NTSB Galveston Hurricane-Spitfire Accident report

[Bluedharma]

It has almost been about a year now. I just read the NTSB report.
I am glad both pilots got out ok... I had not heard of brakes fading... Is that common on Hurricanes?

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20080505X00589&ntsbno=DFW08LA118A&akey=1

DFW08LA118A
On April 26, 2008, about 1430 central daylight time, a 1944 Vickers Spitfire airplane, N308WK, collided with a 1941 Canadian Car and Foundry Hurricane airplane, N96RW during landing roll-out on the runway at the Scholes International Airport, (GLS), Galveston, Texas. Both airplanes were substantially damaged, and neither pilot was injured by the collision. The Spitfire was owned and operated by a private individual and the Hurricane was operated by the Texas Aviation Hall of Fame museum, Galveston, Texas.

Both aircraft had participated in an aerial demonstration, with several other aircraft. The Spitfire pilot reported that at the conclusion of the demonstration and with the aircraft in-line for landing; the spacing (between airplanes) "seemed normal as per-standard airshow practice". He reported that as the lead airplane turned onto final approach, the lead pilot radioed, "Everyone is going all the way to the end" [of the runway], and with other airplanes landing behind you, that was "standard airshow practice". The Spitfire pilot added that it was also "normal airshow practice" to land on the same side of the runway that you took off from. The pilot reported that since he expected the Hurricane to exit the runway at the end, he was only applying light braking during the landing roll-out. The Spitfire pilot also reported that during a 3-point landing in the Spitfire; forward visibility is restricted, and without a radio call, was not aware that the Hurricane pilot was having a problem.

The Hurricane pilot reported that after landing and while attempting to roll the length of the runway "at a brisk tax speed, the right brake failed to respond" and the airplane ground looped to the left. He added that after the airplane stopped, the right brake still would not work, and he was struck from behind (by the Spitfire), while attempting to return to the right side of the runway.

The airboss for the event reported that he cleared the airplanes to start their landing sequence. He added that he was able to watch the airplanes as they touched down, but was not able to see their rollout due to parked aircraft in front of his position. He further added that he had multiple aircraft in the air, and he was keeping an eye on spacing. The airboss was not aware of a problem until a marshaller notified him.

The museum's director of maintenance reported that the Hurricane was equipped with the original style pneumatic brake system and on April 28, 2008 the brakes on the Hurricane were examined. The examination revealed that the airplane's brake system was still holding pressure. The airplane was then jacked and both wheels turned freely, the brakes were activated together and then separately; no problem with the brakes were noted. The maintenance director added that the Hurricane’s brakes were meant for stopping, and that heavy application of the brakes could result in the brakes getting "hot and fading away".

At 1452, the automated weather observing system at Scholes International Airport (GLS), reported wind variable at 4 knots, 10 miles visibility, a clear sky, temperature 81-degrees Fahrenheit, dew point 59-degrees Fahrenheit, and an altimeter setting of 29.97 inches of Mercury.

[Jack Cook]

You left out the most important part... the cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The Hurricane pilot's failure to maintain directional control during roll-out.

[Bluedharma]

What about the brake fading? "That heavy application of the brakes could result in the brakes getting "hot and fading away". ???
The first part didn't say the Hurricane was riding the brakes hard...Just that it failed. Is brake failure common on Hurricanes?

[Jack Cook]

The Hurricane pilot reported that after landing and while attempting to roll the length of the runway "at a brisk tax speed, the right brake failed to respond" and the airplane ground looped to the left.

This is the part that confuses me. If you're rolling the lenght of the runway, why would you be using the brakes??
Over to the experts.........................

[RyanShort1]

The Hurricane pilot reported that after landing and while attempting to roll the length of the runway "at a brisk tax speed, the right brake failed to respond" and the airplane ground looped to the left.

This is the part that confuses me. If you're rolling the lenght of the runway, why would you be using the brakes??
Over to the experts.........................

From my limited tailwheel experience that could be read to indicate that something was causing the aircraft to swerve to the left (for instance a condition where your rudder was losing effectiveness and you had a crosswind) and there was an attempt to use the brake to augment your rudder. I can TOTALLY see that possibly happening in something like the slab-sided L-5 that I fly on occasion. I've had a few times out where the wind was pushing against my tail so strongly that I could not turn one direction except by using the brakes and extra power on the engine.
Just to be clear, though, I wasn't in the plane and don't know what the conditions were.

Ryan

Last edited by RyanShort1 on Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[JDK]

Mod Post: Discussion leading up to the accident in this thread:
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... p?p=281010
Split to avoid confusion due to people mis-reading an old seven page thread reappearing on the front page.

[JDK]

Note the Hurricane has the original pneumatic braking system. Yes, that system (like on other British types) is prone to fading as they get hot with 'heavy' use in general. Remember the aircraft were designed to use on all grass round (into wind) airfields, NOT tarmac, and the brakes were not expected to get as heavy use as they do in modern hard-runway ops.

IIRC, 'fade' means diminished / less-effective brakes, not outright failure - might sound like splitting hairs, may be an issue here.

Just my understanding.

[RickH]

Ryan, i agree that braking is sometimes necessary for directional control in windy appplications, but not in this case.

AWOS reported: At 1452, the automated weather observing system at Scholes International Airport (GLS), reported wind variable at 4 knots, 10 miles visibility, a clear sky, temperature 81-degrees Fahrenheit, dew point 59-degrees Fahrenheit, and an altimeter setting of 29.97 inches of Mercury.

[RyanShort1]

Ryan, i agree that braking is sometimes necessary for directional control in windy appplications, but not in this case.

AWOS reported: At 1452, the automated weather observing system at Scholes International Airport (GLS), reported wind variable at 4 knots, 10 miles visibility, a clear sky, temperature 81-degrees Fahrenheit, dew point 59-degrees Fahrenheit, and an altimeter setting of 29.97 inches of Mercury.

No dispute there!

Ryan

[Forgotten Field]

Jerry Beck, his airplane, the Spitfire and Hurricane. By losses alone, I think it's time to stop dual landings/ close coupled landings. I know there are hack times, fuel bingo times, loitering times, and pilot needs to consider. But a good ops guy should be able to figure all that out and prevent airplanes from having to crash together on an otherwise normal landing. Maybe I am looking at this in a too-simplistic manner- if I am, somebody please tell me what I am not seeing.

Ryan, I know what you are saying about the L-5 and barn door sides. But, personally, since I am operating one of 72 flying L-5's left in the world, I can avoid problems by not flying easier than solving them when they get "sticky" to fix.

If this goes the normal way, there probably is going to be a lot of blame thrown around about this. I don't think there is any blame to apportion here. It happened, there are (what I see) easy things to do to prevent this from happening again, and it's a shame that all parties involved (insurance companies included) are spending money fixing broken planes instead of burning 100LL.

I wish the best for the owners/operators of both airplanes and that they are flying again real soon.

[RyanShort1]

Ryan, I know what you are saying about the L-5 and barn door sides. But, personally, since I am operating one of 72 flying L-5's left in the world, I can avoid problems by not flying easier than solving them when they get "sticky" to fix.

Good point. Sometimes though you get "stuck" in a situation !

Ryan

[JDK]

Interesting to note that another Hurricane (in the UK) recently ended up on its nose due to some kind of brake problem on landing...

[mlenoch]

Forgotten wrote:

Jerry Beck, his airplane, the Spitfire and Hurricane. By losses alone, I think it's time to stop dual landings/ close coupled landings. I know there are hack times, fuel bingo times, loitering times, and pilot needs to consider. But a good ops guy should be able to figure all that out and prevent airplanes from having to crash together on an otherwise normal landing. Maybe I am looking at this in a too-simplistic manner- if I am, somebody please tell me what I am not seeing.

Just to be clear, the landing incidents cited above were not 'dual landings'. These were individual landings on the same runway. As you may recall, the Museum folks there will no longer permit landings on a runway when another aircraft is occupying it. Per their new museum policy, they will land one aircraft at a time, once it leaves the runway, the following aircraft will land. This is their museum's policy for their aircraft.
FYI,
VL

[astixjr]

Does the NTSB website offer access to the all the investigative reports and interviews for accidents like this? What I've been able to read on this thread and by following the link is just a summary of the findings including probable cause and contributing factors. Based on what I have read about this incident in the past, I'm having a problem with part of the NTSB's conclusion. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a dog in this fight. I feel sorry for everyone involved. I would just like to see more of the raw data the NTSB collected so that I can understand how they arrived at their conclusion.

[Forgotten Field]

Vlado,
Thanks for the information. My question is, what is the difference between dual landings and individual landings on the same runway? Am I correct in saying that a dual landing is a formation landing? I'm not trying to be wise-a##- I just don't know.