Worcester air crash pilot died after plane took off and hit tree
A plane crash in which a pilot died after taking off solo from a private airfield was likely to have been caused by a low lift-off speed, a report has found.The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) found the crash happened on the pilot's second flight in the aircraft, a modified Piper PA18-150 Super Cub, from Defford Airfield in Worcester last August.In his first flight at the airfield, also known as Croft Farm Airstrip, the pilot had flown with an instructor in the front, investigators said.The plane hit a tree, crashed and caught fire, leaving the 65-year-old man with injuries that were not survivable, the AAIB said.
Investigators said, within two seconds of getting airborne, the plane was in a left turn heading towards obstacles.Witnesses reported seeing the aircraft take a steep nose-up direction, but said it was not able to climb above a tree.The plane appeared to hit the tree and then made a steep descent, nose-first, into the ground, investigators were told.Twigs were found caught in the tail wheel showing the flight path and the height when the plane hit the tree."The investigation considered it likely the relatively low lift-off speed… contributed to the pilot having insufficient aerodynamic control," the report said.The pilot had more than 1,500 hours of experience in non-commercial flying and had regularly flown from Croft Farm, it added. He did not have underlying medical issues.Investigators were unable to find any evidence of pre-accident faults with the plane and the weather had been good, with no low cloud.
Follow BBC Hereford & Worcester on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Worcester foodbank manager hits out at two-child benefit cap
A foodbank manager has criticised the UK's two-child benefit cap and said many families in Worcester are struggling with food Lucas, manager of Worcester Foodbank, spoke out as 11 charities including the national foodbank charity, Trussell, wrote to Chancellor Rachel Reeves urging her to make a commitment in next week's spending review to abolish the said in Worcester "an awful lot of families just haven't got sufficient money" to pay for household Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), which said it was "determined to bring down child poverty", is expected to announce its decision on the cap in autumn. The letter sent by the charities to the chancellor claimed the two-child limit has pulled 37,000 children into poverty since the government took office. 'Cap exacerbates poverty' "The cap was not the right thing to be doing. It hits families unfairly and just causes them more problems with poverty, and particularly food poverty," Mr Lucas continued."We see at ground level and particularly see it in Worcester, a large number of families that are struggling, families that don't have enough income."The two-child benefit cap just exacerbates that and causes more families to be in food poverty and… roughly 40% of the people we feed are children."Mr Lucas said rising food costs had been a key problem and the cost-of-living crisis generally had caused more people to seek BBC has approached the DWP for a response to Mr Lucas's comments. Follow BBC Hereford & Worcester on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
New European
15 hours ago
- New European
Trump's war against the law
The earliest source is the newspaper editor and publisher Horace Greeley's book The American Conflict (1865), which reports Old Hickory's alleged declaration on the basis of a former congressman's recollection. According to Jackson's best biographer, Jon Meacham, the claim was 'historically questionable but philosophically true'. As far as historians can tell, President Andrew Jackson never uttered the threat to the chief justice that is still so frequently attributed to him. In 1832, after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Cherokee nation in Worcester v Georgia, Jackson supposedly said: 'John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.' What Jackson did say to his longtime associate, John Coffee, was: 'The decision of the Supreme Court has felt still-born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate'. All of which matters because the spirit of Jackson is now routinely invoked by the MAGA movement as Donald Trump wages a fast-escalating war with the courts. As far back as 2021, JD Vance said that his advice to his future boss would be to fire all civil servants: 'And when the courts – because you will get taken to court – and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'' More recently, on February 9, the vice president posted on X: 'Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power'. In a podcast released on May 21, he warmed to his theme in conversation with Ross Douthat of the New York Times. 'I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people'. Chief justice John Roberts, Vance continued, was failing in his supervision of the judiciary: 'You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for. That's where we are right now.' The Democratic Party is in a state of aphasic shock, paralysed by the electoral disaster of November 5. Both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republicans, who, with a tiny number of exceptions, are craven in their obedience to Trump. That leaves journalists, a great many of whom continue, valiantly, to speak truth to power; but do so in the face of increasing intimidation and, in some cases, knowing that their proprietors have business exposure outside the media sector that makes them fearful of Trump. So – in practice – the line that stands between the republic and authoritarianism is judicial. At the time of writing, there have been 251 legal challenges to this administration, whose actions have been halted in at least 181 cases. Time and again, Trump and his senior