Light aircraft down in Dundee [Archive]

Munnyspinner

13th Aug 2009, 13:39

"Algy, I don't like it here one bit" shouted the intrepid aviator to his trusty but blind navigator. " We seem to be in the thick of it!"

" I thought that maybe by routing across the Forth, just to the east of the airport we might avoid these heavies around Edinburgh, slip under the Leuchars radar and have a clear run to sunny Kinross, somewhere near bonny Dundee." Trilled the Algy.

" aye, right...." came the dulcit tones of the ATC " ...what the **** do you think you are doing? You've completely screwed up my approach!"

"Wilco, roger.... oh , erm... request FL90 routing via somewhere near Dundee to Kinross, I think, on a heading of....uhm...Northish" responded Algy whose right finger was following a thick chinagraph line haphazardly drawn on a A-Z Map of Scotland. " at least that's what the GPS says."

" Are you sure Dundee Airport has bunkers and trees, old boy? I'm thinking we should maybe pop in for a spot of fuel and maybe, check our directions? According, to my flight plan we should be visual with Inverness by now. Bugger, more of that low cloud!" Biggles turned to Algy, whose white scarf billowed in the wind as he gingerly stepped out of the aircraft onto the shaking bough of a rather sturdy oak tree.

" It's Okay Capt. Good news! These chaps out here say that we're in a wrecked airplane forty feet up a tree. Bad news, is that the club captain says they have a dress rule and a £5 fine for wearing dayglo vests!"

"phew....for one awful moment there I thought I might have to make an emergency landing onto these rather fetching fairways - on such a lovely clear day, perfect for golf. I hope we didn't put anyone off their stroke" replied Biggles, surveying the scant remains of his latest aerial mount " Still, once we get this kite patched up we should still make Kinloss for tea!"

"Kinloss? questioned Algy as he tripped carelessly towards the 15th green, "I thought were going to Kinross! If I had know you wanted to fly over the Cairngorms I might have filled the tanks this morning! It can get a bit edgy up there you know."

"never mind old bean, I'm still new at this game, we'll have another go in the morning"

* Title courtesy of Mony Python

Mariner9

13th Aug 2009, 14:06

CRX's comments earlier about the increased work load put on ATC are dead right!!...for the controller to be confronted with an ultralite aircraft flying through the middle of her IFR traffic as she tried to sequence it for arrival to Edinbugh is glady not a daily occurence....she did a brilliant job but then one as to be expected ...

With all due respect, the guy did have every right to be there and was under no obligation to stick rigidly to FL's, avoid IFR traffic etc. Not commenting on the actions of the controller involved who I'm sure did indeed do well, just the apparent perception amongst some here that "ultralite" aircraft should not get so high, despite the fact it was the open FIR

Vote NO

13th Aug 2009, 14:08

"A light aircraft has made an emergency landing in a school playground in the US state of Arizona.
The plane came down at Villa de Paz Elementary School in Avondale after developing an engine problem.
No-one was injured in the incident"
BBC NEWS | Americas | Plane lands in school playground (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8001222.stm)

No doubt the pilot was wrestling with the controls to avoid the golf course and made a text book approach on to the school playground to give the kids some fun :}

Sounds a bit like the tree or the golfcourse :E

Munnyspinner

13th Aug 2009, 14:12

No wonder the non flying community thinks that aviation is a bit dangerous!

Come on chaps - let's try and avoid the avoidable accidents!

execExpress

13th Aug 2009, 14:12

Having seen the BBC Biggles piece, I hope our hero is as gushingly expansive about the whole flight preceeding 'so there I was, above the fairway'.

Money on a lot of UK pilots being in conversation with family, friends, and colleagues very soon.... "did you see that bit on the BBC News last night.... right at the end?". I think I'll take a day off.

CRX

13th Aug 2009, 14:29

Mariner,
Except it wasnt open FIR it was the Scottish TMA, 9000-10000 ft over the Forth Road Bridge (which is where the first of the chaos ensued) is controlled airspace. Hence the workload issue.
Also for the record, although I fly to pay the mortgage, a good chunk of my income goes into owning and flying an aircraft of similar weight if not less than Captain 'Biggles' dropped. Anti-'ultralite' I am not. Open FIR fly as high as you like.

CRX.

FISBANG could pick up the details regarding airspace and the like, such as did he have permission to enter the TMA or not.

