McRae Crash & Fatal Accident Inquiry

[VeeAny]

I do not wish to start a debate inside the other thread running on the Colin Mcrae Crash (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=292261), partly out of respect and also because I feel this is a related but seperate subject.

How do PPruners view the reporting of this and other crashes in the Media ?

Up to now the media seem to have incorrectly reported this to have been an R44 and a twin squirrel (which if G-CBHL is clearly an AS350).

In the other thread there was what appears to be a newpaper jumping the gun, to announce his death when they were basically quoting what had been written on another papers website at about 2310 last night.

I have just watched David Learmount (spelt correctly I hope) on Sky and couldn't work out if he was deliberately dumbing down hs opinions for the general public, or if what he was saying would make the general public believe that any mafunction of something as complex as a helicopter would cause it to crash. 2 of us just watched it and both thought the same thing. He also didn't make any effort to correct the interviewer who continually referred to a twin squirrel and the other high profile twin squirrel crashes. I am not trying to criticise David, I am just interested as to how these things get presented to the general public.

I would suggest that if there is to be debate on causes (as there usually is after an incident like this) that it is done in here and not on the other thread).

Heliport I hope you see why I've started a new thread, merge it or can it if
you feel appropriate.

[Capvermell]

On the face of it this sounds at least initially like mechanical failure whereas most of the other Twin Squirrel tragedies over the last few years have been pilot error. Although its still possible this was pilot error given that I understand the conditions were windy and rainy on landing, although there seems to be mention of a rotor blade separating before the plunge to the ground.

Is there any reason there should now have been several tragedies with the death of well known people in the Twin Squirrel in the UK or does it simply reflect the kind of customer clientele drawn towards this helicopter rather any inherent airworthiness or mechanical flaws?

[Capvermell]

David is one of those people who always makes himself available to the media after a major crash but is having to comment here in the absence of many hard facts having emerged about the crash as yet other than who was on board and that they would obviously appear to have been killed due to the severe nature of the accident.

Of course I would have expected someone in David's position to probably have contacts that let him fairly easily establish what helicopter Colin McRae owned but don't forget he no doubt agreed to do this interview not long after getting up on a Sunday morning.

Clearly the main issue is whether it was pilot error or not as although this seems kind of unthinkable with the pilot in question these appear to have been blustery conditions and also what about the aspect of the two young children being on board. Could they have caused some kind of distraction just at the wrong moment. The tragic case of the Aeroflot Airbus springs to mind, although that in that case the pilot actually allowed his teenage son to take the controls with disastrous consequences linked to a non fail safe auto pilot design.

[choppertop]

... in almost every incident of this unfortunate nature does discussion here end up with such scathing attacks on the media?

After scanning the frenzied and grotesquely ill-informed speculation on this site about Colin McRae's demise, I wonder how can anyone here can seriously accuse the media of intrusion, voyeurism or inaccuracy.

The media are grappling today with a lack of official information, trying to satisfy the public's craving for answers (so clearly evinced by posters here) and being pilloried for doing so. How can that possibly be fair? Isn't it just a teensy bit craven and hypocritical to shoot the messenger?

[VeeAny]

Choppertop
I for one am not trying to pillory the media, Its a serious question about the innacuracies porttrayed by them at times like these.

There is no doubt in my mind that without the media, and sites like PPrune people who have more than a passing interest in events like this would not find out what is going on in a timely fashion (if at all).

I have had my own experiences delaing with the tabloids after a fatal helicopter accident (and the reporters that day, where nothing short of bloodthirsty, trying desperately to bend the conversation the way they wanted it). The media sometimes seem to have a disregard for factual information, perhaps because they have no specialist knowledge in cases like this.

Watching another news report, within the same report a reporter said that the helicopter was taking off, 2 minutes later he said it was returning from a short trip to a local village.

ChopperTop I hope you remain involved in this discussion, and please forgive me, if what I write comes across as overly critical, I am told it is just the way I say things and hope it wont detract from a healthy debate. I seem to remember you identifying yourself as a former Journalist last week. What do you think when things like this are reported innacurately in the media, should they hold back until the facts are established or should they just run with the first thing they pick up on ?

I am not trying to bait you, I am just asking questions.

G.

[Galileo]

This is a tragic event and condolences to the families involved. Sadly as ever, we are now faced with reporters (Sky) and newsroom anchors (oh, sorry, did I leave a letter out), asking of people involved things such as 'can you tell us how the family are taking this', 'how do the family feel at this point' and other such banal questions. We can't begin to imagine how they feel - enough said. Our prayers are with them.

If by any remote possibility someone from news production is reading this, tell your guys to think of something more intelligent to ask, or, better still, don't ask at all.

[choppertop]

There is commercial pressure on heli pilots sometimes to fly at the edge of the weather envelope. Similarly, there is pressure on journalists to get the story out. People can only strive to get it right and they may fail.

At the BBC, it was a resolute rule that you never went with anything that couldn't be thoroughly 'stood up'. Sometimes sources are flawed. People under pressure are fallible. What can you do? Hacks are human beings. Heli pilots sometimes make bad calls too!

What dismays me is the appalling generalisation, widely shared on this forum, that all journalists distort the truth, hound innocent individuals, dwell ghoulishly on suffering and know disappointingly little about the technical minutiae of helicopters and the helicopter industry.

Is this presumption about journalists truly fair or realistic? If you want facts, someone has to ask the questions for you.

Chops

[Capvermell]

If by any remote possibility someone from news production is reading this, tell your guys to think of something more intelligent to ask, or, better still, don't ask at all.

Here, Here.

The only intelligent news coverage is about how the crash seems to have happened, when it happened, who was killed, what type of helicopter is involved and whether there have been many previous serious or fatal incidents with that helicopter type.

The other relevant coverage is a biography of Colin McRae's life and achievements and tributes from all his motorsport friends and/or other relevant national figures like Gordon Brown (a fellow Scot).

Any gung ho me, me, me and my succesful life type news anchor who asks how the family is feeling in these circumstances needs to be either summarily sacked or at least suspended for a month and sent immediately on a course in bereavement counselling.

[pumaboy]

Hi

Firstly, who bloody cares what the media think anyway and to what information is given and what helicopter type is involved.

The fact of the matter is a helicopter had crashed yesterday and everyone that is writing in this forum are all jumping to conclusion.

No one has been identified and to start speculating about the cause and who was killed can we the professional's have a little maturity and let authorities do thier job

I would like pass my condolises to the familes involved in this tracic accident.

best regards

[SEL]

One thing that often happens to me, being in the hgeli industry, is people asking me about it. I tend to always give the same reply "Wait for the AAIB report".

In the media, after a lot of coverage on an accident, they more often than not do not give the findings. When the report is published some months or years later, its old news - that angers me.

Another media point is there is always a lack of knowledge demonstrated. Also, an irritating habit of trying to link high profile crashes together, thereby creating a new story concerning a possibly 'flawed aircraft'.

With so much 'rolling news', I think quantity has sqashed quality. With any accident, the real cause or causes, will take time to discover. The media rush for a quick on-stop cause is futile and misleading. The use of phrases such as 'pilot error' is an example of outdated and simplistic thinking.

How should the media deal with accidents such as this? With the known facts at the time. There should be none of the tedious and useless speculation and a parade of 'experts' who don't have any further knowledge of the event or its causes (consider the rolling news coverage of events like the London bombings with hours of television, minutes of facts and the remainder pure speculation).

Simply stick to the basic facts of what has occured, when and perhaps, to whom (the latter unavoidable if famous). Eye witness reports and other associated information should be left out and maybe, just maybe, the media could inform the public where to find the official report once it is ready. I would suspect that most would be surprised at the length of time that will take but will give the best explanation of the accident. However, by that time the mass media will be on to something else by then.

[JimBall]

McRae's father, Jimmy, has just given a BBC interview in which he states that he is certain (from the track flown by the Squirrel) that the accident is due to a problem, not pilot error.

[[email protected]]

Choppertop - perhaps if the media stopped broadcasting 'eyewitness' reports that 'the engine sounded rough' or 'a blade looked like it fell off' in a pathetic attempt at newsgathering then people might be more understanding of your plight.

Joe public has no understanding of most aviation matters and vague, inaccurate or misleading information from a bloke standing in his field is not what quality media journalists should be giving to the world , no matter how 'hungry' for the news we appear to be.

JimBall, while I sympathise with Jimmy McRae's loss - he is hardly in a position to speculate on the cause.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Crab wrote:

Choppertop - perhaps if the media stopped broadcasting 'eyewitness' reports that 'the engine sounded rough' or 'a blade looked like it fell off' in a pathetic attempt at newsgathering then people might be more understanding of your plight.


You can't blame the media for broadcasting eyewitness accounts. These are precisely what the general public wants, and since the general public is the punter, that's what they are given.

And, if what the eyewitnesses sound stupid (often, I agree), then that's not the news outlets' fault, either.

What I do dislike is when aviation journalists give interviews to the broadcast media when they don't actually have anything to say. Often, it smacks of commercial opportunism, and rarely does it add anything to the picture.

David Learmount may well have been pressed into giving an interview by his paymasters at Flight, but when he got on camera he should have been quite clear that speculation was unhelpful and not in the immediate best interests of the families of those involved.

[JimBall]

Crab: I think you'll find that he is in a very knowledgeable position. Wait.

[choppertop]

I never sought to defend sloppy journalism. And I wince when I see lazying interviewing techniques, ill-informed reporter speculation dressed up as fact and so on. It just gets on my tits that people here are happy to speculate feverishly about a crash and its causes and yet, when the media does the exact same thing, it is seen has immoral and disgraceful. Many of my mates work bloody hard to get the truth out -- and not only for their own self-agrandisement or financial reward. I defend them.

[Capvermell]

Whilst we must not speculate excessively given where the accident happened and what happened (i.e. helicopter fell out of the sky near landing with no Mayday call after no previous reported problems with the flight) there are only really a limited number of likely causes:-

(a) Sudden catastrophic mechanical failure that there was no time to recover or do anything about so near the ground. Although helicopters are supposed to auto rotate to the ground in the events of engine failure does this still work when there is so little clearance from the ground or in the event of catastrophic gearbox failure. It also goes without saying that if the rotors themselves break then you are presumably a dead duck. Also I suppose that unexpected mechanical failure can then be broken down in to neglected or poor quality maintenance or alternatively a hidden manufacturer production defect or an inherent design defect on this helicopter type in certain flying situations.

(b) Sudden freak weather conditions with a massive downdraft or sideways wind shear as the helicopter neared the landing site. Perhaps such conditions were outside the experience of this pilot or perhaps unrecoverable by any pilot in this helicopter with so little altitude left to play with.

(c) Unthinkable but that something happened with the 5 and 6 year old children on board to massively distract Colin at a critical moment thus causing him to lose control of the flight.

(d) Not speculated on so far but how about something as simple and tragic as running out of fuel. It seems unlikely and one imagines there are warning buzzers etc for low fuel condition and obviously unlike a fixed wing aircraft in a copter you should be able to find somewhere to set down in time. But what if the low fuel warning system was defective.

What have I left out? Perhaps only the aircraft being brought down by gunfire or a ground to air missile. This last option seems so unlikely as to be able to be almost immediately discounted.

In the absent of any black boxes or voice recorders on a small helicopter like this we are obviously going to have to wait for a very long and painstaking analysis of the wreckage by the AAIB. The fact that the wreckage is nearly all findable within a small area and is not on the bottom of a lake or the sea must improve the chances of the cause being deduced if it was mechanical failure. If it was not mechanical failure then it is doubtful that precisely what happened and how it happened will ever be known. The tragic crash of JFK Junior at Martha's Vineyard springs to mind as such a case.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Since you use the term 'we' in response to a thread that queries the standard of media reporting on this mishap, I have to ask if you are you a journo, Capvermell?

If you are, then I would advise that rather than suggesting likely causes based on what appears to be a half-baked concept of both flying and helicopters, you should instead ask questions and then wait for the responses that may well follow from experienced aviators.

I am a specialist aviation journalist and a PPL(H) holder of 8 years, but I still don't think I know enough to be able to produce in public a definitive list of what was the likely cause. For example, you haven't considered a sudden control restriction or blockage, dynamic roll over, vortex ring, controlled flight into terrain in reduced visibility and so on.

In the interests of getting it right, I am more interested in talking to and listening to experienced helicopter pilots for their take on matters. I would suggest you stand to gain a lot if you do the same.

[Capvermell]

I am a journalist and a PPL(H) holder of 8 years, but I still don't think I know enough to be able to produce in public a definitive list of what was the likely cause. For example, you haven't considered a sudden control restriction or blockage, dynamic roll over, vortex ring, controlled flight into terrain in reduced visibility and so on.

The matters you list above that were not covered by my previous headings seems to mainly come under the sub heading of Pilot Error, which is clearly an obvious possible cause. It is perhaps unfortunate that I suggested that pilot error might have only occurred due to distraction by the children in my previous post.

I listed sudden bad weather conditions as a possible cause (I imagine vortex ring is one of those) although I would think controlled flight in to terrain is highly unlikely given that it was daylight and that eyewitness reports do not suggest fog or mist although there was some rain.

I am not a journalist but a financial information collection specialist and investment fund analyst. I will always try to analyse any situation based on the known facts that currently exist. Obviously when more facts come along then one's current holding analytical position may shift.

With respect I think I have enough fascination in air accidents and have read enough books about them and watched enough air accident investigation programs to have a pretty shrewd idea about the likely possible range of causes. Of course I cannot actually fly a helicopter but if the pilot screwed up in operating the controls in an otherwise flyable aircraft then that can all be summarised by the lay person as being pilot error.

[rotorspeed]

Capvermell

You are totally out of your depth and such amateurish comments are quite inappropriate in such a tragic accident.

[Jetboxer]

Quote

"With respect I think I have enough fascination in air accidents and have read enough books about them and watched enough air accident investigation programs to have a pretty shrewd idea about the likely possible range of causes. Of course I cannot actually fly a helicopter but if the pilot screwed up in operating the controls in an otherwise flyable aircraft then that can all be summarised by the lay person as being pilot error."

Capvermell, I'd stick to Analysing your financial information, rather than fascinating about air accidents (in public) with an obvious lack of knowledge.

The word 'Muppet' comes to mind!

[Efirmovich]

Capvermell,
May I suggest you stick to the financial markets and the F**k up there without posting ****e on a pilots forum ! Colin was a close friend.

E.

[valve guide]

Capvermell, please shut up and don't show yourself up any further. You really do know nothing.....not even manners at such a sensitive time. Shame on you.

[Capvermell]

I think pilots suffer with the same affliction as most GPs when it comes to the general public.

Namely that they think that their profession is such a speciality that the dumb punter must put his faith totally in their hands without question or contradiction, even though experience shows that both doctors and pilots regularly mess up, despite their own frequently god like belief that they are the professional experts.

I feel my analysis is every bit as responsible as that you might read in a national newspaper and a damn site more responsible than those national journalists who try to extract comments from the McRae family asking how they are feeling.

The attitude that nobody other than a helicopter pilot is entitled to comment on this topic when I also happen to be a motorsport fan simply reflects the well known ego mania and control freakery from which many members of your profession all too often suffer. In fact about the only place I have come across such objectionable and contemptuous attitudes to relatively informed newbies is in flying forums. Do you really still all model your personalities on John Wayne?

With respect to manners I have expressed my severe sense of loss at the sad news in the other relevant thread. But this thread is specifically for analysing the circumstances of the crash.

By the way I notice that my three tormenters all have under 60 posts in this forum which hardly qualifies them as experts on what is and is not an acceptable post. They also seem incapable of expressing themselves without the use of expletives but may be that is a normal pilot thing?

[CDME]

Capevermell,

You might want to cut some of the guys here some slack, they have just lost a colleague, and in some cases a close friend, so its still a bit raw.

Colin was a good friend of mine also and all I would suggest is maybe phrasing the questions a bit differently in future. Pilots are a mixed bunch same as any other industry so please dont judge them all the same. Its the same as journos and financial advisors etc.

