stuart3009
Airman
- 63
- Sep 9, 2019
can anyone translate or put into non aviation english a crash card a1180 as ive been contacted by a relative whos grandfather was killed during a taxi accident a raf culmhead and i would like to know what it says
crash card a1180
- Thread starter stuart3009
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GregP
Major
Form a1180 is and aircraft accident record card. What crash are you investigating? Date, type of aircraft, civil registration or military number? I am assuming it is British.
buffnut453
Captain
If you can post an image of the card, we can probably translate the alphabetti-spaghetti for you.
- Thread starter
- #4
stuart3009
Airman
- 63
- Sep 9, 2019
Attachments
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
First aircraft landed ok but taxied very slowly up the runway instead of getting out of the way of other traffic like he should have.
Second aircraft landed too far down the runway and the prop chewed up the back of the roadblock. The second aircrafts propeller also chewed up the cockpit and killed the pilot.
Second aircraft landed too far down the runway and the prop chewed up the back of the roadblock. The second aircrafts propeller also chewed up the cockpit and killed the pilot.
- Thread starter
- #6
stuart3009
Airman
- 63
- Sep 9, 2019
Any other info on the spaghetti writing that u can translate
buffnut453
Captain
At the top of the card:
"Spitfire 822 collided with 796 on landing." Not sure what the word on the next line says.
"Pilot showed insufficient care in [rotating????] - collided with other a/c [aircraft] when ldg [landing] with 10/15mph tail wind. Failed to make sure that part of runway clear."
More to follow shortly once I've re-adjusted my eyes.
"Spitfire 822 collided with 796 on landing." Not sure what the word on the next line says.
"Pilot showed insufficient care in [rotating????] - collided with other a/c [aircraft] when ldg [landing] with 10/15mph tail wind. Failed to make sure that part of runway clear."
More to follow shortly once I've re-adjusted my eyes.
buffnut453
Captain
Ok...further down the card:
"796 after landing went to centre of runway & taxied slowly 5mph instead of clearing runway."
"Landed too far up runway on stbd [starboard] side & then ran towards centre, overtaking 796, striking his tail with wing causing a/c [aircraft] to slew together. Prop[eller] of 882 [NOTE: serial is different from entry at top of card] slashed thru cockpit of 796 killing pilot. OC [Officer Commanding] concurs. AOC [Air Officer Commanding] concurs. AOC-C [not sure what that means]. Both pilots contributed to accident. No discip[linary] action."
"796 after landing went to centre of runway & taxied slowly 5mph instead of clearing runway."
"Landed too far up runway on stbd [starboard] side & then ran towards centre, overtaking 796, striking his tail with wing causing a/c [aircraft] to slew together. Prop[eller] of 882 [NOTE: serial is different from entry at top of card] slashed thru cockpit of 796 killing pilot. OC [Officer Commanding] concurs. AOC [Air Officer Commanding] concurs. AOC-C [not sure what that means]. Both pilots contributed to accident. No discip[linary] action."
buffnut453
Captain
To summarize the above transliterations, Spitfire 796 (those will be the last 3 digits of the serial number) landed first but did not clear the active runway in an expeditious manner. The second Spitfire, either 822 or 882, landed further along the runway than it should have, and landed on the right hand side of the runway.
After landing, 822/882 veered left towards the centre of the runway. As its landing speed was greater than the speed at which 796 was taxying, 822/882 ran into the back of 796. The wing (probably the port, or left, wing) of 822/882 hit the tail of 796 causing the two aircraft to turn into each other, with the propeller of 822/882 slashing into the cockpit of 796, killing the pilot.
The tail-down landing attitude of 822/882, coupled with the long nose of the Spitfire, would make it very hard for the pilot to see straight ahead. That said, he should have kept straight on his landing run instead of veering to the centre. In a similar vein, the pilot of 796 should have kept his speed up on the runway and exited at the earliest opportunity.
Hope this helps put the Accident Card into non-aviation speak.
After landing, 822/882 veered left towards the centre of the runway. As its landing speed was greater than the speed at which 796 was taxying, 822/882 ran into the back of 796. The wing (probably the port, or left, wing) of 822/882 hit the tail of 796 causing the two aircraft to turn into each other, with the propeller of 822/882 slashing into the cockpit of 796, killing the pilot.
The tail-down landing attitude of 822/882, coupled with the long nose of the Spitfire, would make it very hard for the pilot to see straight ahead. That said, he should have kept straight on his landing run instead of veering to the centre. In a similar vein, the pilot of 796 should have kept his speed up on the runway and exited at the earliest opportunity.
Hope this helps put the Accident Card into non-aviation speak.
Last edited:
AOC-C is shorthand for AOC-in-C = Air Officer Commanding in Charge.
Depending on the RAF command structure in place for the unit in question at the time of the accident, the AOC comments would most likely be at Group Commander eg AOC 11 Group or AOC 12 Group being at 'Air Rank' eg Air Vice Marshal and being the Air Officer Commanding the Group, with final discretion resting with the AOC-in-C of the Command (or his delegate) eg AOC Fighter Command at Air Marshal rank, having the final say.
buffnut453
Captain
DOH...yeah, I should've got AOC-in-C because, like the OC and AOC, he concurs.
I thought AOC-in-C was Air Officer Commanding in Chief, though????
In various original period documents either 'in Charge' or 'in Chief', I am still trying to get a firm handle on why it varies and in what circumstances. I have seen both in original documents, and in this case in giving my reply 'in Charge' stuck in my memory because it was the variant I had most recently seen/read in going through some original period paperwork.