Captain inSensible

13th Aug 2009, 14:39

"Greg Martin said: "It's incredibly lucky. The pilot has not just saved his own life, but avoided a catastrophe. "It is a miracle he is alive. He must have been pretty capable at handling that aeroplane."

Each time I get into an aircraft with my flight planned and my fuel calculated and my endurance known (and more than adequate for the flight) I should feel really proud of myself about saving my life and avoiding a catastrophe then? Gosh - I thought it was just part of being a pilot.

Heavens don't let this get out, they'll all be doing weight and balance calcs next....:D

captplaystation

13th Aug 2009, 14:45

The televised interview was pretty cringeworthy.
Unfortunately deluded psuedo-pilots like this are free to transgress any controlled airspace that they are probably unaware of.
It struck me in the interview that he thought his actions were somehow praiseworthy :rolleyes:
Sorry, but every daft old coot that operates like this just heralds more and more pressure to enact further legislation, which unfortunately adversely affects the majority who do make an effort to be a teensy weensy bit professional in their recreational aviation.
If you see it from the viewpoint of professional aircrew forced to share his airspace, or the ATC bods having to deal with the actions of this clown, it really isn't so funny.:=

Pace

13th Aug 2009, 15:09

Captain Playstation

Do you have a link to a clip of that interview?

I must admit to feeling sorry for the guy earlier on.
A very low time pilot getting into a mess and having a hard lesson of an accident from which he would learn and grow to be a better pilot through it.

he should have slunk off with his tail between his legs to lick his wounds with a degree of humility.

But to create an accident which is totally your own fault and to then try to claim credit for handling that accident is totally inexcusable and doesnt bode well for his future as a pilot.

In that regard the guy is a menace.

Pace

captplaystation

13th Aug 2009, 15:14

Pace, post No 48 above.

vanHorck

13th Aug 2009, 16:36

standard of training or standard of examination?

Munnyspinner

13th Aug 2009, 17:38

I'm torn on this one.

We all have to learn and only by pushing our own boundaries will we progress. This guy, by all accounts, is still relatively inexperienced and he was making a fairly long X country flight in unfamilier airspace - but, there has to be a first time.

His judgement must be questioned and perhaps so does his training. The NPPL isn't or shouldn't be seen as some easy ticket. Unfortunately, the standard of airmanship exhibited by the pilot here does not inspire confidence.

As Air police correctly points out, the most obviuos and direct track from Walney Island would route well to the west of Dundee. I don't know the actual track but there is anecdotal information relating to conflict with EDI approach and his crossing of the Forth. Whether this was through, to the east or west of the Edinburgh CTR has not been established, however, the best track would have avoided it completely.

The pilot mentions a diversion due to poor weather. If we give him the benefit of the doubt, this may have taken him East towards Dundee and let's suppose he was trying to return to his original planned track when his fuel state became an issue. However, I just can't understand how he got to where he ended up without considering, as he was passing with Perth on the port wing and Dundee to starboard, whether he had enough fuel to get him over the mountains to Kinloss - or for that matter, almost twice the distance, around the coast.

Simple maths pre flight and ATA compated with ETA would indicate if his endurance expectations were within limits or not. A quick stop for fuel may take an extra half hour but serve as a useful break for such any pilot, novice or not. Get theritis strikes again!

Opportunities came and went. FREDA checks were probably repeated by rote without thought. Navigation and radio work perhaps filled the pilots mind whilst his aeroplane gradually ran out of fuel - or is this man going to claim unexplained engine failure?

A grand day out very nearly became his last. The fact is that guys like this pose a greater danger to themselves than others but it does the rest of us a disservice when anyone, inadequatley prepared, takes to the air and has an accident. There are some very bright people who are just not cut out as pilots that's why aptitude testing can be so useful. We all know folk like this man and we shouldn't ignore their inadequacies as pilots nor seek to have them banned. Educate them. Fly with them. Spend time helping them. share your experiences and they will grow as pilots.

strake

13th Aug 2009, 18:11

I'm abroad at the moment and have just watched an interview with this "pilot" on BBC World.
I can only suggest that this man lives in some sort of dreamworld where the CAA and AAIB do not exist. Of course, it may be that he is extremely clever, realises that he might be in a bit of trouble on the old sufficient fuel front and is going for the "I'm barking mad" defense.
However, whilst any pilot might cringe in embarassment at this story, the general public, if I go by what I hearing at this bar in Narita, think he is a wonderful chap who's gritted his teeth, done the decent thing by crashing into a tree and thereby saved hundreds of lives at the golf club, school, nunnery etc.
Book, film..?

