Illustration: The Touch & Go
Historic 1934 DH.88 Comet 'Grosvenor House' Crashes at Shuttleworth Airshow
The iconic DH.88 Comet that won the 1934 MacRobertson England-Australia race overturned on landing at Old Warden, sustaining heavy damage with minor pilot injury.
The gist
The only airworthy DH.88 Comet, famed 1934 race winner, crashed at Shuttleworth in Bedfordshire; pilot escaped with minor injuries.
Continuing coverage
All Historic Aircraft →The de Havilland DH.88 Comet G-ACSS, famously known as 'Grosvenor House' and winner of the 1934 MacRobertson England to Australia air race, suffered extensive damage after overturning on landing at Old Warden aerodrome in Bedfordshire on August 15, 2026. The accident took place around 19:20 local time during the Shuttleworth Trust's Flying Proms air show, with a single crew member aboard. Emergency responders extracted the pilot, who was conscious and taken to hospital for evaluation but was later discharged. No other individuals were affected by the incident.
This DH.88 Comet is the only airworthy survivor of the five original aircraft built by de Havilland, and notably the only one of the race winners to remain operational. The aircraft was crewed in the 1934 race by Charles W.A. Scott and Tom Campbell Black, completing the route from Mildenhall, England, to Melbourne, Australia, in 70 hours and 54 minutes. Its innovative design combined multiple pioneering features such as stressed-skin construction, a cantilever wing, retractable landing gear, flaps, variable-pitch propellers, and an enclosed cockpit—elements that influenced later aircraft like the de Havilland Mosquito.
The airframe itself has a rich history filled with restoration and rebuilding efforts. After military service, when it was designated K5084 and written off, the Comet was sold for scrap but subsequently restored by Essex Aero. It was raced under various names, including 'The Orphan' and 'The Burberry', before becoming a key exhibit of the Shuttleworth Collection in 1965. Ongoing restoration efforts were supported by around 50 organizations, allowing G-ACSS to return to flight in 1987 from Hatfield Airport.
Old Warden aerodrome became the Comet’s base after Hatfield's closure in 1994, although the airfield's initially short runway presented operational challenges. In 2002, the Comet experienced a landing accident due to undercarriage failure following a test flight for permit renewal. Investigations revealed the original landing gear legs were susceptible to failure under certain conditions. A modified undercarriage design was subsequently developed and approved by the UK Civil Aviation Authority. After these modifications, the aircraft did not fly again until 2014.
The recent accident is particularly significant because it occurred just 24 years after the last known undercarriage failure that grounded the aircraft. As is standard procedure with vintage aircraft, flying operations involving the DH.88 Comet will likely be suspended pending a detailed investigation by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch. The branch has not yet released any official statements regarding the crash or potential causes.
The accident at Old Warden follows another mishap earlier in 2026, when an Avro Triplane IV replica crashed during the Wings and Wheels air show on May 30. These incidents highlight ongoing risks associated with operating historic aircraft at public events despite rigorous maintenance and pilot skill.
Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service responded promptly with crews from Sandy and Kempston supporting the on-site fire service. The pilot’s survival with minor injuries underscores the effectiveness of emergency response and safety protocols at the Shuttleworth Trust’s events.
No official word has yet come from Shuttleworth about the reparability of the extensive damage to the DH.88 Comet airframe. However, given the aircraft’s critical place in British aviation heritage and the aircraft's history of multiple rebuilds, restoration efforts may well be pursued once the causes are clarified and safety concerns addressed.
Frequently asked questions
- What caused the DH.88 Comet G-ACSS to crash at Shuttleworth?
- The DH.88 Comet overturned on landing at Old Warden aerodrome, sustaining extensive damage. Specific causes are under investigation by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch.
- Was the pilot injured in the DH.88 Comet accident?
- The pilot sustained only minor injuries and was taken to hospital for assessment but was later discharged.
- How many DH.88 Comets remain airworthy today?
- Only one DH.88 Comet remains airworthy, the G-ACSS ‘Grosvenor House’, which is the aircraft that won the 1934 MacRobertson England to Australia air race. Another example exists but remains under restoration.