Just my 0.02 cents worth.

CDME

[docstone]

Oh dear - when you have nothing useful to say, best to say nothing or risk being dammed by patent ignorance.

I'm a doctor and helicopter pilot - perhaps I can find another niche skill you can vent nonsense about Capvermell? Speculation is something pilots and doctors try not to engage in - is that what you mean by an affliction?

What a shame this thread has deteriorated into nonsense when it should serve as a record of respect, good memories and honest debate.

[Gaseous]

Capvermell,
There is an etiquette exercised by pilots that when we do not know the cause of an accident we do not wildy speculate. To do so risks unfairly damaging the reputation of the pilot, manufacturer, maintenence organisation and anyone else even remotely involved. It is also potentially distressing to friends and family.
We consider it good manners to wait until the AAIB report is published before commenting on the cause of an accident.
Hope that explains why you received a hostile response.

[Capvermell]

What a shame this thread has deteriorated into nonsense when it should serve as a record of respect, good memories and honest debate.With respect that is actually the purpose of the condolences thread. The purpose of this thread is to try and begin to diagnose the likely causes of the accident.

No one could be more upset than me that Colin McRae's life and brilliant driving career has been cut short, especially as I am a fan of the Paris-Dakar rally in which I am sure he would have continued to participate and even probably win in the coming years.

But that is why I would like to try to get the bottom of how such a terrible accident could have befallen him in a helicopter he knew well on terrain that he knew like the back of his hand.

[Capvermell]

What a shame this thread has deteriorated into nonsense when it should serve as a record of respect, good memories and honest debate.

Whatever may be your tradition in your own profession (sounds a bit like old fashioned closing ranks to me) it is not the tradition of the national press and with respect it is also not the tradition of this web forum as this web forum would be nothing without speculation on the cause of air accidents.

Having said that perhaps the correct place for this thread was therefore in the Rumours & News section of the forum and not in the Rotorheads section.

[Gaseous]

Speculation achieves nothing. Facts are what matter and I cannot sit at my PC and come up with facts. What a pity journalism does not work the same way.


edit: Actually I think most of the press coverage I have seen on this tragedy has been quite good. They dont seem to be able to get the type right but that is of no consequence. I havent seen any lurid speculation apart from on this thread.

[HillerBee]

The fact the pilot was a famous rallydriver, is not at all important. It's a terrible accident and four people where killed. It's not done to comment on possible causes Mr.Capvermell. We are not analysing financial markets or anything to do with money, we're talking about lifes. It's all a matter of respect.

[Hover Bovver]

I should say that the only people who could speculate about a helicopter accident are people who have ,and can actually fly one.:hmm:

[Capvermell]

Speculation achieves nothing. Facts are what matter and I cannot sit at my PC and come up with facts. What a pity journalism does not work the same way.

If I was you I would stick a paper bag over my head for a year and wait for the official AAIB report to come out. And make sure not to buy any newspapers where people with opinions rather than all the facts in their possession often tend to congregate in large numbers.:ugh:

[Rigga]

Nicely put, Gaseuos.

It is often so simple to pull down careless reporters who obviously are more concerned with a quick report - not whether it contains any facts or even bearing on the event - it is the speed that counts. Today I was reading many newspapers (in a Waiting Room) about this event and was astonished to read the variety of versions. I am astounded some even got the right date!

In my job I check the facts before acting (despite Pilots' reports) and check the facts again when I finish.

There seems to be no journalistic pride in the accuracy of their reporting.

[Gaseous]

If I was you I would stick a paper bag over my head for a year
Capvermell, If I do that, you will still be no better informed than I. The AAIB report matters. Your opinions do not.

[Capvermell]

I should say that the only people who could speculate about a helicopter accident are people who have ,and can actually fly one.

I see. So if my mother travels in the helicopter in which you are pilot and you crash it I am not allowed to speculate in any way on why you crashed it because I am not a pilot.

Presumably under your theory if my doctor cuts my leg off in surgery accidentally due to reading the wrong notes I am not allowed to speculate on why he did it because he is a trained doctor and I am not. And no one can comment on whether Gordon Brown is running the country properly apart from Tony Blair, John Major or Margaret Thatcher under your view on who is actually qualified to speak about the competence with which someone else is carrying out their job. And of course no one else is therefore entitled to speak about the competence of The Queen in carrying out her job as her predecessors in the role are all dead.

Do you also believe in divine right and ducking stools by any chance as well.:ugh:

[Hover Bovver]

Capvermell,

His name was Colin McRae!

[Capvermell]

His name was Colin McRae!

It is always easy to transpose a Mc with a Mac.

Error now corrected in the offending post.

[Hover Bovver]

And you will notice that this is a Professional Pilots Rumour Network, so please tell me what qualifies you to comment- and please dont say because you have read books and aaib reports :rolleyes: How can you possibly speculate on any flying aspect of the crash if you have no experience?

[bvgs]

We could all, helicopter pilots or not list, many many reasons why this accident could have occured. I personally wouldn't list one as I have no idea what the actual cause was. Until such times as the AAIB release the facts, nobody would benefit from that. The hostile reaction to you is probably for that reason. Perhaps time for you to end your comments and wait for the report.

[HillerBee]

Not bothered by any knowledge he dots on (Capvermell).

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Capvermell

The fact that you think vortex ring is linked to bad weather illustrates very nicely why non-flyers are best advised not to engage in threads such as this. It has nothing to do with ego, and everything to do with credibility - have you ever experienced vortex ring? Do you know how insipid it can be? Do you even know what it is? What are the parameters needed to get into it?

Now, you can take that the wrong way and talk about pilots having ego and the like, or you can just reflect on the fact that aviation is a very complicated business and this forum is full of guys who know it inside out (and i don't include myself in that category) and are much better placed to comment than you.

As for reading books and watching TV programmes, that simply is not enough to make you 'shrewd'. Shrewdness is something you acquire from having been there and done it, not from armchair reading.

[onthebumline]

Capvermell you blinking idiot.

I would not begin to speculate on what caused the current position the Northern Rock building soc has found itself in because I know nothing of finance. Your ridiculous comments about vortex ring and passengers distracting the pilot sound to professional helicopter aviators like if I started making up reasons why NR are in the poo on a financial analyst discussion forum. I would not do it as it would result in my own ridicule......and I would certainly deserve it. Please please go and spend some (or a lot) of time reading about rotary wing aviation and I will go and dig out my old GCSE economics text books in return.

At very least do a search on vortex ring and start reading. It was my understanding that finance is all about speculation.............aviation is based mainly around large servings of fact backed up by experience. Keep the speculation to the works canteen.

otbl

[Hippolite]

Capvermell

You have brought a small element of levity to what is otherwise a sad occurrence with the loss of someone respected by many.

This is, however, a Professional Pilots Rumour Network. Some of us with many years in the industry and many hours in command of helicopters (and we mostly know who we are here) choose to make speculative comment, some of which ends up being accurate and some which is not and can be ill informed, often acknowledged by the poster concerned.

This forum has a kind of "credibility scale" with generally a tacit respect among contributers when factored with their respective experience and location. We have our differences of opinion of course, but we generally agree to disagree like the professionals that we are.

The point is that it is quite possible for someone who is just starting out or even thinking about starting to post and be treated with respect and dignity as well as to garner a great deal of useful information.

Interestingly though, the Rotorheads Forum has a finely tuned Bullsh1t meter for those who have a flight simulator on their computer and become instant experts because they have heard a recording of an air traffic frequency while collecting registrations in a little book.

High BS meter readings are inversely proportional to credibility meter readings. Right now, you are in the danger zone on the BS meter while the credibility meter has not moved from the bottom scale.

Having read so many books, why don't you go and do a helicopter PPL. To me, you sound like a natural pilot so you should solo within a few hours. Read some more books, watch some more TV and you could do it in a couple of hours.

Maybe then, your comments will be taken seriously. Until then, you will remain the object of some hostility but mostly ridicule and mirth on this forum.

[ShyTorque]

After only 29 years since my qualification as a professional helicopter pilot, and not earning a penny in any other way since, I have found it better in all ways not to speculate in these matters.

The old maxim of "keeping one's mouth firmly shut and risking someone thinking you might be a fool, rather than opening it and removing all doubt" usually holds true. :oh:

[Flying Lawyer]

Capvermell
You say I would like to try to get the bottom of how such a terrible accident could have befallen him
If your command of English is an indication, you are an intelligent man or woman. What I find puzzling is that an apparently intelligent person could consider it possible to get to the bottom of what happened, or to form even a preliminary view, at a time when so few facts are known.
There is no information yet available (reliable or even unreliable) which might point to one cause as being more likely than another, or to a combination of causes.

When I read that you consider yourself to be "relatively informed" because of the books you've read and the television programmes you've watched about air accident investigation, I couldn't help but reflect upon the wisdom of what Alexander Pope wrote almost 300 years ago:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring."
The majority of people who post in this forum are professional pilots from all over the world, many of whom can properly be described as experts. Some are well known in the helicopter industry worldwide; others less well known but no less expert. Some, to my knowledge, have experience in a professional capacity of air accident investigations. Does it not occur to you that the reason they have declined to become involved in your speculation is that they know enough to know it's a ridiculous thing to do - particularly when there is so little information available?

Interesting that you've experienced "objectionable and contemptuous attitudes" in other aviation forums. I don't want to speculate with such little information available, but have you considered the possibility that you might be the cause?
The hostility you've encountered in this thread is relatively rare on PPRuNe, particularly in Rotorheads where those with expertise and experience giving generously to those with little or none is such a well-established part of the forum ethos.
If your attitude in this thread is typical, I can't say I'm surprised others have been contemptuous elsewhere. Frankly, your posts have become increasingly like a child stamping its feet because it can't get its own way.


FL


PS. People are now beginning to laugh at you. Perhaps a good time to back off with dignity?

[Pilot DAR]

Capvermell,

It would appear that you have firmly entrenched yourself on the wrong side of a lot of PPrune members. If that was your objective (and who can imagine why...) you have achieved it. Best now to change your name and start all over again, becasue it would appear that you'll not be forgotten here for a while!

I posted to another new PPrune member, in a whole other forum just the other day. The circumstances are a little different here, but you'll get the idea anyway. I'll paste in that post shortly...

When you've actually carried your dead pilot friend out of the aircraft he has just perrished in, you will probably tone down the nonsense of your own accord. Hopefully you will never have to do this, I wish I had not. Until then, perhaps the following post to another PPruner will inspire you to a more diplomatic approach to aviation in general, and members here....

(Oh, and disregard the reference to 35 hours flying time, I understand that the other member actually is a pilot!)

Here it is.......

You will probably get the most from this forum, and the genuine good well of it's participants if you respect that for many here aviation is a passion and often a career. After more than thirty years in aviation, the most important thing I have learned is that there will always be something else to learn, thus someone else to teach it. Aviators are eager to spread their passion far and wide, to those they consider worthy. After all, why waste one's time directing an effort to a person who will not appreciate it, or take it seriously? I do my very best to never antagonize anyone, as they might be a teacher now, or in the future. Kids I took flying 25 years ago, are now very experienced pilots, with a lot to teach me!

The same caution extends to commenting negatively on aircraft types. Each aircraft type, for better or not so much, has it's following. Why insult them? Those people probably have a wealth of knowledge as to how to get the most out of that type of aircraft. Why not rub those people the right way, and just ask for help?

One of the sayings includes a phrase that there are "no old bold pilots". I have met some young ones, and a few are still alive. How one approaches the people of aviation will say a lot about how you will approach aviation itself. If you want to endear yourself to those aviators who really have the wisdom you want, approach slowly, and with respect. Treat them as you would want them to see you treating their aircraft, should they allow you to fly it.

One PPrune member who was a new pilot on the other side of the world when she first communicated with me, has now had many hours of flying with me, and my support to be employed in an enviable project development job in aviation, with great opportunities, simply because she used the right approach. The only thing she ever knocked in her communication with me, were people who knocked her first.

35 hours is a great accomplishment, congratulations. Soon I'll have that in helicopters - I'm a newbie there for sure, I tread very lightly. However, my 5000+ hours in 120 fixed wing types (including C172's) make me nearly bold enough to suggest that you to ease into aviation, and spread out the experience, You'll enjoy it longer!

Today's free wisdom, for whatever it's worth,

Pilot DAR

[Heliport]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Hamlet_dilemma.jpg


I think the point has been made.

Time to move on.


Heliport

[pumaboy]

I think the time is right to move on

Journalists think they know everything do they Or do they

NOP

Why do we all not wait and see what the AAIB publish and as I said before don't we all shut the hell up and think about some of the families and freind's in this difficult time's that are invovled in this tragic accident and to stop speculating about what has happend

At the end of the day Know one of us , Not one has any clue what had happend on Saturday and you don't know who will read this forum and lets just think about what we right in this forum

Their are innocent people invovled here and it is bad enough what the media right in the papers but just as bad when we write negative things in a forum.

The media are doing a job the same as you and I but I wish that they think about what they say and write and some things mentioned are so unacceptable, they don't care it is only a job to them.

Please lets get on with other things and let the Authorities do thier job

Best regards

[tall and tasty]

G

I have had my own experiences delaing with the tabloids after a fatal helicopter accident (and the reporters that day, where nothing short of bloodthirsty, trying desperately to bend the conversation the way they wanted it)Unfortunately it is their job. Not nice but it sells the tabloids and sensationalism if the name of the game.

if you remember Lockerbie they said the reporters were there allowed to access the cordoned off area even after relatives where trying to get access to the site where their loved ones last moments were.

Very sad and to think a 5 year old was involved. They should show more respect.

TnT

[Skylark58]

This was in yesterdays 'Independent' by the Arts correspondent no less:

The sad death of Colin McRae and his passengers led to the appearance of a phrase that has a paradoxical familiarity in such stories: "the Twin Squirrel helicopter has a good safety record". It's paradoxical because you generally only encounter it after a fatal crash. I'm sure it was used when Matthew Harding died in 1996 in the same helicopter and I know it was used when the businessman Phillip Carter died with his son in another Twin Squirrel. Which prompts one to ask, a good safety record compared with what exactly? Only, one presumes, other helicopters – a form of aircraft that defies gravity in an unnervingly overcomplicated way. Compared with not owning a helicopter at all you'd have to say it really doesn't look that great.


I sent an e-mail as follows:

Sir,

Tom Sutcliffe asks if the safety record of a particular type of helicopter is derived from comparison with other types of helicopter. Well yes actually it is. What else would you compare it with? Data such as accidents per million flying hours, would be typically used. Records over many years on both sides of the Atlantic show the AS355 to have an excellent record and thousands have been in use for over 25 years, worldwide, for Police and Air Ambulance operations. Mr Sutcliffe’s comments, based on 3 crashes involving high profile individuals over a 12 year period, are about as sensible as questioning the safety of all Mercedes Benz cars, because of the crash which killed Diana, Princess of Wales.

I look forward with interest to some forthcoming Arts reviews from your Aviation Correspondent..

Yours Sincerely



The reply:



Thanks for your note...Of course I understand that the safety record is by comparison with other helicopters...I was being rhetorical... My point was that such boasts are rather pointless when they ignore other ways of travelling -- and as you almost certainly know helicopters have a worse safety record than fixed wing aircraft...

I think our aviation correspondent may be a surprisingly cultured man by the way..

Best Wishes


Tom Sutcliffe




Can anyone point me to some data on comparative safety of Fixed wing v Helicopter? I seem to remember that the Jet Ranger was statistically the safest single engined aircraft, fixed wing or rotary.


Regards

[manfromuncle]

I think the McRae crash was in a SINGLE squirrel? All the reports keep saying it was a twin?

[mountjoy]

Slightly off topic, but I feel the 'celebrity' culture we are forced to live and breathe in has a lot to do with this ill informed witch hunt.
The fact that 49 people have lost their lives as a direct or indirect result of police pursuits in the first six months of the year should be a greater cause for concern than the independents witch hunt on the squirrell helicopter. Journalists :ugh:

[Brilliant Stuff]

Also the newspaper article forgets conveniently that McRae's aircraft was a single.

