MoD pays £5 Million to plane crash victims family - Update

[Daysleeper]

BBC NEWS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/4449882.stm)

The MoD denies liability, but reached a settlement ahead of a High Court claim for damages due to start next week.

'Life-threatening situation'

The family had taken off on the morning of the accident from Elstree airfield in Hertfordshire and flew to Cornwall where Mr Paton was intending to treat the family to lunch at a Padstow restaurant.

The weather was fine and the visibility good when Mr Paton was given clearance to land at St Mawgan.

However, just as the Cessna was about to touch down, the Sea King, which had just taken off, suddenly loomed into view.

In his written argument to the court, the family's counsel, Mr Charles Haddon-Cave QC, said the helicopter "made as if to cross the runway" directly in the Cessna's path and Mr Paton "had to deal with an immediate and life-threatening situation".

Mr Paton took emergency avoiding action but lost stability after the Cessna passed through a wake vortex from the helicopter's powerful rotas and the light aircraft crashed just beside the runway.

[Pie Man]

My sympathies go out to the family involved.

It does seem strange that the MOD are paying when the AAIB report includes the following in it's conclusion.
It was concluded that the Cessna crashed following a loss of control during an attempt to carry out
a 'go-around'. The activity of the Sea King and the loss of control by the pilot of the Cessna were
two distinct, and for the most part, unrelated events occurring at the same time. The plot
constructed of the relative positions of each aircraft considered in conjunction with the rotor
downwash trial established conclusively that the rotor downwash from the Sea King did not play
any part in the Cessna leaving the side of the runway.
Thinking about it the MOD will not pay it will be the rest of the GA world, notice introduction of insurance indemnity fees for civilian aircraft landing at MOD airfields.

PM

[Runaway Gun]

Isn't there fees like that already?

[RileyDove]

I guess that the Mod looked at the cost of defending the case and decided to settle . If you look at the legal cases in the U.S - there was a case where from memory a vacuum pump manufacturer was forced out of the market even after the FAA found no fault with it's product after a crash.

[Flying Lawyer]

If ever there was a 'legal' item on PPRuNe to which I would dearly love to respond in order to correct the misleading impression and provide balance, this is it.
Unfortunately, and very frustratingly, I can't. I represented the MoD so professional propriety prevents me from doing so, particularly as the High Court has not yet approved the proposed settlement. It's a pity the Claimant's solicitor doesn't feel similarly restrained - but that comes as no surprise to me.

"In his written argument to the court, the family's counsel said .......... etc etc
The key word is 'argument.' Arguments we advance on behalf of our clients contain our clients' allegations and claims. However boldly they may be expressed, it doesn't necessarily mean they are correct - nor does it mean they will be successful when the other side of the argument is heard.
(Clue: A key extract from the AAIB report has already been posted. The AAIB investigators are of course independent and impartial - they are not trying to win a case.)

"she always felt that her husband's death was not his fault."
Human nature being what it is, that is entirely understandable and no doubt she always will. That doesn't mean it's correct.

Please don't think I'm being unsympathetic. It was a tragic accident which resulted in the loss of a good husband and father who was not only successful in his career but also clearly a good man - but the completely one-sided account given to the Press creates a very distorted impression of what happened.
Sympathy for deceased and bereaved is natural, but it's important not to forget the living who have to cope with allegations that they caused someone's death.

I could easily correct the thoroughly misleading impression given by the press story if I was prepared to follow the Claimant solicitor's example - and the temptation to do so is almost irresistable - but I'm not prepared to do that.


Tudor Owen

[BEagle]

Tudor - I share your feelings.

I note from the AAIB report:

Post accident inspection of the aircraft found the throttle to be in the fully open position, with the flaps UP and the cowl flaps OPEN, in accordance with the 'after landing' check list. It was not possible, without using a large amount of force, to close the throttle until the friction had been released.

From the configuration of the aircraft, therefore, it appeared that the pilot was trying to execute a 'go-around' from the runway at the time of the accident even though he did not make any comment to his passengers regarding his intentions.

Furthermore, a colleague, who had been in the aircraft with the pilot on another occasion and in a similar landing situation recalled that when the aircraft had veered to the left on touchdown, the pilot had carried out a 'go-around' by retracting the flaps fully, applying full power and taking off for a further circuit.*

That seems very odd. As was the passengers' statement that "The pilot was seen by his passengers to have both hands on the control column trying to maintain control of the aircraft.."