officials have found themselves obstructed by judges from all over the country whose orders have nationwide force. As the solicitor general, D John Sauer, has complained, this means that the government has 'to win everywhere, while the plaintiffs can win anywhere'. Last Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade ruled against the president's tariff regime, finding that 'the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' and that 'any interpretation of IEEPA [the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act] that delegates unlimited tariff authority [to the president] is unconstitutional.' Helpfully reposting photos of the three trade court judges, Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, claimed on May 29 that 'We are living under a judicial tyranny'. A federal appeals court last week granted a suspension of the order, meaning that, for now, Trump can pursue his deranged tariff strategy, pending further legal action. On Truth Social, he posted that he hoped 'the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY.' But will it? On Friday, the highest court in the land gave the administration interim approval to revoke a Biden-era humanitarian programme to grant temporary residency to more than 500,000 migrants facing political turmoil or warfare. This 'humanitarian parole' system is intended to help people from countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba and Haiti. On May 19, the supreme court also gave emergency approval to the government to lift the separate 'Temporary Protected Status' from nearly 350,000 Venezuelan migrants. The case is still subject to appeal. But immigration officials may now proceed with mass deportation – perhaps to the Salvadoran gulag. Yet the president and his allies remain furious with the general response of the judiciary to MAGA's egregious 'remigration' plan. On April 7, the supreme court ruled that the government must give 'constitutionally adequate notice' to individuals before their removal under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act; 12 days later, it intervened again, this time in the middle of the night, to block deportations of Venezuelans from Texas under the same antiquated legislation. The court has also ruled that the administration must 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the 29-year-old migrant who had been living in Maryland for 13 years, sent back to El Salvador after what the government has admitted was an 'administrative error'. In this case, as in many others, Trump and his team have opted for what the US legal scholars Leah Litman and Daniel Deacon refer to aptly as 'legalistic noncompliance': quibbling over what 'facilitate' means precisely, resorting to pedantry and slow-walking action mandated by the courts. With characteristic indifference to the responsibilities of his office – not to mention the oath that he took – the president himself has become an expert in non-expertise, claiming to have insufficient legal knowledge to offer an opinion on even the most basic juristic questions. Asked on NBC's Meet the Press on May 4 whether citizens and non-citizens alike deserved due process, Trump said, 'I don't know. I'm not, I'm not a lawyer.' Pressed by Kristen Welker on the substance of the Fifth Amendment which refers to the rights of the 'person', the president replied: 'It might say that – but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials.' In an interview with the Atlantic to mark the first 100 days of his second presidency, Trump insisted that he would abide by any supreme court ruling – but went on to complain that 'we have some judges that are very, very tough. I believe you could have a 100% case – in other words, a case that's not losable – and you will lose violently. Some of these judges are really unfair.' His language was less restrained in a special Memorial Day post on Truth Social in which he attacked 'JUDGES WHO ARE ON A MISSION TO KEEP MURDERERS, DRUG DEALERS, RAPISTS, GANG MEMBERS, AND RELEASED PRISONERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN OUR COUNTRY SO THEY CAN ROB, MURDER AND RAPE AGAIN – ALL PROTECTED BY THESE USA HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY'. Which shows that this is a temperamental as well as a constitutional clash. Trump demands instant gratification; the courts exist to deliberate. This incompatibility is now becoming perilous for the republic. Miller, meanwhile, has said that the administration is 'actively looking' at suspending habeas corpus for migrants – the individual's fundamental legal right to challenge his or her detention. In this context, it is worth noting that Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, revealed in a senate committee hearing on May 20 that she completely misunderstood this most basic legal doctrine, defining it as 'a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.' Even more revealing was what Miller went on to say: 'Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.' In other words, the government will abide by judges' decisions – as long as they do what the administration wants. Suggested Reading Why do they hate us so much? Jay Elwes In Federalist No 78 (1788), Alexander Hamilton, writing as 'Publius', expressed fears that have rarely seemed more pertinent. The judiciary, he said, was by far the weakest of the three supposedly co-equal branches of government (the other two being the executive and the legislature); having 'no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment'. What were once abstract issues for constitutionalists to debate in the lecture hall are now all too practical and menacing. To start with, Mike Johnson, the House speaker, threatened in March to use the congressional 'power of funding' to 'eliminate an entire district court'. Founded in 2019, the Article III Project (A3P) mobilises thousands of phone calls, emails