Nice picture of a Pup...
Plane crash blamed on in-flight SELFIES
The USA's National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB's) investigation into a 2014 light plane crash has come to the conclusion that the pilot may well have been distracted by selfie-taking passengers. The crash killed two people last May when a Cessna 150 came to grief in Colorado after “... the pilot experienced spatial …
COMMENTS
-
-
-
Friday 6th February 2015 09:09 GMT Alister
Cheers, the tail is one of the few obvious differences between the Camel and the Pup, on a Camel the elevator surfaces are larger than the horizontal stabilizer, the other way round on the Pup.
The length of the fuselage between the cockpit and tail is shorter on the Camel as well, but it's hard to spot without a side-by-side comparison.
-
-
-
Friday 6th February 2015 11:32 GMT Otto is a bear.
And for non-aviators
Our brave correspondents are referring to the Sopwith Camel and Pup aircraft built by the British in WW1 and used by many other countries including the US.
Both have the advantage that taking selfies whilst flying one would not be possible, although double joined pilots might have a chance.
-
-
Friday 6th February 2015 14:15 GMT Peter2
Re: And for non-aviators
Personally, I tend to identify a camel by the dihedral (and shape) of the lower wing, but I guess identifying the tailplane works. :)
It is a lovely picture though. Props to whomever found it. Hands up who knew that when Sopwith Aviation was forced out of business Tommy Sopwith sold the remaining assets to his test pilot, Mr Hawker who then went on to build aircraft such as the Hawker Hurricane, of WW2 fame?
"If I recall correctly, Sopwith Camel's also helped sink the Bismark as they flew too slow"
That was the swordfish, and it's a largely true story. The Germans expected that we'd be using high speed monoplanes instead of low speed biplanes and had their sights calibrated and crews trained to shoot at high performance aircraft. When obsolete biplanes came crawling by with an attack speed around a quarter of what was expected they were using way too much deflection to hit the aircraft and tended to miss quite badly.
-
Friday 6th February 2015 15:47 GMT Richard Taylor 2
Re: And for non-aviators
Depends what you mean by largely true. Surely German intelligence was such that they knew exactly what aircraft were being flown off the Arc Royal? What was reported however is that the aircraft attacking the Bismark flew so low that it is likely weapons could not be depressed sufficiently at their effective ranges.
-
-
Friday 6th February 2015 14:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: And for non-aviators
> If I recall correctly, Sopwith Camel's also helped sink the Bismark as they flew too slow for the Bismark's guns to hit.
That would be the Fairey Swordfish; an antiquated torpedo bomber that the Bismarck's guns could very much hit.
The only armour between them and the Bismarck was the engine and the pilot's magnificently waxed moustaches.
-
Saturday 7th February 2015 12:46 GMT WolfFan
Re: And for non-aviators
Slight correction (and IT content)
The 105mm anti-aircraft guns on Bismarck were aimed by a very sophisticated fire-control computer, the best in existence at the time. Someone set as the lower limit an airspeed of 150 knots. As the maximum speed of a Swordfish was 120 knots, guns aimed by the fire-control system could not hit a Swordfish except by accident. As the fire-control computer was a mechanical system, the defaults could not be reset in the field. This problem was fixed on the version fitted to Tirpitz, which was never attacked by Swordfish.
The 37mm and 20mm guns were aimed by eye. They could, and did, hit Swordfish.
The Swordfish was not antiquated. It was a mid-1930s aircraft, built to specifications issued by the Admiralty. (It is possible that the Admiralty was antiquated. And still is.) Numerous other biplanes flew combat operations in the Second World War, including Gloster Gladiator and Sea Gladiator (British) and Polikarpov I-15 (Russian) and assorted Fiat fighters (the CR42 was still in service until 1948, in Spain) and some Japanese machines. The Italian biplanes were flown by madmen. On one occasion, a CR42 intercepted a British bomber over Turin, had its guns jam during the attack, and then rammed the bomber.
And waxed moustaches was an RAF thing. Swordfish were Royal Navy. They had cutlasses instead.
-
-
Saturday 7th February 2015 06:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: And for non-aviators
The Sopwith Pup though does have a prime spot in naval aviation history; Squadron Commander EH Dunning landed his Pup on HMS Furious in Scapa Flow, the first aircraft to land on a moving ship in August 1917 (the first on a stationary ship was in 1911). He died 5 days later attempting a repeat performance.
Lovely shot of a fine aircraft.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 6th February 2015 09:23 GMT Cliff
Re: So wait
Does sound a little speculative, although flashing during rotation at night could be very nasty. You may have no/reduced real horizon in the dark to trust, so rely on instruments. That means night vision, destroyed by bright flashes. The difference between climb and stall is a few degrees, and if you're too low to recover that stall you become just a lump of meat-filled metal falling from the sky. Nasty.
-
Friday 6th February 2015 09:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So wait
So there's no evidence that the pilot or any of the passengers were using cell phones but this is their conclusion? Bold.
No, but if you read the report they did have recordings from the GoPro camera of several flights immediately preceding this one, and in each of them the pilot was recorded taking selfies and/or pissing about with his phone's keyboard, during taxi and when manoeuvring at low altitude. It isn't that big a stretch to conclude that if he did it on four occasions when there was a recording, then it's pretty likely that he was doing it on the next (and final) flight - particularly as the cause of the accident was put down to loss of spatial awareness.
-
Friday 6th February 2015 11:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So wait
"It isn't that big a stretch to conclude that if he did it on four occasions when there was a recording, then it's pretty likely that he was doing it on the next (and final) flight"
That's my point though. I understand "pretty likely" but the report said in no uncertain terms that he WAS distracted by his cell phone. Nothing "pretty likely" about it.