Read more
All Aviation Safety →
Vietnam Airlines Boeing 787 overruns runway and suffers tail strike during Munich takeoff
A Vietnam Airlines Boeing 787 had an accident today while taking off on a long haul flight from Germany to Vietnam. Fortunately no one appears to have been injured, but I can't even begin to wrap my head around how something like this could happen… Vietnam Airlines 787 struggles to take off on very long runway This incident happened today (Saturday, August 15, 2026), and involves Vietnam Airlines flight VN34, scheduled to fly from Munich (MUC) to Hanoi (HAN). The flight was operated by a 10-year-old Boeing 787-9 with the registration code VN-A867 . At 1:57PM local time, the plane started its takeoff roll on runway 26L, which is 4,000 meters (13,123 feet) long. This is about as long as commercial runways get, so it's way longer than what even a fully loaded Dreamliner would need. However, something went seriously wrong with this takeoff. The plane accelerated down the runway… and kept accelerating, and accelerating, and accelerating. Eventually the plane seemingly overran the end of the runway, causing damage to runway lights. In the video you can see that huge clouds of dust rose around the aircraft, as the tail struck the ground. Fortunately the plane did manage to become airborne, though the crew immediately declared an emergency. The plane climbed up to 10,000 feet, and at that point the crew reported that they had an indicator that they had an issue with tire pressure. The plane circled around the area for around 90 minutes (either to burn or dump fuel), at which point the aircraft performed two low approaches over the runway, so damage could be assessed. Then the plane landed on runway 26R on the third approach, and it became disabled on the runway, closing the runway for an extended period of time. That landing was at 3:57PM, two hours after the plane first took off. The path for Vietnam Airlines flight VN34 Below is the takeoff video. Vietnam Airlines Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner reportedly overruns the runway during take-off from Munich. The aircraft is currently on approach to the airport after holding. Video: MunichAviation pic.twitter.com/qqbWSV2jrN — Breaking Aviation News & Videos (@aviationbrk) August 15, 2026 Then below is the landing video. Vietnam B787-9 appears to have shredded its tires on emergency return landing to Munich https://t.co/4ZvkFG1nXC pic.twitter.com/2Gz0ZiTLs8 — Breaking Aviation News & Videos (@aviationbrk) August 15, 2026 Below are pictures showing the tire damage and tail strike after the plane returned to Munich. Tail strike on VN-A867 + possible ELECTRIC BRAKE ACTUATOR ISSUES On Both MAIN GEAR. Vietnam Airlines 787-9 out of Munich today… very late rotation, almost full runway used, confirmed tail strike, then returned with multiple tires shredded. Electric Brake Actuator (EBA)… pic.twitter.com/d2t2mD52T5 — Fahad Naim (@Fahadnaimb) August 15, 2026 Confirmed tail strike damage on VN-A867 The whole tail strike module is gone. There's a clear puncture through the lower fuselage, with torn composite and heavy scrape marks running aft. This was not light contact… they must have been pulling hard to get it airborne. This jet… pic.twitter.com/WNBqFvzMzf — Fahad Naim (@Fahadnaimb) August 15, 2026 I think it's safe to assume that this plane will be on the ground for quite some time, and isn't going anywhere any time soon… What could possibly explain this messed up takeoff? Looking at the video of the takeoff, there's nothing that stands out to me as being particularly unusual. It looks like the plane is accelerating decently, the flaps are in use, etc. But the plane just keeps going and going. I tried to pull up the flight data through Flightradar24, which typically shows you the altitude and speed for a plane, but oddly there's a roughly five minute gap around the takeoff time. I'm not sure how we're supposed to interpret that. Flightradar24 data on this Vietnam Airlines flight Either way, it's hard to comprehend what happened here. If the pilots felt something was off during the takeoff roll, they'd logically abort the takeoff. And a 13,000+ foot runway is particularly long, so they should've had a major buffer here. Typically when we see incidents like this, it's because the takeoff performance for the plane wasn't calculated correctly (that's not to say that's the cause here, but I'm just saying that's the most common explanation for this kind of an incident). Did the crew not have the right "numbers" for this flight when determining takeoff performance? That mistake can happen sometimes, but typically pilots would catch the error, because something looks off. I mean, this was a long haul 787 flight, so pilots roughly know what kind of takeoff performance they should be expecting. Was there some technical or other glitch that prevented the plane from taking of when it was supposed to, or what? We'll have to wait for a full investigation, but everything about this incident is very strange. Bottom line A Vietnam Airlines Boeing 787 had a seriously messed up takeoff from Munich, as the plane overran the runway on takeoff, causing it to damage runway lights, strike its tail, and cause huge clouds of dust to rise. When the plane came back to land, it also had serious issues with its wheels, and the full damage of the tail strike was discovered. Particularly given how long Munich Airport's runway is, there's nothing about this that looks good… I'm curious to see what an investigation reveals. On the plus side, thank goodness no one was hurt, because it seems like this could've also had a much worse ending. What do you make of this Vietnam Airlines runway overrun in Munich?
American Airlines Boeing 737-800s with identical callsigns nearly conflicted near Phoenix
Controller acted to separate converging outbound and inbound services on Chicago O’Hare route. Air-ground radio communications have revealed that a controller at Phoenix had to resolve an extraordinary conflict between outbound and inbound American Airlines Boeing 737-800s that were using identical callsigns. The aircraft were both operating the AA2482 service, whose flight number applies to the Phoenix-Chicago and Chicago-Phoenix sectors. Communications from Phoenix departure control, archived by LiveATC, indicate that the conflict occurred just after midnight on 14 August, about 5min after the Chicago-bound aircraft took off from runway 7L. It turned north and its crew informed the controller that they were climbing through 6,000ft to their assigned altitude of 9,000ft. The controller appeared to realise that the aircraft would cross the flightpath of the inbound service, arriving from Chicago, which was descending from the northeast at about 12,000ft. Distinguishing the inbound flight to its crew by referring to its being "on the arrival", the controller instructed it to maintain 10,000ft, which the crew confirmed. The controller then asked: "And there's an American 2482 on a 0730 code, is that correct, on the departure?" When the outbound crew confirmed they were climbing to 9,000ft, the controller acknowledged. "On the departure I need you to maintain 9,000, traffic one o'clock and 10 miles," he instructed, then added: "[It's] your company, same callsign, out of 11,800 descending to 10,000." "Incredible – we're looking, thank you," the outbound crew replied. Publicly-available ADS-B data suggests the outbound aircraft passed behind, and below, the inbound, although their precise horizontal and vertical separation has not been verified. The inbound Chicago-Phoenix flight appears to have been running some 90min behind schedule which would have contributed to the coincidental positioning. Identical callsigns for inbound and outbound services between the same city pairs are not unusual. American's flight AA1888 operates both ways on the Dallas-Raleigh route, as does Delta Air Lines' DL2006 between Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
Engine debris caused cabin decompression on Ryanair 737-800, NTSB reveals
A passenger was partially sucked through an open window before being pulled back inside the cabin.
Researchers Reveal Rapid 60-Second Hardware Hack on Boeing 737 Avionics Systems
Researchers from UC San Diego and Oberlin College on Thursday presented a proof-of-concept hardware attack that could interfere with communications between critical avionics systems on Boeing 737 Next Generation and MAX aircraft. The device can be installed during roughly 60 seconds of physical access on the ground, according to the research presented at the USENIX Security Symposium. The team demonstrated the attack on a testbed built from authentic 737 components and software rather than an operating aircraft. Device Targets Maintenance Connection The researchers identified an unused maintenance connector inside the 737 Electronics and Equipment bay. The bay sits below the aircraft’s nose and can be accessed from the ground. Their paper estimates an attacker could open the access hatch in 15 seconds, install the device in about 30 seconds and close the hatch in another 15 seconds. The implant targets ARINC 429 data buses between the flight management computer and the multipurpose control display unit. Researchers demonstrated that the device could alter flight-plan information and values used for weight, balance and takeoff calculations while suppressing indications of some changes on the pilot’s display. "This is something the aviation industry will want to plan to defend against," UC San Diego professor Stefan Savage told WIRED. "I would not sleep on this one." The researchers said the attack would require advance planning, technical knowledge and physical access to the aircraft. Their paper says the findings apply to 737 NG and MAX models, which account for more than 95% of the active 737 fleet. Boeing Reviewed Findings The research team first disclosed the vulnerability to Boeing in 2020 and later demonstrated the attack in a Boeing laboratory. Boeing told WIRED that it reviewed the relevant component designs, installations and interfaces after receiving the researchers’ findings. The company said existing protections in the aircraft and its operating environment substantially reduce the feasibility and risk of a real-world attack. "Our technical experts are confident that the layers of protection in place on the airplane, including within the system design and the operating environment, provide sufficient mitigation to significantly limit the feasibility and risk of real-world attacks," Boeing told WIRED . Pilots could override changes to the autopilot by taking manual control, the researchers noted, and some correct information would remain available through other cockpit displays. The team proposed several possible defenses. Those include removing or permanently blocking the unused connector, adding software capable of detecting the attack, increasing electrical isolation between systems and eventually adding authentication to avionics data communications.
The Daily Touch & Go
The day's best aviation news in your inbox. Free, no spam.