DB6

13th Aug 2009, 18:26

trex450

13th Aug 2009, 18:34

Tree or fairway, in his tv interview he says that he opted against landing on a fairway due to obstructions (like trees) so he made a possibility reality by going straight for the tree. If that was not mad enough (he had run out of fuel flying around Scotland as the sole occupant of an aircraft with a 1000nm range when fully fueled) he then flew into the tree at "about 70 kts"!!!!!!!!! I don't know what speed a CT stalls at but I guess it is about 35 kts although with one POB and no fuel it is probably lighter. Life would be boring if everyone was the same I guess, at least he is alive and willing to share his madness, and hopefully someone will learn from it. :O

strake

13th Aug 2009, 19:02

I would suggest that in this case it might be better if the general public go on thinking that. It will all have blown over by the time the full facts come out so why stoke the anti-aviation fires in the meantime?

Because I believe I and most of the posters on this Private Flying board are professional pilots ie people who have spent thousands of pounds and hundreds of hours achieving the experience and skills required to pilot private aircraft. I think if we see evidence of someone operating or acting outside of the standards which we have trained for we have every right to comment on it. Whilst the full facts of this incident will not come out until the AAIB investigation is published, this man has decided to speak to the media today using a 1940's story book analogy to justify the results of his admission of fuel starvation.
Quite frankly, I don't care if the general public know that some of us find that unacceptable.

biscuit74

13th Aug 2009, 19:34

He may be a graduate in maths but evidently can't do simple arithmetic on fuel burn.
Given his theoretical qualifications, he should be ruddy well ashamed of himself. Not the sort of example that GA needs.

Broadly, I'm with Reheat and others. He doesn't need banning but he sure as heck need some 'mentoring', supposedly his specialisation.

Selfish at best. Well done everyone involved for helping him out of a mess of his own making.

I note someone who claims to know him implies he is 'hard work'. Can he be taught? - or is he going to bumptiously continue quoting Biggles? Heck, lots of us like(d) Biggles, and Capt W E Johns wrote soem fine yarns, but really !

We all make mistakes, but this chap's attitude beggars belief

airborne_artist

13th Aug 2009, 20:18

My guess is that the biggest barrier he will have to surmount before getting airborne again will be persuading an insurance company to take him on. That might be quite a big issue, which perhaps is no bad thing.

vanHorck

13th Aug 2009, 20:28

The Biggles story has made it across the pond!

NOSJOURNAAL - Avonturenverhaal redt leven piloot (http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/artikelen/2009/8/13/130809_biggles.html)

NorthSouth

13th Aug 2009, 20:31

This guy is surely Giles Wemmbley-Hogg!? He's in the great English upper class tradition of bumbling idiots breezing through life totally oblivious to the wreckage piling up in their wake, and always approaching life with an optimistic smile. You could argue Biggles was just such a man. Part of me (the South part) says we should celebrate such a positive attitude to life, but North says the person he most reminds me of is someone who ended up dead with his wife on a Perthshire hillside a few years back.

We all know people who fly who we think are dangerous. It's very difficult making the decision (as an instructor, or an examiner, or simply an observing fellow pilot) to do something about it.

NS

oscarisapc

13th Aug 2009, 21:03

What I have not been able to establish from this thread is whether this was a precautionary landing becaue he was low on fuel or a forced landing because he was out of fuel with the engine stopped whilst trying to make it to Dundee airport. With all the comments in his interview about choosing the treees rather than the fairway (do they not have fields in Scotland?) and about choosing to land at 35 knots rather than 70 knots, I get the impression that there was an element of choice in picking the tree canopy and "pancaking" into it.
I have had a look at the CTSW website - it seems a lovely little aircraft and a shame it has ended up like that. Its cruise endurance when full of fuel is enormous - it is a bladder busting 6 to 7 hours, and much longer when flying economically. I am sure the AAIB are going to draw lots of lessons for the rest of us from this.