and social media messages to members of Congress to back Trump against the judiciary and is supporting bills introduced by senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and representative Darrell Issa of California to stop federal district judges from issuing nationwide court orders. More alarming is the surge in outright intimidation of the judiciary. Since Trump's return, unexplained pizza deliveries have been made to federal judges and their families – a way of telling them that their enemies know where they live. Deplorably, many have been made under the name of Daniel Anderl, the son of a federal judge who was murdered in 2020 while protecting his parents from a furious litigant. Judges considered hostile to Trump have also been 'swatted', where a hoax call is made to summon a SWAT team to a particular address – in the hope that heavily armed police officers, following procedure, will inadvertently traumatise whoever is at the location in question. On April 25, Hannah Dugan, a Wisconsin circuit court judge, was arrested and has now been indicted for allegedly assisting an undocumented immigrant in evading arrest. On Friday, 138 former judges filed a legal argument warning that Dugan's indictment 'threatens to undermine centuries of precedent on judicial immunity, crucial for an effective judiciary.' Pam Bondi, the attorney general, takes a different view. 'The [judges] are deranged is all I can think of,' she said on the day of Dugan's arrest. I think some of these judges think that they are beyond and above the law. They are not, and we are sending a very strong message today. If you are harbouring a fugitive, we will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you.' Most shocking of all are the formal discussions among senior judges, revealed by the Wall Street Journal, about forming their own armed security force. At present, the Supreme Court is protected by a special police service which it also oversees; other courts, in contrast, deploy US marshals. Notionally, these officers have a statutory duty to follow the judiciary's instructions. In practice, they work for the Department of Justice, and therefore for Bondi. What, in practice, would happen if the Trump administration flagrantly defied the Supreme Court? Thanks to the court's own landmark ruling last July, the president himself enjoys immunity; he could also pardon officials accused of criminal contempt. Another option is civil contempt, which seeks to enforce future compliance (the person in contempt of this kind is said to 'hold the keys to his own cell'). The advantage here is that the courts can deputise other agencies to enforce their rulings. But which agencies, precisely? Which, in this climate of fear, would be willing to risk retribution from MAGA? Chief Justice Roberts is an 'institutionalist' which means that his highest allegiance is to the preservation of the system that protects the constitution. In the words of his biographer Joan Biskupic, 'he elevated the institutional integrity of the Court above all'. And, to be fair to Roberts, he wrote in his most recent end-of-year report: 'Within the past few years… elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the spectre of open disregard for federal court rulings'. When Trump posted in March that a judge frustrating his deportation plan 'should be IMPEACHED!', the chief justice issued a direct rebuke, declaring that this was 'not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.' Yet it is precisely this value-system that may deter Roberts from a direct confrontation with the president. For the institutionalist, the prospect of the Supreme Court appearing impotent before an autocratic president is intolerable. Paradoxically, because such a defeat would shatter his worldview, he will postpone the moment of reckoning as long as he possibly can. But he cannot do so indefinitely. High Noon is approaching, and only one of the gunfighters – president or Supreme Court – can prevail. The outcome of that contest depends on a question of global consequence: whether the US remains, as it has long been, a nation of laws; or becomes something altogether more dangerous.
The Sun
17 hours ago
- The Sun
Bomb squad officers evacuate street after man pulls pin on hand grenade in Worcester
BOMB squad officers evacuated a street after a man pulled the pin of a hand grenade. He was showing his friends the Soviet device when it started making noises. So he tossed it in the back of his garden and raised the alarm. Army officers sealed off the road for three hours in Northwick, Worcester, on Sunday before removing the dodgy device. The grenade's owner said: "I pulled the pin and it started making noises. "I noticed something was wrong as soon as I released the safety pin and the spoon sprung off it immediately. "It made some sort of reaction similar to when a fire work fuse is ignited. It was a spilt second, I immediately threw this at the rear of the garden and evacuated the property and called the police. "I was told to be minimum 100 meters away and try to alert neighbours. Police arrived within several minutes. "Around five police cars turned up and about 30 minutes after the RLC bomb squad arrived to investigate. "He firstly x-rayed the grenade to see if it still had its explosive content left. "He's sure it was decommissioned but not certain, so he put it inside what looked to be a heavy-duty explosives box and told me he is going to dispose of it back at base. "This was brought last year August at Malvern antiques fair. "A few people were worried in the street. The area was locked for about three to four hours." The RG-42 World War Two device, which he got for £30 at an antiques fair in Malvern last year, was found to be safe. West Mercia Police said: 'The Explosive Ordnance Disposal team X-rayed the grenade and found it was empty so there was no need for a controlled explosion.'