Can't help with any statistics. But I loved the car comparison.

[RVDT]

Keep in mind -
" Most people have a higher-than-average number of feet (it only takes a single man with one foot to bring the average below 2).

The 355 is probably the most popular light twin in the UK which would have nothing to do with it would it?

[the beater]

Not when the crash involved a single squirrel.:confused:

[What Limits]

But it does not matter a jot what you are flying if it transpires that the cause of the accident was CFIT. The Harding crash certainly was and Carter MAY have been the same. It remains to be seen what happened to McRae. :sad:

Having made a brief study of statistics, they are there to prove whatever you will. Much has been made of the safety record of Robinsons and Jet Rangers, but when you count up how many there are and add in the fact that they are used frequently in high risk situations, the accident rate is quite low. :eek:

Perhaps its time for a period of reflection by pilots - what the hell are we doing consistently chucking perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground? :ugh:

[JimEli]

>
Can anyone point me to some data on comparative safety of Fixed wing v Helicopter?
<

It’s a very lopsided comparison when it includes the FW attempts at heliport landings.

[bladewashout]

How can there be comparisons when the rotary aircraft are sometimes used to do things which are both impossible to achieve in fixed wings and more risky.

A fixed wing isn't going to do close-up reconnaissance of power lines, land frequently in unprepared areas or do air-rescue / HEMS.

You would have to incorporate the average level of operational risk per average 1,000,000 flying hours alongside the accident rate to truly compare the safety, and this is very subjective. This means you could assess every 1M hours as being X% corporate airfield-to-airfield, Y% as corporate with one or more ends being off-field, Z% HEMS, etc, attach a risk to each.

If rotary were 30% more accidents per hour flown on simple comparison than fixed wings, that may mean they are substantially safer than fixed-wing for the same risk-area of operation, field to field.

BW

[ShyTorque]

Yes, it's more to do with what we are required to do with the aircraft, rather than the aircraft itself.

[TRC]

There have been numerous wailings and gnashing of teeth on this forum about the dramatising and mis-reporting of aviation details in the press.

I saw in the paper recently, an article reporting the crash in Phuket. In amongst all of the survivor reports and eye-witness accounts - in a box in the centre of the page was a sub-headline which was something like:

"MD-80, a troubled history"

Then followed three accounts of accidents involving MD-80's covering umpteen years. Nothing, of course to mention the hundreds of thousands of accident-free hours flown by the type during the same period.

What about the articles every time there's a fatal RTA, followed by a scathing history of the Vauxhall Nova, or some such vehicle with a "troubled history"?


If man had been meant to fly, why were we given the railway?

[VeeAny]

Todays gem of wisdom from news.scotsman.com

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1520782007



THE helicopter crash which claimed the lives of rally ace Colin McRae, his son and two other passengers could have been caused by the failure of a component which links the engine to the rotor blades, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.

Police sources say they are almost certain the tragedy was caused by mechanical failure rather than pilot error. It is understood one of the theories being examined is whether the Twin Squirrel's drive belt failed, causing a sudden and catastrophic loss of power.

Sources close to the inquiry claim that no trace of the belt has yet been found, a possible indication that the vital component broke - or disintegrated - immediately before the accident.

Last time I checked the crash aircraft still wasn't a Twin Squirrel and even if it was I don't remember the engine driving the rotor blades via means of a belt on the twin or single squirrel (not rated on AS350 so may be wrong, :ugh:) !!!!!

I've emailed the reporter to suggest he checks his facts.

GS

[TRC]

The constant reference to a Twin Squirrel in this accident is odd.

There are no drive belts on a 355 - maybe an after market A/C system perhaps - however, the hydraulic pump on the 350 is driven by a belt.

All things being equal, hydraulic failure in a 350 shouldn't be catastrophic.

[Aesir]

Sources close to the inquiry claim that no trace of the belt has yet been found

They are going to have to look a long time for a transmission drive belt on a AS350 :suspect:

[choppertop]

It is often said air travel is safer than road travel. Yet most road crashes involve teenage drivers in built-up areas. Take out those crash figures from the equation (because few pilots are teenagers and few aircraft operate on busy roundabouts at rush hour) and I would be interested to see a comparison of air travel accidents with road travel per mile flown/driven. I suspect air travel isn't quite as safe as we think.

[jeepys]

Well if you do that you may as well take out of the equation all the helo crashes due to bad weather. Now look at the results.

Not saying in any way that the CMAC crash was due to this factor so lets not let this thread go down the bad weather disorientated pilot route.

[212man]

Yet most road crashes involve teenage drivers in built-up areas

Something of a sweeping statement which, even if true, probably doesn't account for the majority of road fatalities (due to speeds involved.)

[choppertop]

Yup, agreed, strike 'most' and insert 'many' in my earlier remark.

I once read somewhere that over a 600 mile journey, conducted by road by adult drivers in fair weather and away from dense traffic (ie light motorway traffic), the probability of being involved in a fatal collision was much the same as for an air journey of a similar distance.

[IHL]

I have an interst in helicopter accidents from the accident prevention point of view. I have skimmed through the posts. I am none the wiser as to what happened.

Did the engine fail? Did the Hydraulic system Fail? Did the pilot roll over on landing?

Is there any factual information yet?

[CDME]

IHL - The only thing I can comment on re your post is that he didnt roll over on landing. For some reason he ended up in the trees before he got to his landing area.

Hopefully the accident report will shed more light on what really happened.

[TRC]

Other than pure speculation, some of it without any knowledge of aviation it would seem, there have been no official findings published.

The AAIB will deliver their findings in an official report when they are satisfied with their investigation.

The 'police sources' quoted above obviously have no idea what they are talking about - let alone what they are looking for.

[IHL]

TRC, CDME

Thanks:

Ended up in the trees before landing; uhm.

The AS 350 is a very popular aircraft, there have been numerous accidents related to hydraulic system issues.

Many operators over here are repowering the B models with the LTS 101 engine which is ironic, they first appeared in North America with the LTS 101.

It would be interesting to know if it was powered with the aeriel or lycoming engine.

There have been a few accidents in North America [recently] related to issues with the Lycoming LTS 101 conversion; though an auto-rotation into the trees shouldn't result in fatalities.


I quess we will have to wait and see.

[CDME]

Colin had an AS350B2.

[TRC]

Colin had an AS350B2.

Powered by an Arriel engine.

I was not suggesting that a hydraulic system problem caused this accident, by the way. It's just that it's the only drive belt on the aircraft - and it was in response to the post earlier - that's all.

[Helinut]

That recent Scotsman post does make the point most eloquently about incompetent journalism, which is what was suggested earlier in this thread. If all that was done was to report that the helicopter involved was a Mk 2 Skyranger (when it was not) that is one thing. But this nonsense is of a different order. If they are going to try and do their own accident investigation, it is completely irresponsible to do it in this way. Whilst we do not know what the causes of this terrible accident are, the whole of that article was a tissue of nonsense based on incorrect information that could have been checked fairly easily. :ugh:


Like VeeAny, I was also inclined to contact the Scotsman to complain about their poor journalism. Before I do, I would be interested to know what response VeeAny gets, if any? Can you report back idc??

[Ewan Whosearmy]

I have just written to the article's author, and CC'd the email to the Editorial desk in the hope that someone will pull the article from the site (it's still up) and issue a correction/retraction.

I find it hard to believe that this gentleman has not exercised even the most basic of journalistic instincts: fact checking being one of them.

[Alloa Akbar]

Seems to me that there are a few ppruners out there eager for as yet, non existant explanations as to why, a friend to some and fellow aviator to others lost his life and that of his passengers through no apparent fault of there own.. Thus the page of posts about YET ANOTHER clueless journalist. Come on guys, we see these articles after every crash, we know they are ill informed and know nothing about aviation. Difficult though this is, we must all wait for the AAIB to do their job, we know where the facts will originate and how they will be published, no point getting revved up over anything else is there?

As I said, emotions aside, patience.:ok:

[TRC]

Thus the page of posts about YET ANOTHER clueless journalist. Come on guys, we see these articles after every crash, we know they are ill informed and know nothing about aviation.


Yes AA - that's the point.

I don't know if you are in the helicopter business, but those involved in aviation who are "getting revved up" about this foolish reporting by journalists are sick and tired of such mis-information. Reporters who have suddenly become arm-chair aviation experts, quoting 'inside sources' that are so far off the mark that they quote the likely cause is a part that doesn't exist on the crashed helicopter. The Scotsman article compounds things by quoting the wrong helicopter type (on which the phantom part doesn't exist either) and goes on to remind us of other high-profile accidents that have occurred to the incorrectly reported helicopter type.

This is what Joe Public reads and believes to be fact.

What REALLY annoys me is had this accident occurred in, say, a high-powered rally car - of which I know little - and some cock-and-bull story emerged from so-called 'inside sources' as to the cause, I would probably have believed it. My opinion of rally cars would have plummeted thinking that they were held together by rubber bands.

Why do so many people think that travelling by helicopter is dangerous?

Buggered if I can think of a reason............

[Hummingfrog]

AA

Pilots will always speculate about a crash it is in our nature. These will, however, usually be based on the knowledge of what can and does go wrong when we leave terra firma. What annoys us is the ill informed and usually overdramatic reports by the press. If they took a little time to talk to the experts before spouting garbage we would have more respect for them.


It is interesting that you criticise fellow pilots for speculating but in fact you have speculated as well as by saying that:-

"lost his life and that of his passengers through no apparent fault of there own"

In this tragic accident there can be many causes but none are apparent at the moment, so no cause can be ruled out.

The AAIB have a very difficult job to do which is why it takes so long for them to publish their reports. They have to be accurate and sometimes the crash site gives them few clues to work with.

As well as having attended crash sites I have lost a few friends in air accidents, including my Best Man, and I hope I lose no more.

HF

[Alloa Akbar]

Guys,

yes I am in the helicopter business, and have been for the last 20 years. My point was simply that getting irritated by these chimps is natural, yet pointless. Its like trying to round up a field of cats, you nail one and six dozen others will step out of line.

I'm not questioning an aviator's ability or right to speculate either, especially on a rumour site, all I'm saying as why do we even give the ill-informed a split second of our time?? OK so Joe Public may well be swayed one way or another depending on which ill-informed rag he reads, but I think the important point is that those who relate to the victims, personally or professionally, really are capable of rising above the sensationalist drivel that we see in papers every day. I also think that Joe Public's final opinion on the accident will also be swayed by the article which reads "Helicopter investigation official findings released".. and not "Pilot was having oral sex whilst high on drugs whilst me and my kids feared for our lives on return from holiday of a lifetime"... which as I understand, is journalist speak for "A spot of Turbulence on the Alicante flight":rolleyes:

Not criticising fellas, just ignore the feckers.. :ok:

[Brom]

Just seen this, hope it's a not true.

http://www.midlothianadvertiser.co.uk/latest-scottish-news/McRaes-pilot-licence-had-expired.3364169.jp

Brom.

[VeeAny]

Helinut

No response at all is what I got. I didn't really expect one, but a reasonable period of time has now elapsed so I assume I am not getting one.

GS

[piesupper]

I wonder how soon it will be before the journos start drawing comparisons between Colin's crash and Graham Hill's sad demise 30 years ago. IIRC there were paperwork failings there too. I think there were other more serious failings on Graham Hill's part but what I know of that is based only on press reports of the time. Too low in dreadful weather, overloaded and unqualified on twins?

Obviously he was eventually too low but the rest of it I stand to be corrected on. Won't stop the journos though.....

[pumaboy]

If any of you out their had any sence then you would* stop waisting time about anything that is printed in the Sun newspaper and wait until the real facts come out from the AAIB.
I have said this time and time again stop listening to the media and just wait.:ugh: People have died in this tragic accident and the media don't care what is printed in the papers just so long they get a story dos'nt matter what it is just so long that they get what they want even though they brake someones fealings.

Please stop listening or read to what you hear it is just gossip and until the facts have been printed from the experts then we can start speaking

Pumaboy

[The Hustler]

As someone who doesn't have a license (but is saving towards one), I'd like to know how easy it is for someone to let a license expire, and how easy it is for them to still fly.

Does the CAA get in touch as licenses expire? Do they regularly check helicopters on their register to see who's been flying them? As both the pilot's license and the aircraft registration is handled by the same people, do they do anything like this?

If this sort of thing happened 30 years ago, then surely they would have put something in place to stop it happening again . . .

[Hummingfrog]

TH

Your license has a set validity period - depending on who issued it. My CAA ATPL has a 10yr life - while my JAR ATPL has a 5yr life! The CAA sends a reminder when the license is due to go out of validity.

This is however the validity period and not the currency period. You have to be current to legally fly - in my case I have to do a license proficiency check (LPC) every 12 months and in between those, at the six month point, I do an operators proficiency check (OPC). The CAA doesn't remind you about these.

I have a CPL(A) which I use with PPL privileges to hire from my local club - I recently went out of validity, my fault as I didn't check, so couldn't fly. It is my responsibility to make sure I am current.

HF

[Hover Bovver]

The CAA does not notify you if your PPL H is expiring !

[Gaseous]

Hustler,
As a private owner it is very easy to fly without up to date paperwork, medical, etc. in the same way as it is easy to drive illegally if you own a car. The responsibility to keep on the right side of the law is down to the pilot.
I know of one pilot who many years ago bought a machine, taught himself to fly and did so for a long while before finally getting a licence. :eek:
A PPruner as well! - and no, not me.
No one has ever challenged me on my paperwork.

[3top]

Unfortunately most true reporters/journalists (Investigative Journalists??) don't work for "Daily Sensation", but for papers or channels the general public considers too much "work" to consult regularly.
It is easier to get "entertained" by "Daily blood and gore and action..."
That's why I never talk to any journalist/reporter (the story teller version...).
However it is the general public (me included) that controls demand!
Certainly not as devastating as this particular case, but serves as a sample:
You all remember the impossible BS helicopters can do in James Bond movies (...incl. the mostly wrong sounds) and others.
Well, a Geologist that flies frequently with me (pilot himself though plank..) told me that his wife is a Archeologist/Historian with a special in Ancient Rome.
Now SHE got really upset with the not period matching costumes in "The Gladiator". They where off some 350 years. Imagine running around like Robin Hood these days....
Well, I didn't care. Didn't even know until that day! Still was a great movie to me! I was the general public in this case...
99% of the public is like that, except for ones speciality!
It is futile to fight for accuracy for everyone! No one cares, except for the 1%.
Of course when real people get involved (as opposed to actors....) things should matter!
Still futile...
In some future documentory you may see the "Story of McRae's tragic accident", hopefully by something like Discovery or NatGeo or alike.
Until then, swallow it, just change the channel... (or get angry...)
It was mentioned before by the "new guy", that he watched a lot of Aviation accident series.
Did you realise that these are generally very old accidents, mostly some 10+ years in the past....
Serious journalism takes time. Most none of the individual journalists involved have the resources to do their own investigation and have to rely on the official report, long time after "sensation" is depleted.
It is just here we are in a speciality corner and we get worked up everytime (way to often lately... unfortunately) something happens....
Didn't know McRae, but what my gut tells me about him, from the reaction of people in the know on this thread (and the other one...) I find it improbable that he would be "out of paperwork" for that long. Expired since '05???
Again, speculation.
Even so, what do I care.
Expired paperwork, lost paperwork, wrong paperwork doesn't make you crash.... (General Public may have a different opinion, ....I am with the 1% here)
Something else does....
3top:(
PS: I take it no real insights yet?
Didn't know the man personally , but I do fly the B3 version of the bird, so am VERY interested to find out why....

[Roofus]

Interesting.......speculation, damnation & utter drivvle.

Tragic accident, AAIB investigating......they'll tell us when they know!

Yep...press, on the whole, inaccurate. But perfectly allowed to report as they see fit.

Ppruners...on the whole, inaccurate. But perfectly within their rights to spout drivvle.

I know, I've had a crash. Press got the facts wrong, but never said anything other than good things about 'the pilot'. Ppruners, on the whole, got their facts wrong & said unkind things about 'the pilot'.

Facts came out.....speculation silenced. Press & pprune nice about 'the pilot'.


Guys......the AAIB will answer these questions. Everyone here is slating the press for inaccurate reporting, I'd suggest some people need to look closer to home first.

Tragic accident, people lost their lives. Condolences to all.

[pumaboy]

Would like to say to Rufus

I Could not have made it better if had tried

Good posting.:D:ok:

[walkabout]

And as you can't libel the dead, there would have been no need for The Sun to go through their normal rigorous processes to validate the facts behind this report :rolleyes:
As has been said, wait for the AAIB report.
W

[verticalhold]

Roofus;

I remember what it was like when it happened to me, and you are absolutely spot on. I still have the "report" from the aviation "specialist" of a certain northern UK newspaper/bog roll stuck in the logbook I was on at the time. It still makes me cringe years later. The A/C still hadn't been recovered when he dreamed up his report, but the mud stuck until the AAIB report came out months later. Luckily for me PPRUNE was a mere shadow of today, and our lunatic company had banned personell from posting on it with threats of the sack if any pilots were identified!

VH

[G-CPTN]

The family of rally star Colin McRae is to set up a foundation to support budding racing drivers.
McRae, 39, died along with his five-year-old son Johnny when the helicopter he was flying crashed in September last year.
The father-of-two from Lanark won the World Rally Championship (WRC) in 1995 and had 25 WRC wins in his racing career.
A charitable foundation will raise funds for up and coming drivers.
The Colin McRae website said: "We are now fairly certain of what we want to achieve and are working on the detail, but we hope to use the Foundation to identify, help and support the motor sporting champions of the future and to raise funds for charitable causes identified by the McRae family.
"As many of you will know Colin had been a long time supporter of young driving talent, as evidenced by his support of the young Kris Meeke and more recently of the Albar Junior programme within the County Saab Scottish Rally Championship.
"It was therefore felt that it would be a fitting legacy to be able to continue this work under the auspices of the Foundation."

(from:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7212829.stm )

[rotorboater]

I was driving up the M6 on Saturday when 100's of Subaru owners were driving south to celebrate Colin McRae, there were hundreds of people on all the bridges waving at the cars, very touching.

[[email protected]]

And we are still waiting for the AAIB report.

[212man]

Yes, we are. I recently saw the wreckage (amongst others) and it's a sobering sight. I understand there was some very hard contemporaneous documentary evidence available, which should yield a speculation free outcome.

[[email protected]]

As in 'helicopters don't crash themselves'?

[212man]

Well, clearly. What I meant was we won't (I believe) be seeing the toing and froing of opinion and counter opinion we saw with the Steve Hislop (and others) accident - it should be more clear cut.

[[email protected]]

Well, since any technical failure would have led to checks across the fleet and that doesn't seem to have happened, it doesn't leave many alternatives.

[ShyTorque]

Sadly, I think this report will make more than minor back page news when released. :(

[valve guide]

Has there ever been an official conclusion on this tragic accident. I just wondered, assuming that I simply haven't missed it, why it has taken so long?

[[email protected]]

valveguide - when the AAIB report is complete, the relatives get to view and comment on it before it is released. If there are any contentious issues which may lead to further legal proceedings or conclusions that the family don't agree with, then these need to be investigated which delays the issue of the report.

The fact that the crash was in 07 and we are still awaiting the report is a fairly clear indicator that most of the speculation at the time was ill-founded.

[BoeingMEL]

Did I miss the AAIB report or is it still awaited? Any news, opinions etc appreciated. Regards bm

[JTobias]

Not seen anything.I'm waiting to read it too.
Heard loads of rumours but nothing concrete.
I'd like to think that it was some form of catastrophic failure because I hear he was a very competent pilot. It's a terrible shame either way.

Joel

[FLY 7]

No not published yet.

Presumably, the cause has been identified but there are litigious implications that are delaying publication.

[BoeingMEL]

Thanks for your replies Tobias and Fly.. bm

[pohm1]

BBC News Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7884088.stm)


P1

[mocoman]

was about to post the same link as pohm1

not fully read the report yet but the implication is that blame is being directed towards Mr McCrae.

An Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) report into the tragedy found no cause could be positively determined.


It does seem as if standards were lacking in the McCrae houshold as far as licence compliance is concerned.

:(

[ReverseFlight]

I feel very sorry for Mr McRae and his family. I used to enjoy watching his old man race on TV.

Servo transparency / jack stall / control reversibility is often brought about by extreme manoeuvres. If that were the case, then we helicopter pilots will always have to live with the fact that, no matter whether we were specifically informed, trained, or experienced in certain emergency situations, if we can't recover, the authorities are likely going to point the figure towards pilot error.

[clareprop]

Whatever the reasons for the actual crash, it appears that the public at large and the famlies involved will understand that this flight took place whilst Mr McRae was not current on type. Unfortunately, the AAIB investigation shows that this does not seem like a "one-off" which can be put down to oversight as there is a history of Mr McRae flying whilst non-current.
The McRae legal team are putting a brave face on it but I think any PPL, fixed or rotary, will be disappointed and saddened by this story.

[VeeAny]

The Report is published today

No preexisting mechanical defect could be found, makes interesting reading and its quite long. Possible servo transparency during harsh maneouvering.

Air Accidents Investigation: Eurocopter AS350B2 Squirrel, G-CBHL (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/february_2009/eurocopter_as350b2_squirrel__g_cbhl.cfm)

[Matt Jones]

I've read the McCrae on and it makes for sober reading. It would appear he wasn't very good with procedures and was probably taking unnecessary risks when his luck ran out. Very sad especially for thoses who lost someone :(. I bet the tabloids will have a field day with it :=

[moggiee]

Whether or not servo transparency was an issue, this will be remembered as a crash that happened to a pilot whose licence had expired 2 1/2 years previously, whose type rating had expired over 6 months previously and who had a repeated history of flying his helicopter when unrated and unlicenced. He was also caught on video engaging in risky flying involving illegal low flying.

I wonder how all that affects the insurance and possible payouts to the family of victims? It must also be hurtful to Mr McRae's family, and even more so to the family of the other victims, to see such a history of rule breaking and risk taking laid bare.

[[email protected]]

If he wasn't so well known, I think that a lot less would have been made of the 'servo transparency' issue. The AAIB report has been a long time in coming out, I suspect due to the McRae legal team and family trying some damage limitation.

He was a professional risk-taker, you can't drive at 120mph down country lanes and tracks safely and, whilst he was very good at it, those skills do not automatically transfer to helicopter flying. Very sad that he took 3 other people with him when he discovered the limits of his ability.:sad:

[61 Lafite]

The report included reference to the passengers' obvious enjoyment of the flying, and does bring home the responsibility to balance the opportunity to entertain people with that of safe flight.

Whatever his flying history, and whatever was the initiating event or events, at up to 130kts speed maybe 100ft or so above the ground, down in a valley lined with trees pulling a high-G manoeuver, there would have been little or no margin to recover from any control problem.

The parents of the young boy also killed have stated that this accident was "completely avoidable". You can never completely eliminate risk, but it's hard to dispute that fact, and although the McRae family are pointing at anything other than the pilot, the pilot's decision making put them in the place where they had no scope to recover.

Also, the McRae family say the hope the report "draws a line" under the incident. Wishful thinking indeed.

Lafite

[Tarman]

I was told that the dual controls were still fitted at the time of the accident. Apart from the obvious inadvertent interference possibilities, what are the legal implications?

[Martin Barclay]

This thread was originally started to discuss the media coverage of accidents and here we are providing easy to understand 'sensational' copy for those lesser tabloid journalists who would not read or understand an AAIB report past page 2.

This is a rumour network. The report is out. It makes sobering reading and is full of facts not rumours that hopefully some people will learn from.

Can we not leave it there and let the media have their feeding frenzy without our help.

[Tarman]

You might not agree with everything that you're reading Martin but I don't think we should all sit on our thumbs just in case a journalist is watching. No-one should be flying any type of aircraft without a valid licence, that is a FACT.

[Whirlygig]

What rumours have been made in any of today's posts here?

Yes, dual controls were fitted; it's in the report. Yes, the aircraft was "at up to 130kts speed maybe 100ft or so above the ground"; it's in the report. Yes, the pilot didn't have a valid licence or type-rating; it's in the report.

Cheers

Whirls

[P1DRIVER]

Colin McRae was a hero (in a rally car) He was an excellent world class driver who took risks. Its a shame he couldn,t separate this from flying !!
Perhaps we need to fit ROLL CAGES to these helicopters. ( just a thought )

P1D

[Martin Barclay]

My point exactly Whirls. There are no rumours, just non technical damning explanations of the contents of the report, a lot of which would not be understood by those outwith this forum.

We have all read the report and despite a couple of 'could have been' deviations it's conclusions are pretty clear.

As for the comments about the invalid licence and type rating this information is out there in the media, only in a truncated and innaccurate form. Lets see what they make of illegal low flying and risk taking over the next few days.

Clearly I don't defend anyone flying with any of their paperwork out of date and as for the comment about the roll cage!!!!!

[What Limits]

Regarding roll cages..... Aicraft designed to meet or exceed the latest FAR 29 requirements do effectively have roll cages built in.

That does not mean that a new aircraft purchased today will actually be anywhere near that requirement but thats another story.

[61 Lafite]

Martin

In some threads, I would agree with your sentiments, I don't here.

Although none of us are perfect, this report makes very sobering reading, and it should be the subject of open debate among pilots and, the general public. From a relatively low hours pplh pilots perspective, my opinion is that his decision to put himself and his passengers where he did was highly questionable.

That may be obvious to all of us, but in a chat forum, we have to type what we think to debate something.

For the record, if it ever happens to me I hope it would be fully dissected in here in the (probably vain) hope that the more fellow pilots talk about whatever questionable decision I might have made, the more likely it is that one single person might make a better decision one day. If I could have done better, I'd like others to learn from it.

The report is out - most people waited for that. I don't believe anyone is other than respectful of the fact that Colin was a talented and highly regarded business and family man, but the report leaves open his approach to detail and his attitude to risk. He would never have been as successful as he was without taking risks. But the evidence points at his own actions creating a sad legacy which does not mirror the majority of his life.

Would any other rotorheads reader expect us all to just read it, go away and not discuss our opinions amongst ourselves, and to hell with who else might read them and make of it what they will?

Lafite

[MightyGem]

Whose aircraft was it? Was it his, or a hired one? If it was hired, how could he hire it without a valid license?

[Ned-Air2Air]

Mighty Gem - It was Colin's own machine, and replaced an EC120 he had before it.

Ned

[FAL]

As a former international rally competitor, I am dumsruck by some of the supportive (of McRae) comments being made on motorsport forums, where the appalling insurance implications for McRae's surviving family seem to go unrecognised, despite the precedent of Graham Hill's family.
Graham Hill (and another cowboy pilot Colin Chapman, who survived his aerial conduct) were of an earlier era, not much removed from the one inhabited by Mike Hawthorn, who's fatal road accident we have just been remembering 50 years on.
McRae was from a modern era, had met Damon Hill on many occasions and should have been well aware of the financial implications of his actions and given more thought to the boring paperwork.

[Martin Barclay]

OK Lafite, I kind of stand corrected and if only the right people were reading this I would be all for an open debate. Unfortunately I have just had to sit and watch a TV journalist on BBC Reporting Scotland wave a copy of the AAIB report before producing a completely innaccurate analysis of the accident which did not reflect in any way the contents of the report.

I do want to talk about this but maybe at the Safety Evenings where there is less likelihood of press intrusion and sensationalism.

[Tarman]

I have just watched the BBC Scotland News as well. The illustration of the accident was pathetic. They also have a habit of wheeling out a certain “Expert” Jim Ferguson who clearly does not have a clue what he's talking about. At the time of the accident his only comment was to say that Colin's helicopter used to be registered in Canada. What the hell had that to do with anything?
This forum is full of highly experienced pilots (I do not include myself ) who could quite easily give an informed analysis that the general public could understand. Instead of us censoring our comments we should maybe be encouraging the media to come on and help them to report aviation related news items accurately

[VeeAny]

Martin

Strangely enough because my telephone no. is on the helicopter safety website I was approached today for comment on this by the press.

I considered it for a liitle bit, merely to try and stop some of the sensationalism and misinterpretation of some key phrases of the report I've seen today in the media but in the end I delcined for a few reasons.

1. I figured that if they want to know what the report means they should ask the people who wrote it, not someone else for their interpretation.
2. I know nothing about single squirrels.
3. Other than reading the report what more do I know than anyone else.

And that was pretty much how the conversation went.

I also have an inbuilt mistrust of the media, after an earlier incident that happened to someone else that I've spoken about on PPRune before.

Was I right or wrong ? I moan when the media get it wrong and then do nothing when given the opportunity to perhaps put it right.

Behind the closed doors of a safety evening I think will be more appropriate.

[Senior Pilot]

I do want to talk about this but maybe at the Safety Evenings where there is less likelihood of press intrusion and sensationalism.

We all know that the press come to PPRuNe for background/comments/information, especially in high profile cases. This would be a prime example, and as such we would be better off discussing factual, concise and professional comments or opinions.

Should the press choose not to use it, fine. If they sensationalise or report inaccurately, we can only moan and whinge :rolleyes: If scurrilous or inaccurate comments are made, Mods will try to edit accordingly. But nothing is gained by keeping discussions private and secret, except deny informed opinion to those who would most benefit.

I have also changed the thread title to reflect the general discussion that has now ensued.

[chopjock]

moggiee said: He was also caught on video engaging in risky flying involving illegal low flying.
Martin Barclay said: Lets see what they make of illegal low flying and risk taking over the next few days.

Guys, I was unaware that low flying in a valley is illegal.:confused:

[Hippolite]

Illegal or not, the pilot appears to have operated the aircraft in such a way as to exponentially increase the risk profile of the flight. This should not be acceptable when carrying passengers.

Those who say he was a good pilot, well, I dispute that. There is much more to flying than manipulating the controls. He was not a good pilot because he failed to recognise that his thrill seeking behaviour put innocent lives at risk. He was not a good pilot because he, confused or not, decided to fly a helicopter with an invalid licence.

I know what I would be doing if I was the family of the innocent deceased.

[Low Flier]

During the periods of flight captured on the video recording, the helicopter did not fly above 500 ft agl, and it was considerably lower for most of the time. Other aspects of the pilot’s handling of the aircraft were noteworthy: these included instances of very low flying, valley flying and other manoeuvres, as described below.

On the outbound flight the helicopter flew as low as 155 ft over open farmland, as indicated by the altimeter and, at one point, it flew over farm buildings at a height estimated from the video to be 275 ft. The pilot then rolled the helicopter rapidly into a brief but steeply banked right turn, before reversing the turn to the left, at which point a true indicated height of 335 ft was recorded.

When the helicopter departed from the farm on the accident fight, the pilot flew a ‘zoom’ climb, before descending into a narrow, steep-sided valley, next to the town of Larkhall. The valley is about 250 ft deep, and densely packed with trees along its length. This section of the recording showed the helicopter flying over trees at the valley’s edge at speed, with a separation from the trees estimated from the video footage at between 20 ft and 30 ft. It then pitched nose-down and descended into the valley, coming into similar proximity to trees on each side and below.


What could possibly go wrong?

[Phil77]

Shortly after an accident happens, some people here are always on the fence with statements like: "let's wait for the official report and don't mention a word in regards of the probable cause (e.g. speculate)" and the like. Now the report has finally been issued and we STILL aren't supposed to discuss it!?! :ugh::ugh:

Give me a f*** break!
Like a lot of people have stated before: the media WILL report, no matter what we say. Every industry has its fair share of morons and maybe, just maybe, the media will see that we are not just accepting the fact that one of us did not abide by the rules and killed innocent people. They might recognize that we actually speak up and say that we as professionals condemn any kind of behavior like this!!!

(rant over)


Who says you aren't supposed to discuss it? My previous post was intended to encourage sensible discussion, bearing in mind that the press will watch and take note of most of what is said here.


Senior Pilot

Edit:
Senior Pilot:

I'm sorry, my statement was targeted at some posters, not at you or pprune in general. I feel its important to point out that the media is reading this, but to say we should keep quiet is ridiculous - not only would it probably fuel the fire, it is pretty impossible to gag everyone here anyway (I know that is not your intention).

[Whirlygig]

What could possibly go wrong?
It looks as though he was dowwind as well :ouch:

Cheers

Whirls

[[email protected]]

Being downwind is pretty irrelevant at such high speed and low level if you don't see the tree.

He simply didn't leave any margin for error in his flying and let playing to the audience override any sense of self-preservation.

[20Minuter]

Hippolite - well said. This incident needs to be talked about, at length, openly so others may learn from it. After all, it turned out to be a Flight Safety issue!!!

[NigelOnDraft]

[email protected] downwind is pretty irrelevant at such high speed and low level if you don't see the tree I suspect if you actually read the report, you might find:
A Downwind could well have been relevant
B They probably did see the tree well before they hit

In fact, both elements are specifically discussed

NoD

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

I think reading the report and hearing the witness reports, video etc, I reach only one conclusion, thank god is was not me.

I have done exactly the same type of flying both authoprised (in a olive green suit) and unauthorised (in small twin engine turbines).

Once I descended into a wooded valley on a HEMs shout (way too low but "self" justified as I was on a "shout") ... turning gently and BAM...wires right in front of me. Hot wet feeling in the seat of the pants and my superior skills saved my ass from my inferior decision making.

A freind said recently that when a pilot is born he arrives with 2 buckets, one is full of luck and the other is empty and marked "Experience". The trick he said, is to fill up the bucket of experience before you empty the bucket of luck.

Let us not forget the sheer thrill and exhileration of pure flying just for the bloody fun of it. Nothing beats a low fast run across open ground in good light, especially when getting paid for it as we were in the mil.

Flying attracts people who seems pre-disposed to push the envelope to the limit. Thrill seekers and risk takers, where would we be without their contribution in the past.

I think Colins accident says only one thing to all of us - IT CAN, AND WILL AT TIMES, GO HORRIBLY WRONG.

It is very easy to critise Colin for the "risk taking" element of the accident but I will not do so, because I have done the same thing only the outcome being very different.

In conclusion, flying below 500 feet is not illegal provided the reqs of Rule 5 & 6 are met. But is it sensible. Probably not. In CAT OPS the Operator is required to make statements about minimum cruising altitudes to try and prevent this kind of (unauthorised experience enhancement).

Some how we have to create rules that take away the temptation of lesser exeprienced pilots from pushing the envelope too far.

The true lesson in Colins accident is to be seklf critical of all (fun flying) decisions that we make. Play the vidoe tape forwrd to the future and ask, how will this be interpreted if it goes wrong.

Today I try to take as few risks as possible in my flying as I have experienced enough thrills for my one life and yes most were self generated. I would like to say that younger less experienced pilot should heed the words of the wise and the lesson from Colin would be "Never to try it yourself" but this is unrealistic, just as it was when I started out and the old and bold handed down their wisdom.

In the end I think the "2 Buckets" analogy of my friend probably applies to all of us. That and remembering that a suprior pilot uses his superior knowledge to prevent him having to use his superior skills.

[20Minuter]

Double Bogey - I enjoyed reading your post, but what happened in the incident does not reflect on a "professional" Pilot and I don't mean professional in job/career. You only have to read the sections in the report regarding FPC's, licencing and log book keeping to start to form a picture and possible attitude. Was this then taken to the air? I think his bucket of luck was empty, well before he ever left the ground. There are good, hostorical reasons as we all know as to why regulations are in place, its becasue someone, somewhere, at some time came a cropper. Thats why we are told to observe this rule or take this test or keep that record, however mundane. And yes, we have all done the low flying bit, but not with family and friends in the cab as closer to the solid bit we land on, the more likely it is to end badly if it does go wrong, even if it is caused by events out of our control, which appears not to be the case in this incident.

Lets all hope that this tragic incident and a very good post from Double Bogey make someone go "no, I am not going to do X, because it could lead to Y if it goes wrong, even if it would be fun to try".

[thorpey]

DOUBLE BOGEY, i couldn`t agree with you more. As tragic an accident as it was for all concerned, not only in aviation, even driving cars, motorbikes etc we`ve all taken risks and been lucky to have gotten away with it. The bucket of luck and experience applies to everyone, even those who write on here! None of us are perfect, maybe a bit wiser as we get older.

[rotorspeed]

I think the real message here is that any of us doing very low level flying have to be very, very careful. Yes it is fun, and can be, correctly, quite legal. And safe. But the eroded safety margins must be compensated for by much greater awareness of the risks, and big allowances made for them.

Of course these include engine failures, obstructions, whether wires or trees, terrain profile, the effects of the wind (and I agree with NoD that a 20kt + tail wind was probably a big factor and not allowed for enough), and the physical limits of the aircraft, whether servo transparency or other. I very much doubt that Colin was conscientious enough about his flying to be sufficiently aware of the latter, for example, and his height and trajectory would have left him much reduced opportunity to handle it, even if recognised quickly enough, before he hit obstructions.

But before anyone gets too pious and thinks one should never fly below 500ft, we should remind ourselves that most of us drive within 10ft of other cars on roads with a closing speed of 120mph almost every day. And consider it perfectly safe. And Colin used to drive within 3ft of trees (and spectators!) on mud and gravel at 120 mph, and consider it perfectly normal.

It is hard to conclude anything other than tragically, it was pilot error that caused this accident. Colin just didn't have enough margin, given his skill and knowledge of the aircraft, to do what he did safely. But I've little doubt that if he was just 100ft higher it would have been as safe as our every day drive to work.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Hi Gents, Thanks for your appreciation on my last post. Let me share something else with you.

A good few years ago Bob Tempest gave me a display authorisation for the AS355 for the Sunderland Air Show. Now the 355 is a machine I can fly with my eyes closed. Many, many hours of hard flying for Police and HEMs had honed my skills to the absolute limit.

The manouvres I devised for that display were not even in the book, pure flying skill, done for pure enjoyment.

Now to the crux, the first real display I did I pushed each manouvre as far as I dared to provide maximum fun for the audience, taking the machine right to the "Display Line Limit" and much back slapping at the end.

The second year, having practised hard, I pushed everything a little bit further, espicially in my version of the elphinstone loop, trying to find the limit each time. Nothing went wrong!!

In the third year, I approached the task with a deepening sense of forboding thoughout the practise sessions. What was wrong with me, had I lost my nerve, nothing had yet gone wrong, why was I reluctant to do it.

And then, in a blinding epiphany, I saw my future laid out as clear as day. If left unchecked, I would continue to push myself and the machine not just to the limit, but eventually beyond it. Maybe not this year, maybe not the next, but eventually it would happen.

I learnt a very crucial lesson about myself that day. The harder I push, the further I go, and eventually I WILL FIND THE LIMIT.

That third season I declined the task of the Display and convinced the Powers that be that it would be far better to simply display our true flying role, that of HEMs and we did a very nice simulated casualty extraction from the centre of the arena.

I have never flown an air display since that day!!

My experience may only prove the fact that maybe display flying is not my "Bag", but I try not to over anylize it too much.

Suffice to say that I "found" my limit that day and luck, judgement, skill, call it what you like, meant I found it without being actually in the air. Maybe this is the very best kind of "Limit" we can expect to find.

[20Minuter]

Double Bogey - Fantastic post. I wish that could be bottled and given free to every new Pilot. Thank you.

[[email protected]]

NigelonDraft

I suspect if you actually read the report, you might find:
A Downwind could well have been relevant
B They probably did see the tree well before they hit

In fact, both elements are specifically discussed



If you actually read the report you will see that he was crosswind (fig 10) which affected his expected radius of turn and would have made it difficult to see the tree (the tree was hit at 30' below the top and is not thought to be just the result of an error in height assessment - that means he didn't see it).

Like Double Bogey I have done my fair share of wazzing and zooming in a green suit and the one thing you must always give yourself is a margin for error rather than believing you are invincible. I don't suppose Colin would have taken children in the back of a rally car at 120mph down a wooded track but he did it in a helicopter - why?

[strake]

There are some very interesting and valid points raised here by military and professional pilots. Excitement and enjoyment in flying are of course part of the fun especially when trained to do it as part of your job or as an extension to a PPL.

This was very different though. The pilot in this instance was a PPL(H), not in any way trained to undertake some of the activities he carried out on his last flight. He took three passengers ,who could not possibly be expected to know the risks involved but who trusted him completely - and he killed them.

The PPL(H) or (A) may be the lowest license on the totem pole but the level of responsibility to passengers is one of the highest given that, if we have our own aircraft, we operate outside of any military or commercial oversight. If there is anything good that can come out of this tragedy then maybe it will be because it makes us think again about that responsibility.

[AndyJB32]

I've not read the report, so could be well off the mark here.

I guess anyone can let paper-work or licenses lapse inadvertently, but the more serious implication then is that no assessment by an instructor of the pilots flying has been carried out in that time.

[ShyTorque]

Crab, I would have thought that he might have been aware of the tree for the simple reason that it was well and truly on his home territory (from the photo and the 50,000) it looks like it is just 150 metres from his own helipad.

I think he simply got himself too deep into the valley and the airframe just didn't respond as quickly as he thought it would.

An RAF ex-colleague of mine infamously did a similar thing in a Wessex at Bishop's Court and badly injured a crew member. An ex-student of mine, a Canadian exchange officer, was nearly killed in an Alouette accident by an over-confident Belgian Army pilot doing a wingover with passengers on board. There is a video on YouTube of a Jetranger series aircraft similarly coming close to grief at a grass strip in Germany - its skids bounced off the grass and carried on but I would not like to have flown it afterwards.

The lesson is that helicopters can bite if abused and bite very hard indeed.

[[email protected]]

Shy, you might be right about getting too deep into the valley but it looks to me like a case of being blown too wide by the crosswind, belly up to the obstacle (tree), in the same fashion that we used to show students at Shawbury when teaching low level.

That Bishop's Court episode was just someone using a Chinook wingover technique on a Wessex and porking it very badly.

I guess I was lucky - 1000 hours on a first tour in NI with 90% at low level, heavy and fast (well for a Wessex anyway) often in poor weather - about the best post-graduate training you could get as far as pure helicopter handling goes.

AndyJB32 - a fundamental problem for PPLs is the lack of post graduate training available - once the licence is endorsed they are effectively self-policing and self regulating - the majority are sensible but there will always be those who think they are better and have to prove it.

[moggiee]

moggiee said: He was also caught on video engaging in risky flying involving illegal low flying.
Martin Barclay said: Lets see what they make of illegal low flying and risk taking over the next few days.

Guys, I was unaware that low flying in a valley is illegal.:confused:
The report makes the point that the flight broke Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air which:.

"prohibits any aircraft from being flown closer than 500 feet flight from any person vehicle, obstacle or structure"......"except for the purposes of take-off and landing".

Page 78 of the report (page 8 of the pdf) refers: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Eurocopter%20AS350B2%20Squirrel,%20G-CBHL%2002-09.pdf

[ShyTorque]

Moggiee, your quote isn't quite correct.

This is copied directly from CAP 393:

(b) The 500 feet rule:
Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown
closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

The word "Obstacle" isn't included in the regulations for VFR. :)

The aircraft was illegally low over the farmhouse but probably NOT illegally low in the valley, unless his own house was closer than 500 feet and he wasn't intending to land as part of the manoeuvre.

[chopjock]

moggiee said: The report makes the point that the flight broke Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air which:.

Where exactly does the report state this? :confused:

[NigelOnDraft]

moggiee said:
Quote:
The report makes the point that the flight broke Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air which:.

Where exactly does the report state this?p8 During the periods of flight captured on the video recording, the helicopter did not fly above 500*ft*agl, and it was considerably lower for most of the time. Other aspects of the pilot’s handling of the aircraft were noteworthy: these included instances of very low flying, valley flying and other manoeuvres, as described below.
On the outbound flight the helicopter flew as low as 155 ft over open farmland, as indicated by the altimeter and, at one point, it flew over farm buildings at a height estimated from the video to be 275ft.

crab Shy, you might be right about getting too deep into the valley but it looks to me like a case of being blown too wide by the crosswind, belly up to the obstacle (tree), in the same fashion that we used to show students at Shawbury when teaching low level.In fact, the crash occurred on the S (upwind) side of the Valley - i.e. the opposite side of the Valley to what you would expect from <<but it looks to me like a case of being blown too wide by the crosswind, belly up to the obstacle (tree)>> Hence our previous discussions and I also therefore disagree with If you actually read the report you will see that he was crosswind (fig 10) which affected his expected radius of turn
We also discussed They probably did see the tree well before they hit against at such high speed and low level if you don't see the treeThe report says The impact track would have taken the aircraft across the line of the valley towards rising wooded ground, which is unlikely to have been the pilot’s desired or intended track.

Now my impression form the AAIB conclusions is that the wind, blowing him "out of" the turn, required him to manouvre harder (turn tighter = more AoB / 'g') than maybe he had done on previous occasions (?). In addition, there was a downwind element increasing G/S so again requiring a harder turn. That is my understanding, as a FW pilot, of the flightpath requirements - but as is evident, not only was the tighter turn required "achieved", but in fact exceeded...

As a FW pilot, I have no idea about "servo transparency" / "jack stall". I get the impression the AAIB are syaing the "tight turn required" may have led to this phenomenon occurring With the onset of servo transparency in this case predicted to have been at 2.1 g (with maximum continuous power set), even a modest increase in turn rate over that shown at Figure 10, if accompanied by a power increase, would have caused the helicopter to encounter the phenomenon. Any turbulence in the valley could have caused transient additional loading of the rotor disc, which would further increase the likelihood of an encounter. If the phenomenon occurred, then (from the report) In this case, the helicopter’s natural reaction will cause the angle of bank to increase which, together with a possible pitch-up, will cause an increased rate of turn. i.e. tight turn required, which causes "servo transparency" to occur, which makes controls feel locked up, and further tightens the (right) hand turn, and once the "servo transparency" occurred, he was effectively "out of control" for the short distance to the trees i.e. he saw them, he didn't intend to go there etc.

I will leave to you RW experts as to how likely this "servo transparency" is to occur, and/or if the AAIB have highlighted it as a possible cause, and maybe written more about it than they wished as a result of "pressure" prior publication. Interested in your thoughts...

NoD

[zorab64]

DOUBLE BOGEY - your posts are on the button.

I have always maintained a healthy respect for the inherrent dangers in this profession, or hobby for some, and re-visited that respect each time someone I know, knew, or knew of, has come to grief, whatever the cause - and I reckon that's averaged one a year over the last 30 years.

The bottom line is that the psychology of pilots invariably leads to us trying to find both our limits, and that of our aircraft, at some stage. In many respects it's a sensible boundary to discover - if you don't know where the line is, you'll never know when you're getting close to it. I know I have reached (and possibly exceeded) the limits of both at one time or another . . . but it's finding the limits of both at the same time that I'm pleased not to have had to recover from!

The comments about experience & luck buckets also strike a chord - I'd suggest that the experience bucket has unlimited capacity, whereas the not-very-easy-to-re-fill luck bottle should always be marked "Use Sparingly". :ok:

[Oldlae]

I am not a pilot but I have been allowed to fly an aircraft when the pilot wanted to look at a dubious map marked 'uncharted' when we were in SE Borneo. "Servo transparency" is surely heavy feedback and the instinctive response must be to pull harder on the controls.

[Nov71]

Recent report said incident occured attempting a difficult manoeuvre and Colin's Licence was out of date. Any further info? How long expired?
I feel sorry that the other lad's parents now deem it 'an avoidable accident'.
I suppose it was for them, they could have said 'No' to their son going.

I wonder how the parents of the 2 S Wales Air Cadets feel about letting them join?
Any untimely death is sad.

[mocoman]

The report is here;

Air Accidents Investigation: Eurocopter AS350B2 Squirrel, G-CBHL (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/february_2009/eurocopter_as350b2_squirrel__g_cbhl.cfm)

The reason and implications are sadly clear.
:(

[HeliComparator]

I think the issue of out of date licence and LPC are a bit of a red herring in terms of the cause of this accident.

The licence - definitely, its need for renewal is just a vehicle for revenue raising.

The LPC - its purpose is to demonstrate continuing competance and so is clearly a "good thing", however consider whether he would have passed an LPC should he have taken it - answer, judging from the report, is almost certainly yes as its formulaic and doesn't test ability and attitudes to "flamboyant flying".

In other words, had he renewed his licence and been in date for an LPC, would the accident still have happened - answer "Yes".

Its part of the ICAO annex 13 standard accident report to include licensing issues, but in this case largely irrelevant. It does however give the press and the lawyers a field day!

Was the accident about breaking Rule 5? - no, the fact that he flew low over the farmhouse was irrelevant. Flying low over a wooded area with no persons, vehicles, vessels or structures is not illegal, even though he couldn't have known whether or not there were any people hiding in the trees. Neither is doing steep turns and pullups illegal.

This accident, as others have said, is more about perception of risk than the beaurocracy. As a rally driver he was used to taking risks that would from time to time result in crashing. In a rally car you will mostly get away with that.

In a helicopter, probably not, as he found out.

Unfortunately he seems to have exceeded his skill limit by a small but critical amount. Perhaps it was jack stall at low level, distraction or something else - perhaps it doesn't matter that much exactly what it was.

His failing was to leave insufficient (or zero) safety margin whilst carrying passengers. His failing was not to have yet had the flash of light that Double Bogey so eloquently describes. He was still in the "pushing the boundaries" phase when his luck bucket ran dry.

But don't hate him for it - surely most of us have been there but got away with it, learnt from it? Unfortunately humans in general are not good at evaluating risks and consequences in a variety of situations. All we can do is to try to think about it and learn from other's mistakes.

HC

[the beater]

"Mc Rae, 39, died instantly when his...Twin Squirrel helicopter"...
And:
"His "type rating", which allows an individual to serve as pilot in command of commercial helicopter operations such as passenger transport..."

Where do they get this nonsense from? Is it that self-styled 'aviation expert' Jim Ferguson again?

[Chocks Wahay]

HeliComparator, you are correct in one respect - pieces of paper don't fly aircraft, pilots do. However the repeated lack of concern for possessing these bits of paper does perhaps give an insight into the attitude of the pilot in question.

As sportsman Colin McRae was a hero to millions - myself included. As a sometime competitor and event organiser I met him on a number of occasions and have watched him flying G-CBHL. The flying I witnessed Colin McRae doing however was entirely in keeping with his ability in a rally car - 110% self-confidence and commitment, little or no margin for error, along with an absolute lack of fear - the qualities which made him one of the greatest rally drivers ever but which also led to his death and that of three others.

Sadly, this accident was no surprise.

[The Nr Fairy]

The old sweats, including Bill Miller, will have seen this.

However, for those who haven't - there are two circles which should govern your flying. Imagine one (the first) fixed circle which is the aircraft's limitations.

Now imagine another circle, centred on the first one but smaller, which is YOUR limitations. It grows outwards with your experience.

In the early days, if you go outside the bounds of your "experience" circle, you'll probably have an accident.

Once your "experience" circle grows outside the aircraft circle, if you exceed the aircraft circle, you'll probably have an accident.

Whether the "aircraft" or the "experience" circle was the one broached on this occasion I'm not worthy enough to tell, but one of them was and four people died.

[ShyTorque]

Is it that self-styled 'aviation expert' Jim Ferguson again?

Anyone know who this 'expert' JF is, and what's his background, btw? I've never heard of him, other than on the TV reports of sad occasions such as this.

[PPRuNe Radar]

He is trotted out regularly and usually appears to be filmed in some sort of spotters bedroom (aircraft posters on the wall, aircraft models, etc). It's probably his own !!

I can't find anything which lists his qualifications for being an expert anywhere.

[chopjock]

NigelOnDraft said: Quote:
moggiee said:
Quote:
The report makes the point that the flight broke Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air which:.

Where exactly does the report state this?
p8 Quote:
During the periods of flight captured on the video recording, the helicopter did not fly above 500*ft*agl, and it was considerably lower for most of the time. Other aspects of the pilot’s handling of the aircraft were noteworthy: these included instances of very low flying, valley flying and other manoeuvres, as described below.
On the outbound flight the helicopter flew as low as 155 ft over open farmland, as indicated by the altimeter and, at one point, it flew over farm buildings at a height estimated from the video to be 275ft.
I'm not happy with your answer. It still does not state the flight broke rule 5 anywhere. Least of all on page 8.

[PPRuNe Radar]

It depends whether the helicopter was flown exactly overhead at 275 feet, or in close proximity to the buildings at a height of 275 feet PLUS any horizontal component. In the latter case, the minimum actual distance from the building could well be in excess of 500' quite comfortably. To acheive the 500' Rule, the aircraft at 275' above the building would also need to be 417' horizontally displaced.

The AAIB report does not specify which was the case, so any jumping to conclusions about this aspect is perhaps premature, at least by anyone on here who does not have the appropriate evidence.

[jumpseater]

Chopjock is right.

The farm reference is from the first flight.

There is no specific reference relating to a possible Rule 5 infringement in the second accident flight.

However looking at the plotted path vs OS map + commentary/desription of the accident flight, an infringement may have been possible against the mill building as he dropped into the valley. The report makes no comment re the pax video recordings of overflown buildings on the accident flight, so I imagine there was insufficient evidence to conclude an infringement had actually occurred.

Regretably I imagine all involved would far rather be arguing the toss regarding a rule 5 infringement or possible infringement than semantics over a fatal accident report.

[chopjock]

How do we know the actual height? In order to show rule 5 has been broken, something more than "...it flew over farm buildings at a height estimated from the video to be 275ft" will be needed. An ESTIMATE is not enough. Also how do we know that the pilot did not intend to land near the farm buildings? Sinse we are not able to read his mind, we can not show he broke rule 5, hence why the report does not state that rule 5 was broken. (and this was a different flight than the flight of the crash)

I suspect there will be those that want to interpret it differently though. and sensationalise it :rolleyes:

[NigelOnDraft]

I will of course agree that there is no specific statement or evidence that Rule 5 was broken... and rarely would the AAIB stick their necks out in this area anyway (?) - it is the CAA who tend to enforce prosecutions, and need to gather and present the evidence. For the obvious sad reasons, there is no point in doing so in this case, assuking the evidence was there anyway...

From the report:
The adult passenger’s camcorder had recorded a total of 5.3 minutes of video and sound track from the two flights. The video was all taken from his seat within the cabin, and ended about 55 seconds before the accidentDuring the periods of flight captured on the video recording, the helicopter did not fly above 500*ft*agl, and it was considerably lower for most of the time.The radar track of the accident flight started at 1500:29 hrs and ended at 1504:32 hrs.So the flights took "about" 5 mins each, and about half that total was recorded on video - and all that period was <500'. Take a look at the maps on p7 and decide if, in all probability, Rule 5 was broken. It can depend on your definition of course of "structure", which at a recent FI seminar I attended was put as "man made with vertical extent" i.e. not a runway, but would include a fence. Can you really cross that many roads (including seemingly an A road), and edges of built up areas at <500' for all the recorded time (50% of the total), and never fly over a person, vehicle or structure ;)

So I do agree that Rule 5 has not been stated/proven to be broken. However, the AAIB have gone to some lengths to make statments regarding the conduct of the flight, including the heights flown, and the proximity to buildings and estimated heights. These portions of the flight were not immediately prior to the accident, hence not directly related to the accident... yet were seen fit to mention. Each will draw their own conclusions then as to why those statements were included ;)

NoD

[the beater]

As long as you are not over a built-up area, you can fly as low as you like in the UK, provided you don't fly nearer than 500' to a person, vessel, vehicle or structure. This 500' can be vertical, lateral, or a combination of both (slant range).
Hard to determine exactly what constitutes a built-up area as this would include a golf course as it is primarily used for leisure/recreational activities.
I would ask myself whether I would be flying in this manner and at this height if my passenger was a CAA Ops inspector. And then be thankful that he's not.

P.S.
Come on Jim, I'm sure you are reading this. Show us some qualifications. A PPL would be a start. Or even just a trial-lesson certificate!
Rumour has it that you're a carpet salesman with a hobby of spotting (allegedly).

[verticalhold]

Having appeared in one of Mr Ferguson's "expert articles" I sincerely hope that this time he has stuck to the known facts and not spouted his usual load of utter c***. Mr Ferguson is normally dragged out by the Aberdeen Depressing Journal as their "aviation expert."

Total Aviation Ignoramous is more accurate.

As for the 500' rule, when CM enrered the valley he may have known he was clear of structures by 500', he would not have known about persons as they would not have been visible. According to my FOI if you fly below 500' without permission then it is the people the authority are concerned about, not any structures.

Anybody involving themselves in this type of flying has a duty to themselves, their passengers and anyone else around that they have an escape route, and that they know what the hell they are doing. A 950 hour pilot is likely to believe that they know a lot more than in fact they do. A purely personal perspective is that pilots who have been succesful in one area of their lives believe they can be succesful in all areas. They tend to take greater risks, with little thought for the outcomes. They may be the most talented banker, racing driver, actor or businessman, but they need to know that their talents as pilots will be tested far faster and to a greater degree than in any other walk of life.

When you run out of talent in helicopter aviation a bad fright is the best you will get a bloody great smash is quite likely.

VH

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

In my humble Opinion, the argument as to whether Rule 5 was, or was not broken is immaterial as the rule itsself actually permits extremely low flight and therefore is a contributory factor in the accident AS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RULE TO PREVENT IT HAPPENING.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, CAT operatives are required to provide firm guidance in the OM as to what are acceptable minimum cruise heights, and more importantly, detail the circumstances where flight at a lower altitude than the cruise is acceptable. These are ussually limited to flight in marginal (but acceptable) VMC minima.

For GA there are no such provisions other than Rule 5.

Gentlemen, if we are serious about our business, assuming that every fatal nasty like Colins probably puts 100 people off ever going near a heli, then I believe we must take some responsibility for ourselves and others and encourage the CAA to introduce some very firm rules regarding intentional low flying.

I am not a rule maker so I have no real idea where to start. But I do believe the beginning of the process is to really recognise that we have a problem with this aspect of our activities which far to often now leads to loss of life.

Inexperienced pilots are just like children, the Military have recognised this since the beginning with their 500, 1000 hour "Danger" datums leading to very close supervision of the individuals involved.

Just like children we need stirct guidelines and rules to stay safe.

If we are going to debate the minutae then the message and Colins legacy left to us is probably lost. If the CAA read this, lets have some development of the acceptable vertical flight profile that will serve to reduce these horrible events.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Oh, and another thing, picking on poor old Mr Ferguson who is trying to make living like the rest of us brings absolutley nothing to the debate.

Quite frankly some of the utter drival we all manage to produce on occasion (and I include myself) more than balances out any minor inaccuracies poor old Mr F ends up touting whilst trying to explain what are quite complex issues to a wider public.#

Give the man a break!!!

[Tarman]

The AAIB Investigators hired a helicopter and flew the route(s) at a similar height and track.( I believe that the GPS surrendered some data) I suspect that they know damn well what the heights were but are not prepared to put it in writing. I'm sure the CAA legal department have been over that report with a fine tooth comb as I'm sure this aint over yet.

[TRC]

Whether Rule 5 was broken in this case is irrelevant. It's probable that the accident would have occurred regardless of the number of 'persons, vehicles, vessels or structures' that were or weren't overflown.

Along with the facts that the pilot held an out of date licence and was not current on type, the Rule 5 issue just adds to the point that the pilot's attitude to flying was flawed.

[the beater]

You explain complex issues to the public by simplifying them. What is the point in talking complete bull? Just after the accident he stated that the AAIB were looking for the missing drive-belt to the rotor system. What has anyone learnt from that?
Simplify the truth by all means, but make sure that you know what you are talking about. You surely can't use the excuse of making a living to justify carrying on making money out of any means possible.
I was simply asking a question.
Jim Ferguson is described as an aviation expert. What does it take to acquire that title? I'm an ATPL(H) with numerous thousands of hours spent line-flying, instructing and examining but I wouldn't describe myself as an aviation, or helicopter, expert.
So what does it take, other than phoning around the rags offering your services as an aviation expert, to be an aviation expert?
I'm keen to find out as I can see a money making opportunity arising - subject to gaining the appropriate qualifications, of course.
And just consider this; how would you feel after having had an accident that perhaps wasn't your fault to have somebody with no knowledge of what had happened give their expert opinion?
Let me know when you have a bump. I'll be only too happy to tell you what caused it.

[verticalhold]

the beater;

Well said that man. They day I consider myself to be an expert I'll quit, and like you I've got thousands of hours and many years of rotary flying behind me.

The so called experts from the media rarely simplify anything, more often they put their own spin on known or unknown facts and present that as the truth.

A genuine debate amongst professional helicopter pilots on the subject of Colin McRae's crash is difficult on a forum such as this. I believe many of us share the same opinion, but are frightened to state it due to media attention and the opprobrium that will be heaped upon us by other forum members who don't necessarily have either the same level of experience, or who can't believe that the pilot could in fact be fallible.

This accident was utterly needless. Even if it had been caused by mechanical failure then as far as I'm concerned the pilot put himself into an unrecoverable position by flying into the valley with no escape route. As to the lack of LPC and license currency, that was as unforgivable as not puting oil in the many places an AS350 needs or taking off without enough fuel.

I flew with Colin several times. I make no comment on his abilities. I just wonder what the hell he thought he was doing that day.

VH

Awaiting opprobrium

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Hi Mr Beater,

I take your point about being an "Expert" but the press exists and the reality is that they will report something. At least Jim has some background in Aviation.

The point to my post is it is important (in my view) to recogise that maybe the rules, as they stand at the moment, permit the kind of flying Colin carried out, flying which when undertaken by a pilot who exceeds his skill-set, or by simply a nasty dose of bad luck, bad things are the result!!

I feel we must by far more inward looking than we are at present. We must accept that taking a very expensive machine, laden with the most precious cargo (that we carry) close to the ground, at speed, jiggling it all about, is inherently dangerous, when compared to doing the same flying at a sensible height.

The rules as they currently stand continue to allow this sort of thing and some (possibly even many) pilots exploit these rules in the pursuit of an "Exilerating Experience" as we have all probably done in the past.

Rules have to be sensible but above all they have to protect the innocent from the stupid and the stupid from themselves!!!!

Like I said before I am not a rule-maker, there are experts for that, but I am convinced, and become moreso after every similar accident, that the Low Flying rules need serious attention. If this means reviewing the VMC limits (again) that would also go a long way to reducing CFIT and WX related accidents.

Also those of us who instruct, or supervise flying activities must be vociferous in pointing out the dangers inherent in "Exhilerating" flying activities.

Mr Ferguson is just doing his job as he sees it. We must make sure we do ours before we start throwing stones at him.

[PPRuNe Radar]

I take your point about being an "Expert" but the press exists and the reality is that they will report something. At least Jim has some background in Aviation.


I am unable to find any bio information on Mr Ferguson. What is his background ?

[the beater]

Fine


Tell us about it.

[Tarman]

Re Mr Ferguson, what enlightened aviation background does he have ? He clearly had nothing of any value to say when the accident happened and yet still came on national TV to tell us that the aircraft was previously operated in Canada.Is that the work of an Aviation Expert or an Aviation Chancer ? Let's face it, any monkey can punch a reg into G-INFO and find out previous reggies. Who is he ? What are his Qualifications ? and why do the BBC spend taxpayer's money on him? :ugh:

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Sorry boys I am not interested in Mr Fergusons resume. I think the plot is getting somewhat lost in this thread!!!!

[chopjock]

DOUBLE BOGEY,
Like I said before I am not a rule-maker, there are experts for that, but I am convinced, and become moreso after every similar accident, that the Low Flying rules need serious attention. If this means reviewing the VMC limits (again) that would also go a long way to reducing CFIT and WX related accidents.
I'm a little concerned that you may be suggesting more regulation is required in this "Nanny State" of ours. I certainly would not want to see more restrictions to our freedom to fly. :eek: There will always be unfortunate accidents and crashes. Adding restrictions will impose more limits on those of us that have the experience to enjoy flying carefully and skillfully at low level.:)

[rotorspeed]

DOUBLE BOGEY

God let's not advocate yet more regulations, please! I do not believe this accident needs to prompt any change in low flying rules. As is so often the case, it is not new rules but compliance with them that is the issue, and there are enough examples here to demonstrate that was far from perfect.

[Helinut]

Please not another knee jerk response with new rules. Since the existing ones aren't/can't be enforced it does no good to add extra ones.

Exactly what rules are you going to add anyway? You have to fly close to the ground shortly before you land.

[verticalhold]

A review of low flying limits would have achieved nothing in this case.

I would question why the CAA can't notify a license holder when it is about to expire. A license costs enough, where does all the money go?

The fall out from this case is likely to be more on unlicensed illegal flying, not on low flying.

Some pilots will always take an opportunity to fly low and behave irresponsibly. Reviewing current legislation will not change that behaviour.

As for Mr Ferguson, I have some clippings under his by-line in an old scrapbook. He has been quoted in just about every North Sea accident since the year dot. A Google search found nothing, nor did a search of the P and J.

Certainly what he wrote about me and my colleague was hopelessly inaccurate, in fact down right mis-leading. Sadly mud sticks, some people remember what JF wrote rather than the AAIB report.

He even put a different spin on the AAIB and the report he wrote was utter b******s. I hope he reads this as I have long wanted to tell him to give up and retire before someone takes very serious action against him.

He is no more expert in aviation than I am in artificial insemination in wildebeest, and probably no better qualified.

[TRC]

It's not the rules that need changing, it's people's attitude to the existing rules that needs changing.

People with scant regard to the niceties of aviation regulations are hardly going to take notice of say, an increase of the minimum altitude in Rule 5, when wazzing about in sparsely populated areas.

I am actively trying to change people's attitudes precisely to avoid a blanket rule change that seems to follow certain kinds of incidents - the Harding case being a good example. These knee-jerk regulation changes are often brought about by people coming to grief trying to do something that they are not trained or equipped to accomplish safely, and result in perfectly proffessional and capable operators being penalised.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Gents I am sorry if suggesting that a change in rules may help to reduce the number of incidents we have but I really think it is important to grasp that in Colins case - no low flying rules were probably broken and yet massive - ultimatley proven - risks were taken.

Surely this must leave us wondering whether a tightening up on the rules - similar to thast which we in the CAT face every day via the Ops Manual would help!!

I accept that rules themselves will not prevent people from breaking them, but for the few that think - this is OK, I am not doing anything wrong, whizzing along the deck away from persons, property or animals - it SHOULD therefore be safe - might be spared a similar event.

I am not entirely sure that we should be afraid of sensible legislation.

It may be a "Nanny" culture but history repeatedily shows us that some people need nannying!!!

Please do not think I am innocent or holier than thou as I too have exploited to full gamit of the law "For some fun" but on reflection the risks I have taken have never really been justifiable.

I hope I have "got it out of my system" but I am pretty sure I had some luck in my bucket at the time.

Like I siad earlier, I have no idea where we would start, even if there was a will to do so. But to do nothing - surely that is the biggest crime of all - let us at least discuss the possibilities of tighter rules for this kind of flying.

[TRC]

D B

There have been quite a few accidents in the last twelve months or so - all of which were heartily discussed in these pages - where a helicopter has hit the ground in bad weather, at night, or both. Or as in this case through bad judgement - you could argue that bad judgement was a major factor in all of them.

The rules that are intended to prevent these events are already there.

If people choose to bend or ignore these existing rules, how will new or amended rules reduce, prevent or at least limit the number of future similar events?

Which rules do you suggest for change to make things better? Make aviation illegal?

I'm not having a go at you, I am intrigued to hear more.

[ShyTorque]

Extra rules do nothing to prevent those who are rule breakers from breaking the rules and bending themselves, and sadly sometimes others, too. Examples should be made of the rule breakers, don't just make the rules more restrictive for everyone else too.

Leave things as they are! Flying helis for a living is made difficult enough as it is. At this rate we'll all be applying for written exemptions every time the cloudbase goes below 1,000 ft, FFS! :ugh:

[the beater]

If it was left to Double Bogey we'd have nothing but red tape. Rules that instructed us that we have to have a licence. And an LPC. And to keep a logbook. And to fly within the limits of the machine. Of course non of these rules would be able to be broken, would they?

[Upland Goose]

How about this for a scoop!

James Duncan Ferguson was born near Udny Station in Aberdeenshire in July, 1938. He was educated at Robert Gordon's School, Aberdeen and Gordonstoun School.
Service in the Clerical Branch of the Royal Navy followed, between 1957 and 1963, with a number of Fleet Air Arm related postings. Always keenly interested in military and civil aviation matters, he became a specialist writer on the Aberdeen oil-support operation from its ealriest days in the late 1960's. He is Scottish and European aviation correspondent for various British and US publications (Rotr & Wing) as well as a regular contributor to a wide range of specialist magazines. A crew member of the local life-boat and he also covers aviation and rescue matters for both press and radio. He is married to an art teacher, and has lived in Aberdeen since 1963.

Note: This may be a bit out of date - back of the "The Story of Aberdeen Airport 1934 - 1984"

I have met him a few times when I was a co-pilot in the S61N (1977) - a pleasant enough chap - a journalist nevertheless. He used to run a painting and decorating supplies shop in Rosemount Aberdeen - I think.

I rest my case !

UG:cool:

[verticalhold]

Upland Goose;

There's expertise for you then!!

Please gents, no more legislation. The job is hard enough as it is. I can understand where DB is coming from, but the CAA have been known to use the excuse that one stupid accident should cause more restrictions in the CAT market. I know it wasn't private, but look at the reaction after Mathew Harding.

VH

[EESDL]

Unfortunately - having an expensive Ops manual published for you and operating as CAT under an AOC does not stop you crashing if you think you know better than the rules.
'Harding' was meant to have been CAT - and would have been fine if pilot had stuck to the rules.....ie, told passenger that flight was grounded due poor weather. Which goes the same for a PVT flight - if pilot had stuck to the rules.
Harding's PA paid for a vfr (let's call it ''daytime' for punter simplicity) machine afterall - or didn't his PA explain/understand the difference ...............
Unfortunately, scottish rally driver seemed to think he knew better - and being a mechanical wizz-kidd, probably thought he could cope with anything mechanical that was thrown at him.
We have guys working for us who used to 'spanner' for him and, despite being saddened by his loss (miracle driver etc), were not surprised that he had "stuffed it in" (their words not mine).
Most worshipped the ground he walked on - but as a driver - not a pilot!
They told me that he flew around as if he was in a rally car - take from that what you will - now can we simply dismiss this terrible accident as another case of a pilot under-estimating weather conditions and over-estimating their skill level?
A scenario that no level of rule implementation could realistically cater for?

[moggiee]

I'm not happy with your answer. It still does not state the flight broke rule 5 anywhere. Least of all on page 8.
It doesn't really matter whether or not you're unhappy, the facts are that the AAIB say that the whole flight was conducted at below 500' agl and that they overflew a farmhouse (which is structure, I think you'll find) at an estimated 275'. Now, even if that estimate was 200' out (an unthinkable margin of error), Rule 5 was still broken.

You're picking on semantics. If the speed limit on a motorway is 70mph and I tell you that I drove at 80mph on the motorway, we all KNOW that I broke the limit without having to spell it out in words of one syllable.

As has been said elsewhere, whilst the low flying did not directly cause the accident, it was symptomatic of the attitude of the pilot on that day. His attitude is what caused the accident. The whole thing smacks of "having a bit of a wazz about" and the dangerous "hey, watch this" attitude that leads to so many accidents. The AAIB all but said this in the report - they have to be diplomatic and careful due to the legal context but their intent is obvious, I would say.

[212man]

Just read the report, having known for some time the likely content/conclusions, and came accross this little nugget:

The CAA Authorised Examiner who conducted the LPCs did not check the pilot’s licence on either occasion, and did not consider it his responsibility to do so

You couldn't write that stuff :ugh:

[jumpseater]

Warning thread creep...

Harding's PA paid for a vfr (let's call it ''daytime' for punter simplicity) machine afterall - or didn't his PA explain/understand the difference ...............


I don't expect she would have known, I can't imagine many PA's being up to speed on those sort of requirements, the boss probably just says 'get me a helicopter'. I know when getting charter requests for fixed wing and a very few rotary requests a few years back the negotiations are primarily about price/availability, rather than operational restrictions. That may have been due to me being getting quotes from within the industry and the expectation that I would know of potential restrictions.

[EESDL]

I'm afraid that was exactly my point, the onus is up to the operator to explain both benefits and 'restrictions'......then again, Harding had travelled by chopper many times........
therein lies the problem - Gonads - you either have them or you don't

[EN48]

The bottom line is that the psychology of pilots invariably leads to us trying to find both our limits,


Should read: "The bottom line is that the psychology of *SOME* pilots invariably leads to us trying to find both our limits"

Every choice involves one or more tradeoffs, even if these are unknown to the pilot.

Example:

Choice: fly low and fast
Tradeoff: margin of safety reduced, risk increased

Many pilots seem to have trouble with the concept of tradeoffs.

[zorab64]

EN48 - I would stand by my original quote in full (below), rather than the abridged version you use.
The bottom line is that the psychology of pilots invariably leads to us trying to find both our limits, and that of our aircraft, at some stage.
Having been to, and studied for, numerous flight safety, CRM & CRMI symposia over the years, it is apparrent that all pilots have an underlying psychological makeup that includes an element of risk taking - it's a healthy part of keeping alive, if it's viewed & managed sensibly.
Professionally, finding both limits of machine and individual are not unhealthy pursuits - again, if viewed & managed sensibly, and one at a time! As I said in my post of 14th Feb - if you don't know where the line is, you'll never know when you're getting close to it.

Colin McRae would not have been as successful, spectacular or as exciting in his driving career if he had not tested himself & his car to, and beyond, the limits of both. It's interesting that all those enthusiastic photographer-spectators at rally events are invariably looking for that ultimate photo that shows just how close to, or beyond, the driver is putting his car to the limits, while still managing to get it home in one piece. A spectacular crash provides similar excitement, newsworthyness and thrills - although the immediate concern is always for the welfare of the occupants . . . when they survive unscathed they will "have learnt from the experience".

Like a downhill ski racer, the one who wins is the one who maintains his time in the "zone of control" for the least time, i.e. spends most time just beyond the limits! Sadly, in this case, it was in the nature of the beast - just a huge shame that the particular mode of transport was so unforgiving & also had other innocent parties aboard.:sad:

[ShyTorque]

Sadly McCrae isn't the only motorsport champion who has found to his cost that aviation and a risk taking character bias aren't always compatible. I can think of at least two others who paid the ultimate price in a similar way.

[Two's in]

Crab said it a while back;

He was a professional risk-taker, you can't drive at 120mph down country lanes and tracks safely and, whilst he was very good at it, those skills do not automatically transfer to helicopter flying. Very sad that he took 3 other people with him when he discovered the limits of his ability.

The Military spend many hours ensuring that low flying is a graduated, briefed and well trained event so when surprises happen, there is still sufficient skill or mental capacity to safely change the outcome. It's exactly the "winning" attitude that is completely incompatible with professional and safe flying. Flying faster, lower and riskier each time will only win you one race, the one to the pine box.

[Rotonutz]

And not just motorsport champions either, sometimes its people with a little excess money that go out and get their private license, buy a helicopter and away they go flying for the next 2 years (well at least where I'm from) without any further training or scrutiny.
Its quite amazing how many private helicopter owners that have bit the dirt from doing stupid things in these machines.
As a commercial pilot you are under the watchful eye from Ops managers, Chief Pilots, fellow company and non company pilots, engineers and of course the customers also and if you do something wrong you are told about it in some form or another.
Maybe its not the low flying rules that need addressing.

[TangoMikeYankee]

Rotonutz,

Well said.
I would have to agree 100%:ok:

[VeeAny]

RotoNutz

How very true, we have quite a few of those in the UK and equally we have the inexperienced and perhaps cautious but ignorant (poor choice of words but I can't think of a better one) owners who come to grief because they don't really understand what they are doing.

I hold my hands up to being an inexperienced owner 10 years ago and getting away with some things I did in an R22 , because I knew no better, so I can see where some of these guys come to the end of their abilities.

I noticed looking through a photo gallery of a well attended annual helicopter event in the UK that for a period of years if you look back through the photos roughly one of the helicopters has been written off per year in the last few years. Hardly conclusive proof of anything but it peaked my interest, its got absolutely nothing to do with the event itself, but it attracts lots of owners in their own aircraft.

In some respects it comes back to my catchphrase from last year 'You don't know what you don't know'.

GS

[EN48]

"if you don't know where the line is, you'll never know when you're getting close to it."

Zorba,

I am in general agreement with what you say, HOWEVER, it is not necesary for each individual pilot to learn where the line is from personal experience. Many others have been to the line before us and we can leverage their often costly lessons by watching and seeking understanding rather than starting from zero for ourselves.

[zorab64]

EN48 - I would agree that there is no merit in starting from scratch, as far as learning limits goes.

Some of us were fortunate enough to learn from a pool of other, more experienced, pilots in our formative (big squadron) aviation years, where the melting pot provided different opinions & methods of achieving a similar result. That said, when an individual was deemed experienced enough to bring on other, less experienced, pilots, it did not stop many from subsequently exploring their own, and/or aircraft limits - and sadly, in some cases, coming to a sticky end.

My earlier post was just commenting that an element of risk taking & limit finding is very much in the nature of the pilot-beast - especially in a Military environment where knowing the limits of man & machine can mean the difference between life & death, in more ways than one. In the military, however, it's obviously accepted that there's an element of risk - one that should not be transferred into a civilian arena unless the only person likely to be affected is the solo pilot . . . which is not to condone it, just reduce the fallout if it goes wrong.:eek:

I should add that, like many, I have read the accident reports in detail for many years, in the hope that, if the chips are ever down, I might have learnt something from someone else's misfortune.

[fisbangwollop]

The FAI starts today in Lanak, it doesnt seem like 3 years since that fatefull day!!

Racing champ Colin McRae's helicopter crash inquiry begins | Glasgow and West | STV News (http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/219371-racing-champ-colin-mcraes-helicopter-crash-inquiry-begins/)

[cjbiz]

Second that Fis!

Am not however surprised that our journalist friends still get details wrong, even with the AAIB report in front of them. I flew that aircraft on a few occasions and never once did I notice the second engine...! :ugh:

[hands_on123]

Why the inquiry? I think it's pretty obvious by the report what happened.

Air Accidents Investigation: Eurocopter AS350B2 Squirrel, G-CBHL (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/february_2009/eurocopter_as350b2_squirrel__g_cbhl.cfm)

Paragraph four on page 101 of the PDF makes for some interesting reading. (130 kt IAS with a 60 degrees bank angle)

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/292342-as350-mcrae-crash-not-condolences.html

[Heliport]

hands_on123
Why the inquiry? I think it's pretty obvious by the report what happened.

In England & Wales there would be an Inquest.
A Fatal Accident Inquiry is the Scottish equivalent.

Opinions differ about whether any useful purpose is actually served, but it's SOP.

[fisbangwollop]

Local TV in Scotland saying it could run till March!!

[902Jon]

Wind "probably" caused difficulties for a helicopter piloted by Colin McRae which crashed killing all on board, a fatal accident inquiry has heard.


But the witness told the court there was no sign of engine problems at the point when he saw the helicopter.