That sounds awfully like someone resorting to 'motoring' reactions to an unexpected yawing motion on the runway - using aileron rather than rudder. Was he trying to 'steer straight'? A cognitive failure, perhaps? The accident seems to have occurred long after any remote possibility of rotor wake could plausibly have been encountered....

See http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/june_2002/cessna_501305.cfm for the full report.

RIP

*my bold text for clarity

[Anita Bush]

I hope that the RAF crew can see this as a form of closure for this sad accident. I know that they have had this hanging over them for some time now.

My sympathies go out to the familly involved.

RIP

[Fg Off Max Stout]

The problem is that the media today are seeing this as a legal victory for the family concerned and hence a guilty verdict for the Queenie crew. I feel the MoD should have fought their corner on principal, because if this happens again, and it costs the MoD a further £5m, I can see RAF airfields being permanently closed to all GA traffic. I think that would be a bad thing.

[The Gorilla]

That would not be a bad thing from a taxpayers point of view..

[Daysleeper]

That would not be a bad thing from a taxpayers point of view.

why not, dont GA pay taxes?

[BEagle]

RAF Benson has very clear and explicit segregation procedures between medium lift helicopters and light aircraft.

It should be the model for all other mixed RW and light FW operations. Several years ago there was no such protocol and the turbulence I encountered in a Bulldog during an instrument go-around from the breeze of a passing Wessex was memorable, to say the least.

[KENNYR]

Sympathy to the family, however, having read the report it would appear that the MOD wasted £5m. The Seaking contributed very little to the incident. The Cessna pilot, IMHO, over-reacted badly to a completely inoccuous situation and then screwed up the go-around.

With regards to GA traffic using MOD Airfields............on initial contact with airtraffic the GA traffic should be warned "use at your own risk, we accept no liability" or make all arrivals at the airfield subject to PPR at all times thus ensuring that GA traffic are briefed on airfield procedures.

I wait with interest to see how much the MOD will compensate the families of the two chinook pilots who have been blamed unjustly for the 1994 crash on the Mull, when it is proved that their airships screwed up in their haste to find a scapegoat.

[RileyDove]

They wouldn't be able to use a 'no liability' clause . Any lawyer worth his salt would be able to draw rings round it. I guess it will mean increased landing fees for GA to allow for the risk.

[oldfella]

There's no need for speculation as to the cause or results of the accident as there is an AAIB report - helicopter not involved.

How did it get to this? Let's pay out 5 million!!!!! If this sort of thing is likely to cost the MOD again MOD airfields should just shut the doors to GA.

[Safety_Helmut]

My sympathies to the family involved !

But, this happened at the very same base that the local authorities wish the RAF to remain at in order to provide services such as ATC and emergency cover.

I wonder how many more instances of this there would have been had the MoD decided to base JSF there ?

Safety_Helmut

[BEagle]

Anita Bush, you made an interesting point when you wrote "I hope that the RAF crew can see this as a form of closure for this sad accident. I know that they have had this hanging over them for some time now."

Quite what have they had 'hanging over them'? The AAIB report made it quite clear that the Sea King downwash had been no factor during the Cessna's approach and landing; it was when the Cessna pilot later attempted a high speed runway manoeuvre not in accordance with normal aviation practice that he clearly lost control.

So how could the Sea King crew have considered themselves to have been in any way to blame? The AAIB report states that there was a vague possibility of the out of control aircraft taking off and stalling, recovery from which might perhaps have been made more difficult due to the 'light breeze' effect of the Sea Kings rotor downwash, but certainly not as a direct result of encountering rotor vortex effects. In any case, that was mere unproven speculation.

Out of interest, what did the RAF's own BoI say? Because if that had attributed any blame to the Sea King crew, then clearly that would have undermined any reasonable defence the MoD could have put forward to refute the claim and an out of court settlement was probably the only option.

RIP

[Anita Bush]

Beags

With the crew subjected to a RAF BOI, a civil BOI, with a least one of those (I cannot recal which) reopened, folowed only a few months ago with news that the family were persuing a private prosecution. That is what has been hanging over them for five and a half years

Far too long to reach final conclusion.

[BEagle]

I certainly agree, Anita.

What did the RAF BoI conclude? Who was its reviewing officer?

