don't think there's any good place in a crash. rgmwa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Thats not good at all.Also my thoughts are with the Pilot and his Family. Burns are very painful and a long recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEON Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 What caused the crash at this time unknown. Marks on ground seem to indercate LH wing then engine/prop hit. Fire very soon after this impact. As engine seems reversed in wreck possibly engine pushed into fuel tank...then fire? Although pilot not healthy, after seeing the remains he is still very lucky, although burns of that extent will require a lot of time and luck to fully recover. Makes one think about what can happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I had a close look @ the WIN footage again the rudder is broken off the plane and the CFI said the plane took a hard left turn after take off. The only other damage you can really see is the left wing tip is crumpled and the plane has heavily impacted the nose. I am guessing the rudder is the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Burns are a terrible injury. I really hope the treatment is effective. Sometimes takes a while. Hope the pilot and family are supported well during this traumatic time. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Here's hoping the pilot is in good hands. The treatment of burns these days, although still tricky, is at a faily advance stage. He could also have suffered other injuries from the crash itself. From what I've read in above posts, if the rudder is involved, it could be a cable coming off a pulley somewhere, or even detatching at some point. A through post-build pre-flight inspection by a suitably qualified inspector is usually carried out to look for this type of shortcoming. I know hindsight is 20/20, but fuel is always better off in the wings IMOP. I'm hoping the pilot can get through this to fly again...................................................................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEON Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share Posted March 12, 2011 As the accident was being filmed by (I think) the son, and was witnessed by a CFI, the cause is likely to come out in due course even though there was not much left to inspect of the aircraft. Personally I got a flight in one at Taree and was very impressed. The one I was in handled very well, as well as going like the clappers with a Jab 6. Same engine in the one that crashed but witness has stated UNLIKELY engine problem. You do not need to be bright to think of controls or pilot being the cause. Lets hope the current spike in accidents stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I was in Taree discussing the options for my Sierra 100 with Garry last Friday when he received a call around lunch time from the pilot regarding the maiden flight. He commented to me after the call that he was concerned about the pilots knowledge/experience/attitude and felt he should have had someone with test flight experience conduct the first flight. I spoke to Garry yesterday and he believes that after takeoff the pilot stalled the aircraft. The facts should be revealed in the full accident report. With the nose down attitude of the S100 the actual attitude of the A/C in the climb at 80kts is much less than many other aircraft. I noticed this again on Friday in the climb, with the ASI on 80kts & VSI at just over 1000fpm up the nose just didn't seem that high. Perhaps this was a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coltri Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 If you have a look at the Morgan Sierra crash pic it survived the crash very well, it was the fire that did the most damage, the pilot was able to exit the a/c with severe burns but no broken bones because the strong fuselage remained intact. Regarding the fire, not every a/c crash results in a fire no matter where the fuel tank is, everything has to be against you for fuel to ignite, temperature, humidity, spark, vapour so I am not put off & will continue with my Cheetah. http://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/s...g-a-pilot-has/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I fully agree with you coltri. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Looks like it Came to bits just like any other aircraft would. Ive never been a fan of pilots sharing the cockpit with fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AV8A Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I guess the next step is to learn from it and and take steps to avoid it happening again. I beleive the main tank is 100L? Not knowing the size limitations - would a foam fuel cell (ie such as those used in drag cars etc) of diminished capacity be a suitable alternative (80L)? Also can it be sheeted out so that the current fuel cell isnt in the cockpit per se? (assuming it isnt already). You always add wing tanks for extra range. Would these work? [ATTACH]13361.vB[/ATTACH][ATTACH]13362.vB[/ATTACH] http://www.gmpracingproducts.com.au/fuel-cells/fuel-cells-bladders-fill-plates.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Austers had one tank in front of you and often another underneath. Two glasses of fuel is enough to blow your house up if it is mixed with air. Car racing systems would have to be better than hollow tanks. I think that if you crash any aeroplane significantly deforming it, and it DOESN'T burn, you are lucky. You have electricity, hot motors, fuel lines all ready to go.. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 In the DHc-2 beaver the main tanks are right under the passenger floor. I'm sure all the tourists taking daily senic rides on the reef, don't realize they are sitting on shixxxxx of fresh avgas. That said, those same tanks in the Beaver are very protected, buried deep in the structure, in approx the middle of the aircraft. Any significent crash in anything, gives you the chance of having leaking fuel. It is simply real bad luck if an ignition source manages to ignite it. There are so many things present that can do it like severed electrical wires, metal to metal sparks etc etc. I have had fuel dripping on me after a minor UL crash, and nothing gets you moving quicker I can tell you ...you get out of there yesterday !! I have also been literally covered in avgas after a fatal Cessna 182 crash. The aircraft was virtually distroyed , and it should have went woof...but it didn't. Sheer luck ..or lack thereoff. I would suggest however that putting a large quantity of fuel in close proximity to the occupants is probabily not the best of ideas, and I think there is a good case for it being in the wings. Maybe Garry could give some thought to offering an in-wing option for fuel in the future. This would then make a great design, even better................Maj.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AV8A Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The "Fuel Safe" is FIA approved and made from high impact rubber and also has a fuel bladder. The Jazz fuel cell a "seamless cross-linked polyethylene outer shell" - which is proberly more forgiving than an alloy tank in an accident. Both tanks have "Fuel Foam" which - and I quote "Stops sloshing, great for holding down pumps, hoses or pickups. Can be cut down to fit. important purpose or function of Fuel Cell foam is to stop a flame front from advancing, therefore helping to eliminate the possibility of an explosion. When a racing car changes direction quickly, fuel foam helps reduce surge or fuel "slosh" inside the fuel cell, creating a baffling affect. Upon receiving a sudden impact, the fuel foam inside the fuel cell helps dissipate and absorb a great amount of energy of the impact, thus reducing the risk of fuel cell rupture. The fuel foam will expand upon contact with fuel. To properly function, the fuel cell should have no more than 75% of the area filled with fuel foam. Foam should be changed every couple of years as additives in most fuels will cause the fuel foam to deteriorate over time. Check your fuel filters and other system components for signs of deterioration." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 In-wing fuel tanks are already an option. That creates problems with fuel gauges and flow, but if that's what you want, you got it. Come on guys. The engine came through the firewall. Backwards. The pilot is always going to have a crapload of drama when that happens. He got himself out (and put himself out). As good a result as could be expected. I'm happy to continue flying with the fuel over my feet. It just makes me a bit more careful. If I screw up, maybe a bit more dead. C'est la mort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AV8A Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Maybe Garry could give some thought to offering an in-wing option for fuel in the future. This would then make a great design, even better................Maj.. I beleive he already does, at the very least others are doing it themselves. But I beleive you still need the main tank to act as a sump tank. Thats why I am thinking fuel cell might be more appropriate - if it can fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Fire is just a reality of any crash, in any vehicle powered by a combustion engine. There are tonns of ways of 'minimizing' the risk as Av8 has pointed out, but for mine, if the fuel is in the cockpit instead of outboard etc, then i reckon those valuable seconds it could take the tanks to ignite, and that fire to travel to the cockpit, would be lost if the cockpit (and occupants) were doused in fuel. Its all about seconds..sometimes milliseconds.. Didn't they change the chemistry of jet fuel some time ago to a compound that resisted fire for a very small amount longer than previously?..from memory (discovery channel) it was all about giving people more time (in seconds) to evacuate.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now