"The engine was fine," he told the inquiry.

He also told the court: "I do remember it was quite a windy day. I thought, the guy's probably having difficulty flying in that condition."


The inquiry into the crash, which is expected to last several months, entered its fifth day on Friday at Lanark Sheriff Court.

[stringfellow]

right... is tax payer money being spent on this?? sounds naive but hope not as it goes right to the core of why great britain plc is bankrupt. i thought the aaib report was perfectly sufficient.

[squib66]

An AAIB investigation, conducted in private though publically reported, is to prevent future accidents, does not consider blame and only publishes edited output from interviews.

A coroner in England and Wales examines the circumstances of all deaths. While a hearing would not occur if someone died in their sleep for a clear medical condition it is naive to expect there not to be a hearing after multiple untimely fatalties.

Some posters should reflect if they would take a different line if their own 5 or 5 year old children had died a sudden an physically violent death.

[stringfellow]

squibb your reference to the two deceased children adds clarity and personal context to the tragedy, and yes it was a naive comment.

but from what i digested from report over confident pilot exceeds the machines ability in the prevailing weather conditions and a tragedy ensues.

im just not sure i understand why disecting that should take months??

[NigelOnDraft]

An example of the separate inquries / reports... Let us say CM had survived, but the children had not. The AAIB process would have run as it did, but would not have addressed any possible legal liability, or even criminal proceedings, re CM. As it is, there still might be implications for his estate?

In short, the AAIB type process is far better for steering well clear of those areas. But a consequence is that those processes then need to run, and potentially without (?) being able to use/access the AAIB findings / evidence directly (?)

NoD

[jayteeto]

Past videos are not evidence of facts on the day; despite showing 'trends', they serve no purpose at all.

[Agaricus bisporus]

An awareness of "trends" in this case just might have prevented the accident had they been recognised in time and acted upon. The AAIB report is a dismal litany of indications that, once put together, give a clear indication that all was not well with CM's approach and attitude to his flying. How the instructors hid behind that pathetic excuse for not checking his licence is beyond me. Had it been checked properly and followed up then perhaps the subsequent brouhaha and further investigations might have changed the course of events.

Perhaps the inquiry will highlight such matters in a way that the AAIB cannot.

[Telstar]

An awareness of "trends" in this case just might have prevented the accident had they been recognised in time and acted upon.

Is right on the money.

I was a huge fan of the man when behind the wheel of a rally car, and it pains me to say it but he was a prat behind the controls of an aircraft.

I remember seeing an interview he did on one of the satellite channels and he took the reporter up for a joyride including flying down a narow forrest track/Fire break below tree top level and at high speed and performing a torque turn at quite a low level. I couldn't believe that he allowed himself to be filmed doing all this. He obviously had a total disregard for any and all of the rules of flying and wasn't worried about the CAA catching up with him.

That he was almost certainly doing the same as the above with his young child, someone elses much loved child and another adult on board and took them all with him on the way out just makes his lack of maturity, judgement and responsibility even more hard to accept. Throwing more taxpayers money after the probably millions spent by the AAIB is a scandalous waste of money.

[pohm1]

BBC News Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12666868)

Inquiry told rally star McRae flew helicopter illegally

Rally driver Colin McRae should not have been flying the helicopter in which he and three passengers died, a fatal accident inquiry has been told.
The Civil Aviation Authority's Raymond Elgy told the hearing that Mr McRae was neither licensed nor qualified to fly the Squirrel helicopter.
The 39-year-old crashed in woodland near Lanark in September 2007.
He died along with his son Johnny, five, Ben Porcelli, six, and family friend Graeme Duncan, 37.
The group had been returning to the landing strip at the McRae family's home in Lanark after a short trip to a friend's farm.
An Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) report issued in February 2009 stated that Mr McRae's five-year flying licence had expired in February 2005.
He was also not authorised to fly the helicopter he was operating because his "valid type rating" had lapsed in March 2007.
The fatal accident inquiry, at Lanark Sheriff Court, is ongoing.

[JTobias]

Hi

A very regrettable incident, but I think that the report is slightly misleading, and open to mis-interpretation. Anyone reading this may conclude that McRae was incapable of flying the aircraft which, I understand, is not true.

He had presumably, at some point in the past, undertaken a type rating and subsequently flown regularly enough to be perfectly capable of flying his Squirrel and therefore I'm guessing he was similarly perfectly capable and competent of flying the aircraft on the day.

What he hadn't done was renew his license or re-validate his type rating, which he absolutely should have done. I suspect however that even if he had, the accident would still have occurred as I find it unlikely that he would have failed his LPC, and therefore been grounded. (assuming of course that he would have even honoured the grounding if he'd failed).

I think most pilots will agree that the cause of this accident was less to do with the renewal of his license (a paperwork exercise after all) or the renewal of his LPC but more to do with his overconfidence and his piloting of the machine on the day.

A Very regrettable incident.

Joel:ok:

[What Limits]

If he had renewed his LPC there is a strong possibility that this accident would not have happened.

(If the Reason Swiss Cheese model holds water)

The examiner may have revised Servo Transparency or the pilot may have been criticised for his overconfidence.

[John R81]

I see your reasoning - wrong attitude, then perhaps the Newspaper's headline would change only the date on which a different accident would take place.

Now try to see it from the viewpoint of the mother of the child who died. No paperwork .... he should not have been in the air .... my son would still be alive.

Unlikely to go well for the Pilot's reputation, this inquest.

[Tarman]

We all know that the 5 year licence renewal is a revenue source for a government monopoly justifying it's costs. There is no need for it, and they don't even send a reminder. People are busy and you could have a bit of sympathy for someone being a month or two late.

However, in my book, flying without a LPC for 2 years is wrong and cannot be excused.

For all we know the guy could have been a great pilot or he could have been a menace. Without a recent LPC we will never know.

Tarman

[Rigga]

Unfortunately his legacy is that of a cavalier approach/attitude to his flying and his flying bit him back, severely.

[hands_on123]

I don't think he would be "hot-dogging" and showing off on his LPC, so it wouldnt have made any difference.

[geopat]

My feeling is this is going to cost McRae's spouse a lot of further heartache and money in compensation to the deceaseds families.

[ngheli]

Telstar, thankfully the reason we have such thorough, investigative inquiries such as this one, is to give someone of legal standing who is skilled in the disemination of evidence, the chance try to establish what "might" have caused such a tragic accident. Then we do not have to simply take the opinion of people like you who were not there, have never flown with the pilot, but are happy to simply "chip in" with hearsay comments in order to elevate themselves into some higher place on such a forum as this.

[idle stop]

I understand that the hearing of evidence was completed in May, and that lawyers for the various parties are now making thier final submissions, for a Determination due in August.

[zorab64]

Telstar - whilst the way you put it may appear slightly harsh, this whole issue has frightening similarities to the http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/446140-cumbria-helicopter-crash-discussion.html?highlight=cumbria+crash that brought out so much emotion (but eventually settled down into a reasoned discussion & understanding) a few months ago.
The singular difference was that Mark Wier was flying solo but, from all the evidence to date, whether you knew & respected the man & his spectacular driving skills or not, most professional & experienced helicopter pilots will put a similar flying style warning marker on this tragic event.

As we're seeing in other walks of life, from Politicians to Media Moguls, no-one should be above the law and therefore feel able to abuse their profile - just because they have skills in one area, doesn't mean they can instantly transfer them to another. And before the brickbats come flying, that's just a general observation, not a comment on this case! :ok:

[tistisnot]

" Telstar, thankfully the reason we have such thorough, investigative inquiries such as this one, is to give someone of legal standing who is skilled in the disemination (sic) of evidence, the chance try to establish what "might" have caused such a tragic accident. "

Mull of Kintyre. Board of Inquiry. VFR, CFIT - IMC. Non-qualified MP´s, verdict changed. "Legal standing". "Might". I am the least qualified, and will take the flak, but I am still confused.

[nigelh]

Since when is it your instructors or indeed any instructors responsibility to check you are current ? I in 30 yrs have never had any instructor check I have done my annual check etc. In fact I have a CAA ppl and I haven't done a check ride for couple of years and nobody has checked up on me as it is the responsibility of the pilot surely ?

[OvertHawk]

It would seem sensible that an examiner should check that the licence he is signing is in date.

[hihover]

Of course it is the pilot's responsibility to ensure he remains current if he is going to use the licence. No examiner is going to check up on a pilot as a matter of course. However, at the point of taking the LPC, the examiner will check the current status of the licence to determine which type of check (renewal or revalidation) and whether you meet the requirements to take that check.

[Sulley]

OvertHawk - the license doesn't have to be in date.It isn't the examiners responsibility to ascertain if the Pilot has flown whilst the licence was not current.

[OvertHawk]

I'm not saying that it is the examiners responsibility to ascertain whether or not he has flow whilst out of date.

I am simply stating that if i was an examiner carrying out a licence renewal or re-validation i would, as a matter of course, check that the licence was valid before i signed it. This is something that the examiners that do my LPC/OPC checks do and it seems like simple logic to me.

I challenge anyone so suggest that that is not a sensible precaution - apart from anything else, it is a good way of ensuring that said examiner does not end up being asked under oath why he signed a document that had expired.

Let me be clear - i agree completely that the primary and overwhelming responsibility lies with the licence holder, but that does not mean that we should miss opportunities to catch errors - otherwise what is the point of checking people if not to identify and correct errors. It is, after all a "Licence Proficiency check".

OH

[212man]

I can't believe there is even a discussion about whether the TRE should check the licence when conducting an LPC - of course he should! Not only is it common sense and logical, it's a requirement stated in CAA Document 28 (Guidance for Helicopter TREs) and something a CAA Inspector will specifically monitor when conducting a TRE authority renewal.

(Sady the document is protected, so I can't copy the tex!)

[Sulley]

"I can't believe there is even a discussion about whether the TRE should check the licence when conducting an LPC" - there isn't !

I merely said that providing the licence has an in date valid period, it is possible for the RATING proficiency check to have expired.

Under those circumstances, if said Pilot is presented to an examiner to renew that licence it isn't the responsibility of the examiner to ascertain whether the Pilot has been flying whilst out of a valid proficiency check.

[Nubian]

Come on guys,

Do you really think that "the papers" in this case would have made the diffrence?

Honestly if that's the case, that's more than naive.

Now, I had my medical lapse on me once for a month, and therefore I was not legal to fly.... but guess what I didn't just fall out of the sky as a result and if I had done so, I recon you guys would blame it on my lapsed medical right?!? Great!! :D

This accident happened due to the personality behind the controlls, not due to that his License had lapsed. End of story..

I think this has been discussed (to death)before on one of the threads about the accident.

[OvertHawk]

No - i don't think that the paperwork would have made a difference in the occurrence of this accident.

But that does not change my point of view on the specific, recent, discussion point which was the wisdom / requirement for an examiner to check the validity of licence before he signs off an LPC.

Furthermore: the paperwork will, however, make a massive difference to the aftermath of this tragedy - particularly for the Pilot's family, who will now be even more exposed to massive legal action (with all of the implications that go with that) as a result of the fact that his licence had expired - not to mention the additional heart-ache and stress.


OH

[hands_on123]

Well, I worked for three flight schools in the UK and not one of them even ever asked to see my licence/medical!

[TeeS]

I believe a certain Police unit in the midlands used to use the same system 123. They don't any more :-)

TeeS

[Sulley]

Nubian - what on earth are you talking about?

The point was regarding the responsibilities of examiners and nothing else.:=

[Cylinder Head]

Whilst it makes sense for Examiners to check licence validity, the requirement to do so was only added to the Examiners' Handbook after this accident. At the time of the LPC in question, I believe that no such requirement existed.

Second, the inclusion of expiry dates in Private licences was a sneaky money making twist introduced during the JAA debacle. Previously PPL's had been valid for life and the design of the licence using a single two sided folded sheet meant that the expiry date was often hidden inadvertently. Many pilots presenting themselves to me for an LPC during the transition period had never even noticed that their licence had suddenly grown an expiry date. There are still a number of UK PPL's out there with no expiry date.

Third, even when a pilot has passed his licence expiry date, he needs to complete an LPC in order to revalidate his licence. Whilst examiner action required is different, there is nothing to prevent the LPC from being completed.

The real question here is one of Pilot responsibility. As the Commander of an aircraft, the Pilot in Command is soley responsible for ensuring that they are legal to fly every time they take to the air. Pilots should not even be presenting themselves for an LPC unless they are fully prepared - which should include pointing out to an examiner that their licence has expired. Trying to deflect and transfer this responsibility to instructors or examiners by lawyers in post accident court cases is becoming an increasingly worrying trend.

Several instructors and examiners have recently found themselves up in court on recently trying to justify how they conducted a particular flight, often several years before. The real responsibility generally resides with the PIC at the time of the accident.

The whole nanny state mentality that says "if I cock up, it must be somebody else's fault" is creeping into our society to an alarming degree. Flying can be a potentially hazardous pursuit - like many other activities that involve a degree of risk - it is that risk which makes it fun. If you don't want to accept the risks - then don't do it! And if it goes wrong on you, unlucky but more often than not, there is a substantial element of contributory negligence/poor judgement on the part of the PIC.

Most examiners and instructors I know take their responsibilities very seriously but they cannot cover every single combination of circumstances that might arise in a pilot's future flying. Once a pilot takes on the command of an aircraft, it is his or her responsibility and no-one else's.

I do not know the actual detail of this accident, only what has been reported. It would appear that there was a degree of poor airmanship and decision making. Whether or not an examiner had checked the expiry date on a licence several months before made no difference to the outcome.

It is tragic when there is any loss of life, particularly when it may have been avoidable. Somehow trying to make it the fault of an instructor or examiner is cynical, inequitable and will lead to people leaving the profession as the risks are simply not worth the reward.

[AWFAN]

Sad end to a long inquiry. Well done to the AAIB and all those involved in putting this to rest. A thought for those touched by this tragic event and loss of life.

Crown blames McRae for fatal helicopter crash - Herald Scotland | News | Home News (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/crown-blames-mcrae-for-fatal-helicopter-crash-1.1116670)

A SHERIFF has been urged to rule that former world rally champion Colin McRae was at fault for the helicopter crash which killed him and three others.

Official documents submitted by the Crown Office claim the most likely cause of the accident was the way Mr McRae piloted the aircraft.

They argue his decision to fly at a “low level” and at high speed in a wooded valley was a “significant contributory factor” in the crash and that it could have been avoided had he not done so.

[Lewycasino]

BBC News - Colin McRae blamed for fatal helicopter crash (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14803595)


He said his family had wanted the inquiry to recommend that private aircrafts should be fitted with a flight data recorder.


what do you think about this? good idea or not?

[Chopper Doc]

that would involve a huge cost to what benefit. Do you think having a black box fitted would've stopped him from flying without a valid licence or flying in a manner more akin to flinging around a rally car than piloting an aircraft?

[John R81]

Far better to fly within the limitations of the aircraft, within the legal constraints applicable to all aircraft (minimum clearance from any person, vessel, wehicle or structure) and within the legal constraints applicable to the indivdual pilot (licenses, etc).

I would much rather not have the death and destruction than have a record of it.

Anyway - how much weight, what would you record, etc on an R22??? Or on a hang-glider???

[ambidextrous]

:sad:Sadly, the characteristic that connects most, but not all, the CFIT accidents that figure on this forum whether flown by professionals or amateurs is: their ambitions(read - ego) outweighs their talents(read - abilities).:sad:

[OvertHawk]

Jimmy McRrae's assertion that Colin's rally driving record and expertise should provide some evidence to support the position that he was not in error is understandable from a grieving father, but, utterly flawed.

On the contrary - what it displays is that Colin was a person who was supremely confident in his own abilities and prepared (compelled?) to push hard in order to achieve goals. On how many occasions in racing did this lead to him, and of course all other top level drivers, having accidents? That's a perfectly acceptable part of rallying and one which is well mitigated.

Aviation, however, is not so forgiving as, i fear, he found out to his cost.

OH