[Anita Bush]

Sorry.. don't have that info.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I must admit to being slightly lost here. An independant body concluded that the Sea King had nothing to do with the accident; but the MoD still pay out £5M?

Why? Is there an implication that they shouldn't have allowed the helicopter; or any other traffic; to do anything which might "spook" a GA Cessna?

Perhaps the answer is to shut everywhere to GA. By the sounds of things this was a horrible accident caused by someone getting a bit surprised by the Sea King and initiating a manoeuvre his experience didn't allow him to conclude safely. Tragic, but surely not St Mawgan's fault.

[BEagle]

5F6B, I can only conclude that someone else had decided, despite all evidence to the contrary including the AAIB accident report, that the Sea King crew was somehow to blame.

If there was any such criticism in any RAF BoI or accident report, then it sounds awfully like an MoD own goal.

[Pierre Argh]

To my mind, the issue here is not about fault or the compensation paid... or whether we should close MOD airfields to GA as a knee-jerk reaction to this accident... it's about the lessons we could learn to prevent something similar happening again?

[RileyDove]

I cannot really see that there are a great number of lessons to be learnt. Different aircraft types either in the circuit or waiting to take off/ land has surely been a feature of aviation for decades.
The only training that seems to be in question is the pilot currency in the Cessna.

[BEagle]

Pilot currency, or more accurately 'recency', in the PPL world is, if anything, more specific now than in pre-JAR days.

To carry passengers, a pilot must have flown 3 take-offs and landings in the previous 90 days.

To validate his Single Engine Piston Class Rating, a pilot may revalidate by proficiency check in the last 3 months of the 24 month rating validity period. Or, if he chooses to do so by experience, in the second 12 month period of the 24 month rating validity period, he must complete 12 hours, of which 6 must be as PIC and 1 must be a training flight with an instructor.

Most of us in the GA world welcomed these increased training and recency requirements. Beforehand it was just 5 hours in 13 months with no requirement for any flying training at all. PPL pilots could fly for 40 years or more without ever having any refresher training.

Also Safety Sense Leaflet 26 - Visiting Military Aerodromes is now freely available in LASORS.

Benson has an excellent RW/light aircraft segregation policy. Basically,a 180m Final Approach and Take-Off (FATO) buffer zone centred on RW 01/19 has been established in order to provide safe separation between rotary and fixed-wing aircraft and pilots must remain clear of the FATO buffer zone when instructed.

The only real lesson to be learned is that if you attempt to operate a light aircraft in a manner for which you have not been trained, you become your own test pilot. Taxiing at high speed on a runway can turn the aircraft into a lethal wheelbarrow with exactly the same stability characteristics as a wheelbarrow when it ultimately groundloops....

[Bronx]

Maybe the answer to the mystery.
I've been told the claim was for £10 million claculated on the Cessna pilot earning more than a million pounds a year.
If the family could prove the military caused the crash they would have got £10 million. If the military could prove the crash was nothing to do with the Sea King the family would have got nothing. The Sea King might have spooked the Cessna pilot but he reacted way OTT and instead of just stopping tried a go around and screwed up so a 50/50 split £5million was a compromise and nobody has to take a big all or nothing risk trying the case in court.
At first the family tried to claim the Sea King downwash blew the Cessna off the runway but that idea was dead in the water when even their own expert agreed with the military expert it was too far away for that.
Their lawyers hired an "aviation expert" a retired Air Force pilot to say it was all the military's fault and try to get the AAIB to change their report but they wouldn't. Hats off to your AAIB for not being pressurised by the hired gun. :ok:

The RAF Board of Investigators decided the SK probably distracted the Cessna but that shouldn't have made him go out of control and crash. Then an Air Chief Marshall decided it was all the fault of the SK crew and the Cessna pilot wasn't to blame at all. Sir John Dale, same guy as blamed the Chinook pilots in the Scotch crash.

[KENNYR]

Bronx, you have just opened a huge can of worms!!!! Do you have any proof of the £10m claim and the involvement of Sir John Dale? This would show an "anti-aircrew" bias on behalf of the ACM.

[BEagle]

Indeed. If what you say is really true, then surely that would have totally undermined any defence against the claim?

I presume you mean Day, by the way, not 'Dale'.

[BOAC]

Another Day, another Dollar as the saying goes.

He obviously does not like helis.

[IanSeager]

oldfella wrote
There's no need for speculation as to the cause or results of the accident as there is an AAIB report - helicopter not involved.

The AAIB report also states

After the runway excursion the aircraft was possibly affected by the rotor downwash from a Sea King helicopter positioned near the runway and air taxiing to take off.

and

The outflow of air from the Sea King's downwash possibly affected the Cessna, when it became airborne and crossed vehicle access 'M'. The turbulence created by the downwash could have added to the Cessna pilot's control difficulties.

Perhaps those statements, the £10m claim and the PR issues explain the MOD's decision to compromise? There's been no admission of liability.

Ian

[Heliport]

You could be right but this was "After the runway excursion."
The Cessna was out of control long before then.
He did a very high speed taxi after landing and then before he got anywhere near any downwash he'd swung to the right, then careered out of control off the left side of the runway and smashed through a runway light before getting airborne so sharply the Cessna tail scraped the grass.
It seems any downwash from the SK was very weak by the time the Cessna went through it and if he hadn't gone off the runway he wouldn't have encountered in anyway.
From what I've heard, it would have hit either a hangar or the Tower next to it if he hadn't stalled in - with probably more deaths.

Another thing which struck me was that he had his throttle friction set so tight the AAIB had difficulty pulling it back. Maybe that explains why he didn't or couldn't just stop if he was worried about the Sea King.
What possesses someone to set the throttle friction so tight so close to the ground? :confused:

You may well be right about the MoD PR aspect - MoD fighting widow and children etc.
Still, at least the 50% settlement shows the family's lawyers realised he played a major part in his own demise whatever they say to journos. If it was as clear-cut as they make out they wouldn't have given away £5million.
Funny how they forgot to mention they'd settled for half when trumpeting the £5million to the Press. :rolleyes:

If what Bronx says about the ACM's comments is correct, it looks like Sir John Day shot the RAF in the foot again.

[Unmissable]

The MOD have presumable done a cost v risk exercise. If they were to let the family go the whole way and claim for £10m then it would have involved a huge amount ion court costs and lost earnings from several MOD employees, and the total bill would be a lot more than the £10m. So the £5m is a 'fixed payment' to prevent having to pay any more.

Also if the family were (as has been suggested) considering private actions against teh individuals, then this £5m may prevent them from going down this route, therefore the MOD is actually paying out to protect its own. If this is the case then perhaps this is the best way forward to close the matter once and for all.

However, if this proves to be another case of a senior officer thinking he knows better than a properly conducted inquiry (of course , he is entitled to an opinion) and then forcing MOD to react thus making money out of it... then something really ought to be done.

[[email protected]]

Sir John Day most certainly isn't a helicopter hater, he was my first Sqn OC on 72 in the early 80's and was a very good pilot - I think it is wrong to blame him, especially without any evidence.

The original RAF BOI essentialy rubberstamped the AAIB report but was returned to the BOI because it was felt they hadn't explored all the military angles sufficiently. The second BOI appeared to be a bit of a hatchet job (possibly because of the cockpit crew personalities). The captain of the SK was posted and then grounded through stress and has had to wait until the final BOI to be exonerated - I am sure the news that the MOD have rolled over and paid out anyway will seem like another guilty verdict.

If it is the only way the family will get any cash then the MOD's decision seems mitigated but I am sure they could survive on a lot less than £5 million.

[Monty77]

Agree about Sir John Day. With regard to the Mull crash, remember a lot of the dead were Special Branch officers and family men with dependents to boot. It's been done to death elsewhere but when they're gone, they're gone leaving the wives and kids behind. I would hope that come judgement day, I would be able to put the welfare of 20 odd families above that of my 'good name', even if I had been in the right. I have spoken to Mrs Monty about this and she is also happy with a 'Monty cocked it up' epitaph, provided the families are looked after.

One must look to the living. If IMC below SALT is culpably negligent (despite the conspiracy theories), this allows compensation to be sought from MOD.

Those SB guys were 'on our side'. Being Security Forces and living outside the wire in those days put you and your family at significant risk. I would rather millions of pounds be spread around the families of men who put their lives on the line for HMG than a single family who have suffered a tragedy which cannot really be pinned on MOD.

Anybody know what the families of the Mull crash received, if any? Not £5 million a piece, I'd wager. Meanwhile, those snakes McGuinness and Adams draw full MP wages and allowances (over £100,000 a year each) from HMG whilst not setting foot in Westminster.

Justice? I think not.