Say again s l o w l y

13th Aug 2009, 21:12

All I shall say about this is this:

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

As for whoever did his training:

http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/fighting/fighting0025.gif

As for ATC:

http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/love/love0030.gif

Oldpilot55

13th Aug 2009, 21:29

NS
I agree..I was offered a flight with a guy who scared me the last time I flew. I refused and on his return to his local field he managed to put the plane off the runway and into a field. No damage to the plane or persons so not a reportable accident. He lives to fly another day but would you ever want to fly with him?

C42

13th Aug 2009, 21:39

I dont think you can blame the guy that trained him. he did his training years ago, then was not seen untill recently and wanted to fly again. i could be wrong, but i do not beleve the person that trained him took him for the re-validation for reasons i assume only the aaib will find out.

Kiltie

13th Aug 2009, 22:03

It never ceases to amaze me how Pprune allows such personal slurs on named individuals to go unmoderated. I agree with C42's earlier post that he should be wished a speedy recovery.

I'd hazard a guess if any of us dared launch such remarks of stupidity / idiocy / danger to others at a professionally qualified pilot that had been named on a thread it would be closed pdq. I have flown commercially with some clowns who have done some dangerous things over the years that I don't wish to remember but I wouldn't go shaming them when they'd been named on a public forum.

This old chap has children and grandchildren. If I was one of them stumbling across this thread I'd be hurt at what's been written by some.

In this case, I fear freedom of speech is not something to be celebrated when I read the sad indictment of how people love to scoff at other's mistakes.

SirLaughalot

13th Aug 2009, 22:49

Couple of points from the news report:

"I stalled onto the trees..."

"I was doing something like 70kts on impact...just before impact..."

From the P & M Aviation website: The Flight Design CTSW Performance

PM Aviation (http://www.pmaviation.co.uk/ctsw.html)

Stall speed Vs1 ( Flaps –8` ) 43kts
Stall speed Vs2 ( Flaps –0` ) 40kts
Stall speed Vs0 ( Flaps -40') 34kts

:confused:

Pace

13th Aug 2009, 22:57

Kiltie

In my earlier posts I had some sympathy for him as we have all done something in the past in aviation which made us think " that was pretty stupid thank god I got away with it".

His lack of experience and very low hours further got my sympathy.

Most of us faced with such a big lesson have humility. It makes us examine what we have done. We might even grab an instructor and beg that he sorts out a gap in our flying.

So far this guy doesnt appear to accept any responsibility for the accident that befell him but seems to revel in his own heroism at saving his kneck and those on the ground.

He hardly was a victim of an aircraft failure who braved all odds to bring his aircraft down safely and in the process risked his life further to avoid hurting others.

Infact he appears to have unilaterally created this accident by appalling airmanship and flying skills.

To run out of fuel is in itself totally unnaceptable.

What did he think? that he could stop at a gas station midair? or park up if the engine stopped?

We do have to question whether the training for a NPPL is adequate.

Someone will have to examine how so many errors could possibly occur in a pilot trained to a standard which allowed this guy to achieve a NPPL.

Maybe the blame lies there and not with the pilot?

Pace

CRX

13th Aug 2009, 23:30

From the Press and Journal interview:

Plane came to rest 40ft up tree Businessman escapes with minor injuries
Biggles saved my life, says pilot after golf course crash
By Mark Dowie

Published: 13/08/2009

A pilot escaped after his plane crashed into a tree on a Dundee golf course yesterday.

The two-seat microlight became lodged in branches high above the ground, leaving Vince Hagedorn stranded.

Firefighters used a 44ft ladder to rescue the 63-year-old, who was trapped for about an hour.

Last night a relieved Mr Hagedorn, of Chelmsford, in Essex, told how a childhood love for the Biggles books “saved his life".

He said: “Captain W.E. Johns saved my life. As a boy, I remember reading a Biggles story where he was shot down over enemy lines and was flying over a wooded area. He managed to “pancake” the plane sideways into a tree, which minimised the impact and he walked away unscathed.

"In the moment before impact, I was doing about 70 knots and still managed to think, ‘What would Biggles do?'"

From his hospital bed at the A&E department of Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, where he was taken, Mr Hagedorn, a business management consultant, told of his amazing brush with death.

Mr Hagedorn, who has four years' flying experience in his own plane, a German-built Flight Design CT-SW, said: “I left Barrow-in-Furness in the morning and was heading for RAF Kinloss, where I had been cleared to land, to visit my daughter, