In the updated video one can get an idea of the airport
It’s several years since I was there, but my recollection is that there were ‘no lingering’ signs at the end of the road. It didn’t seem a bad compromise at the time. I also recollect a downsloping runway so a heavily loaded aircraft should be able to take off, if not necessarily to land safely. I will leave it to people who know the airfield better than myself to make more informed comments, but I wouldn’t jump to criticise anybody. There are lots of airfields with roads/car-parks/houses near the thresholds.
It was an airfield I hoped to visit as the glider museum is wonderful and the airfield seemed characterful. Whilst I have full sympathy for those killed and injured in the accident, I hope it isn’t closed or restricted.
A very very sad accident and we’ll have to wait for the BFU report for details.
Btw – the airfield is one way for foreigners, landing uphill 24 takeoff downhill 06.
It is worth keeping in mind when answering @Mooney_driver ’s questions that this is the first accident of that nature at this arfield in decades.
Does that airfield require a familiarisation flight and instruction?
No, and why should it?
It appears not to be too straightforward. Can one fly there without a MOU rating?
Yes. The airfield is PPR and when applying you get a briefing.
If so, does that make sense?
That did the trick so far. The last significant accident that might have something to do with the runway slope was in 2005, an aircraft flipped over. No fatalities, I believe.
Similar airfields in France require training. Why not this one?
Because a restriction of that nature is not proportionate to the risk.
It is a credit to the aviation industry that accidents, especially those where innocent bystanders die, lead to thinking about what can be done to avoid them in the future, or mitigate the severity of the outcome.
Unfortunately, what often happens is that restrictions are introduced that either don’t address the issue at all (for example Samedan, the accidents triggering the restrictions were mostly CPLs/ATPLs in light jets, and the restrictions affect mostly light GA) or are disproportionate (currently, non-local pilots are not allowed at the Wasserkuppe).
This is the equivalent of closing a road at a hairpin bend because a speeding driver skidded off into pedestrians.
Fully agree with Cobalt on this. I don’t see a reason why this accident should lead to any restrictions at the airfield in question.
Cobalt wrote:
It is a credit to the aviation industry that accidents, especially those where innocent bystanders die, lead to thinking about what can be done to avoid them in the future, or mitigate the severity of the outcome.
Absolutely and it has to be considered that these questions WILL be asked, not only in an aviation forum but by the regulators and the BFU after such accidents. And not always will you get level headed replies like I got from you. But in any case, it is maybe not a bad idea to think about possible improvements before others tell you to.
MedEwok wrote:
I don’t see a reason why this accident should lead to any restrictions at the airfield in question
Me neither. But it may be worthwile thinking about what can be improved WITHOUT restricting the use of the airfield. E.g. to have a better way of telling pedestrians not to cross the runway axis when there is a plane on the runway. e.t.c.
172driver wrote:
Very sad indeed. But this:MedEwok wrote:
There were 4 adult men on board the C172
is food for thought.
Does this particular C172N have the older style flaps whereby they will only move as long as the pilot is holding the switch in a particular position? I say this because I flew a similar 172M a few times, but this was after I had spent significantly more time with the 172R and S variants. I performed a touch and go in 172M at Dunkeswell once, upon going around I raised the flaps and was concerned about the lethargic rate of climb – I wasn’t overly heavy, the weather wasn’t abnormally hot, ok, winds were light – yet it looked like it was going to be touch and go to clear the fence at the end of the runway. I looked at the flap switch – it was showing the correct position, looked out to the wing to note that the flaps were still down.
The switch to control the flaps in the M variant (some N variants too, I believe) will not the move the flaps to a new position, the flaps will only move as long as you operate the switch hence you had to hold the switch in the required direction until the flap indicator reached the desired position. If you’re more familiar with other (later) models, it’s easy to forget to hold the switch and check the flap position indicator, instead you believe you’ve retracted the flaps but the reality is that you’ve hardly moved them.
Steve6443 wrote:
Does this particular C172N have the older style flaps whereby they will only move as long as the pilot is holding the switch in a particular position?
The pictures in the link in one of the first posts show flaps partially deployed at around 10 degs, so you may have a point. Then again, flaps 10 might also be intentional. My money is on the a/c being overweight. Four adult men in a C172 only works – if at all – with very minimal fuel or if these men are professional jockeys.
D-EFJX was a bog-standard F172N from 1979, which means it had the modern pe-select flap control, but still the old 40 degrees of travel. Standard 160hp O-320. Don’t remember the empty weight, but must have been just under 700kgs. I have flown it quite a bit in 2012-2014, see here for example.
boscomantico wrote:
Don’t remember the empty weight659 kg. MTOW 1043 kg.