[Jackonicko]

Three BOIs, crab?

(The Rubberstamp, the hatchet job and the final one that finally exonerated the pilot?)

That sounds 'unusual'?

It seems obscene that expediency (paying out £5m in unwarranted damages) took precedence over truth (that no damages were deserved) in an effort to avoid the risk of a higher financial penalty.

If anyone knows the SK captain, please buy him a beer on my behalf.

Flying Lawyer,

Please check your PMs.

JN

[Lima Juliet]

JN

Two BOIs not three in this accident, and it's not unusual for a BOI to be reconvened if the 3 reviewing officers (usually the Station Commander, AOC and CINC) believe that further investigation is warranted in another area or deeper into an existing area. This is not irregular as the AOC issues the Terms of Reference for the BOI team in the first place.

What is interesting is that the first BOI was one of the 1st after "non-apportionment of blame" BOI terms of reference were to be used and the old-school "hang-em up" BOI brigade was still potentially prevalent. Hence, a stressed out SAR crew and ATCO anxiously awaiting a conclusion. However, that is conjecture.

Whether the Sea King was more than a 'potential' distraction can never be proved either way. However, the AAIB milked the GPS and it showed the Cessna to be doing 65kts(+/- 4kts) for a significant period prior to the loss of control on the ground (there is a high potential for 'wheel-barrowing' in tricycle undercarriaged aircraft which rotates around that speed). The smallest of distractions could have caused him to lose control and once he lost it he was unlikely to recover from the fast ensuing ground-loop. The Cessna then over-rotated (as already mentioned from the tail-strike impact point observed on the side of the runway) and then stalled shortly after take-off. That said if he had been taxying at a more sedate speed then it wouldn't have happened, however, if the Sea King had been manoeuvring more sedately then the same might apply. Furthermore, had the Cessna pilot closed the throttle and used the toe-brakes then the same applies. I guess that recently all parties agreed that the Sea King's 'potential' should have had a bearing on the pay-out; after all £5m is a lot of money but it will never replace the children's father and the wife's husband - a very sad day indeed.

LJ

[Monty77]

Yes. Boo Hoo.

A very wealthy family gets £5 million off the MOD for an amateur pilot who f*cked up.

Stephen Restorick was a young lad who had his head shot away by a b*stard coward who couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag. Northern Ireland during the 'cease fire' for those who don't know.

No wife, no kids, no second home in Cornwall. 20 years old, but I'll stand corrected. Bravery medal in the post. He was serving his country, not keeping some regional airport open.

Anybody know what his family got in compemnsation?

[Logistics Loader]

Surely the Cessna taxiing at 65kts (+/- 4kts) was far in excess of a safe recommended taxi speed..

From my PPL training, at the speed mentioned, thats almost t/o speed (wind direction dependant) !!!

Not the normal practise one would assume ???
Even groundlooping a glider at <30kts is scary...!!!

No amount of money can ever compensate from someones loss. However, one would hope that the AAIB recommendations now ensure taxi speeds are looked at more closely..

Will the SK Capt now claim for PTSD at being grounded etc....??
Will the powers that be even consder his claim..??

Another major dent in the defence budget, as no doubt the cost of insurance underwriting will go up...!!

[Flying Lawyer]

Jackonicko

I saw your PM.
It's up to the MoD to decide whether to issue a statement concerning the settlement. It's not usually done in such circumstances. It's also for the MoD to choose whether to correct the one-sided nonsense given to the Press last Friday by the Claimant's solicitor for his own motives or to rise above it. It's not for me to do so, even 'off the record'. I won't deny I enjoyed listening to the Judge yesterday morning saying in no uncertain terms what he thought of the solicitor's thoroughly unprofessional behaviour. (BTW, although the barrister's written argument was given to the Press, it wasn't the barrister who gave it.)

It's been pointed out that the Claimants settled for half the amount claimed. In fatal accident cases, the amount claimed is calculated on the deceased's income and other factors. It doesn't need inside information to work out why the full claim wasn't pursued. The answer will be obvious to anyone who's read the AAIB Report.

[teeteringhead]

Two BOIs not three in this accident, and it's not unusual for a BOI to be reconvened if the 3 reviewing officers (usually the Station Commander, AOC and CINC) believe that further investigation is warranted in another area or deeper into an existing area. This is not irregular as the AOC issues the Terms of Reference for the BOI team in the first place. ... exactly so - and the point often missed is that the comments of the Staish, the AOC and the C-in-C are part of the BOI .. and it just might be that the views of a gp capt, an AVM and an ACM are entirely suitable to temper what a wg cdr BOI president thinks .....