-
Friday 6th February 2015 11:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So wait
I understand "pretty likely" but the report said in no uncertain terms that he WAS distracted by his cell phone. Nothing "pretty likely" about it.
The report doesn't say he was distracted. It cites "Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s distraction due to his cell phone use while maneuvering at low-altitude." as a probable cause.
-
Friday 6th February 2015 12:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So wait
>>The report doesn't say he was distracted. It cites "Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s distraction due to his cell phone use while maneuvering at low-altitude." as a probable cause.
The article says this sentence is part of the concluding statement, not a probable cause.
If you've read the NTSB's report and this is a misrepresentation, it might be worth contacting the author of the article to sort things out.
-
Friday 6th February 2015 16:13 GMT Eddy Ito
Re: So wait
If someone wants to read it, here is the NTSB report, it's pretty brief and there is a link on that page to the full narrative. The report also mentions his logbook did not show he was current for night instrument flight with passengers.
-
Friday 6th February 2015 18:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So wait
Quote from the NTSB report:
>>Based on the evidence of cell phone use during low-altitude maneuvering, including the flight immediately before the accident flight, it is likely that cell phone use during the accident flight distracted the pilot and contributed to the development of spatial disorientation and subsequent loss of control.
Looks like El Reg took some liberties.
-
-
Friday 6th February 2015 19:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So wait
The article says this sentence is part of the concluding statement, not a probable cause.
If you've read the NTSB's report and this is a misrepresentation, it might be worth contacting the author of the article to sort things out.
Or I could just read what the NTSB has published, rather than an article summarising it.
-
-
-
Sunday 8th February 2015 00:02 GMT cordwainer 1
Re: So wait
No as quoted, the body of the NTSB report says: “it is likely that cell phone use during the accident flight distracted the pilot and contributed to the development of spatial disorientation and subsequent loss of control.”
The report does not present this as a certainty, nor does it state this caused the accident. It is merely noted as a contributing factor.
NTSB reports are really very thorough - if you read the entire report, you can see in detail why they reached the conclusion it was likely and a contributing factor, though not necessarily causative.
Whatever the reason(s), the pilot's spacial disorientation certainly did occur, as did the loss of control and stall.
-
Sunday 8th February 2015 00:17 GMT Vic
Re: So wait
as did the loss of control and stall.
From the sound of it, he didn't just have a bit of a stall - the rate of descent implies an uncontrolled spin. Which, given the fact that he appeared to be part-way through a climbing turn when it happened is somewhat understandable.
I was reading some FAA materials on spinning[1] a few weeks back - the upshot of one report was that, if you spin at 1200ft or less, it doesn't matter who you are; you're going to crash.
Vic.
[1] I was about to go on my first spin lesson. It was one of the most exciting things I've ever done :-)
-
-
-
-
Friday 6th February 2015 09:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Death by misadventure then.
Media aware? What does that mean, exactly? I would have thought that media aware would also include the ability to know when using 'new media' is a bad idea like when, say, flying.
Personally, I think that the new generation are not so media aware or savvy - blatant take up and posting self pics on every sodding digital canvas isn't being media aware.
More like media idiocy. But that isn't catchy. How about mediots? Mediatedia? Mools?
-
-
Friday 6th February 2015 10:51 GMT imanidiot
Re: Death by misadventure then.
One of my glider instructors has had a tale like this for a while now. He's had atleast 2 students so addicted to their cellphones they would actually "drop the stick" on final to answer incoming messages! Even the argument: "Wait until you're not busy keeping us both alive" wasn't enough to persuade them...
I fear today's youth. And I fear the day they will have to take care of me in my old day...
-
Friday 6th February 2015 11:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Death by misadventure then.
Cellphone addiction is only going to get worse.
soon there will be branches of CPA springing up all over the place. The only proviso is that meetings are held inside Faraday cages.
If I was that glider Instructor I'd have reported the students and had their license revoked. Using a phone while driving is bad enough but while flying an aircraft with no Autopilot is just stupid.
-
Friday 6th February 2015 13:16 GMT ravenviz
Re: Death by misadventure then.
Maybe a Darwin Award award is due?
-
Friday 6th February 2015 13:37 GMT Ilmarinen
Re: Death by misadventure then.
"had their license revoked"
I think the clue is in the instructor bit - i.e. they were ab initio.
Don't know where this story relates to, but in the UK there has been no mandatory glider licence, it's all delegated to the British Gliding Association and managed very safely under their rules (although the EU pondlife scum bureaucrats at EASA are now in the process of imposing licences on their unwilling victims)
-
Friday 6th February 2015 18:20 GMT Chris G
Re: Death by misadventure then.
So a truly 'Smart' phone in the (near) future will be one that flashes DARWIN on the screen before shutting down due to moronic use.
Of course nobody will buy it though.
Here on Ibiza which is rated as the Hedonism (read 'self centred twats') capital of Europe I would guess up to 50% of drivers are on their phone when I drive to work, driving home in the evening usually sees at least one moron driving at 30-40KPH on what passes for our motorway with a phone on their lap or the passenger seat and trying to tap out a message. They get very annoyed at the interruption when I overtake with the horn going.
Don't get me wrong, I don't cars if they kill themselves but draw the line at them putting myself and others at risk.
3 points on their licence and a 300€ fine is not enough to stop them but Darwin is.
-
Friday 6th February 2015 19:10 GMT Cynic_999
Re: Death by misadventure then.
"If I was that glider Instructor I'd have reported the students and had their license revoked. Using a phone while driving is bad enough but while flying an aircraft with no Autopilot is just stupid."
Most phases of flight require less attention than driving a car, and there is no significant risk for a pilot to take or make a phone call. NOT, however during the approach/landing phase of flight, where concentration (and both hands) are most certainly required. Student pilots don't have a licence, BTW.
-
-
-
-
-