... and at the risk of removing ammo from the Day-bashers (who can frankly get tiresome at times - even when they get the name right), wouldn't BB have been C-in-C by the time the BOI was finally signed off??

[Champagne Anyone?]

Beags,

Think you will find the revalidation for a PPL states "including an hours flight with an instructor"

It doesen't actually state that it must be a flight where the Pilot is under instruction.

Strange I know and don't happen to agree with it either but it just shows how slack the revalidation process is.

[Collapsar]

I am led to believe that while the MoD usually carries its own risk, it is reluctant to carry anyone else's and has bought commercial insurance to cover just such an eventuality as this accident. I have no specific knowledge of this accident but it may be that the insurer has elected to settle out-of-court to reduce it's potential exposure.

If this is the case then, the MoD will have no choice but to agree, or cover any losses from the Defence Budget. Of course if this is what has happened, the insurer will have picked up the £5m bill.

This is all pure speculation but seems to fit the facts.

[The Gorilla]

Actually I thought the way it worked, having had a friend who tried to go GA into waddo(non Airshow), is that the MOD insist the visiting ac has its own insurance.
No insurance = no land?

HMG and therefore the MOD NEVER have insurance except as required by overseas law and then only the absolute minimum. I believe that in this case the £5 mill is actually coming from the taxpayer via the already overstretched annual Defence Budget.

And it isn't like GA doesn't have enough airfield estate of their own throughout our isle!!

[Heliport]

As I understand it -

The MoD requires civvies visiting military airfields to have a prescribed minimum level of insurance so that there are funds to cover a claim against them by the MoD for damage/injury they cause when visiting.

I don't know if this applies to all military airfields but the MoD definitely has commercial insurance at some airfields to cover claims against the MoD for damage/injury caused to visiting civvies. As far as I know, the insurance only cover incidents on airfield and the MoD bears the risk for any damage caused by military aircraft elsewhere.

[Daysleeper]

And it isn't like GA doesn't have enough airfield estate of their own throughout our isle!!

name 3 all weather GA runways within 20 miles of St Mawgan

actually just name 2

ok one then.

[Widger]

name 3 all weather GA runways within 20 miles of St Mawgan

OK, Maybe not all weather, but neither is St Mawgan...(Gale force Fog!)

Perranporth is one (http://www.perranporthairfield.co.uk/)

[Truro is another (http://www.pilotfriend.com/UK_airfields/airfields/EGHY%20TRURO.htm)

Oh how clever to restrict yourself to just 20 miles.

Bodmin (http://www.cornwallflyingclub.com/)

24 miles - Culdrose (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1944.html)
About 30 miles - Lands End (http://www.airports-worldwide.com/uk/uk_lands_end.html)
About 30 miles - Plymouth City

[The Swinging Monkey]

Is Culdrose now open to GA then? hope so, I'm off on my hols!
Kind regards
TSM

[Widger]

Culdrose, like virtually all other Military Airfields have always been open to GA..PPR.

[ShyTorque]

"Actually I thought the way it worked, having had a friend who tried to go GA into waddo(non Airshow), is that the MOD insist the visiting ac has its own insurance.
No insurance = no land?"

No, I don't think that is the way it works. If you don't have proof of the cover you will be charged a pro rata amount on landing on top of the landing fee. If you have the required insurance, you can appply to the MOD for an aircraft waiver certificate on an annual basis.

[teeteringhead]

No, I don't think that is the way it works. It surely doesn't.

Ask a friendly Military Air Trafficker (oxymoron?) for a shufti at JSP 360 - "Regulations and Charges for Civil Aircraft Using MoD Airfields."

It does exactly what it says on the tin!

[Daysleeper]

Perranporth is one
Truro is another
Oh how clever to restrict yourself to just 20 miles.
Bodmin
24 miles - Culdrose
About 30 miles - Lands End
About 30 miles - Plymouth City


So

Perranporth ok its hard surface but has nil lighting
Truro : grass
Bodmin : grass
Culdrose er that was military last time I looked and I was responding to the post wanting to ban GA from military airfields
lands end : grass

plymouth city try 45 miles by road and 1:30+ to drive it.

The point I'm trying to make is there is no justification for banning GA from mil fields particularly those that don't have much going on anyhow.

[Pie Man]

Actually I thought the way it worked, having had a friend who tried to go GA into waddo(non Airshow), is that the MOD insist the visiting ac has its own insurance. Even if you have the required level of insurance you still have to pay an insurance indemnity fee - a fee which I believe was introduced as a result of the incident at St Mawgan.

PM

[Yellowbaron]

Some people do fly around STM as if they own the place.

[[email protected]]

Back to topic - the captain has been told he won't get another flying appointment, despite being exonerated. There's thanks for 25 plus year's service.
Loyalty works both ways.

[Ian Corrigible]

Further to Crab's last: Grounded pilot is 'forgotten victim' of £5m crash case (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/28/nraf28.xml).

I/C

[Elmlea]

The point I'm trying to make is there is no justification for banning GA from mil fields particularly those that don't have much going on anyhow.

.. there is if an accident which the MoD doesn't appear to be at blame for still ends up costing it £5M.

There's no requirement for MoD fields to be open to GA; so if people are going to turn round and drag them to court when they have an accident, why take the risk?

[[email protected]]

Strange that whilst the MOD states you can't be exonerated by a BOI, it had no problem with grounding Pete (and therefore implying guilt) after the first one. Very shabby treatment and double standards.

[pr00ne]

That really is an awful way to treat your own people, especially someone with that length of service. Someone with egg on their hat should be thoroughly ashamed.

[Heliport]

RAF pilot 'victim of base crash' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/4477892.stm)

[Dunhovrin]

We keep forgetting that the moment someone on the way up leaves the "coal-face" they stop caring about those they left behind.

Binny was always going to be the sacraficial goat. I knew him on big-props and wokkas and I always admired his straightness. But being the sort of bloke who calls a spade an effing shovel doesn't help when you have to fight your corner in a small-minded beauraucracy such as the 21stC RAF. Sooner or later the powers that be would have a sense-of humour- failure and not stand by their man. This is it.

The two lessons from this are:

1. Civvies sould stick to their grass strips and

2. Do no turn your back on a senior officer.

ohh and

3. Markers.

[Daysleeper]

The two lessons from this are:

1. Civvies sould stick to their grass strips and


Toung placed in cheek

More like
1/ All members of the military should be barred from serving on BoIs as they obviously know sod all about crash investigation and just shoot themselves in the foot.

2/ The MoD should have the courage of its convictions and when inappropriately sued should defend its staff and their reputations.

3/ ban all military aircraft SAR or otherwise from civil airports and civil airspace cos oooh we might be sued if someone hurts themselves.

Toung removed from cheek

[Safeware]

sleepy,All members of the military should be barred from serving on BoIs Yeah, right, that'd prove an effective way of investigating an accident. BOI's aren't conducted in isolation from the AAIB. And while board members may not know a lot about accident investigation when they start, guidance from the experts - BOI advisors and AAIB - they know an awful lot more when they finish. I think the problem is when it leaves the members of the board and becomes a 'political' rather than investigative issue.

sw

[RS15]

just remember, pete wasn't the only one affected the BOI for 4 years. Oh and maybe if the civis not want to see SAR helos at their airfields they might not want to see one at all. Now where's that log book with all those civi rescues in....

[Jackonicko]

I may be missing something here, but the difference between the way in which we reacted to Flt Lts Cook and Tapper having their reputations demolished, and the way we're reacting to the same happening to Flt Lt Binsted interests me.

I'm in no way suggesting that we shouldn't fight injustice when its meted out to the dead, but don't the living deserve even more consideration?

Quite apart from the loss to the service and the taxpayer (losing a productive bloke from the frontline, for whom we've paid), how about the impact on Flt Lt Binsted? How easily will he get a flying job when he does retire?

This bol.locks about ground tours needing to be filled sounds 'iffy' to me. As a 52 year old Flight Lieutenant, presumably Binsted is Spec Aircrew, and I thought they didn't routinely do ground tours?

[diginagain]

Having worked with Pete, I can only echo the sentiments of disgust at his treatment. I'd like to say more but I fear my words might sound trite under the circumstances.

My best wishes to both Pete and Penny, and thanks for looking after me back in 94-96.

[Heliport]

The inquest is on now.

'Helicopter whirlwind' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/07/nheli07.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/07/ixhome.html)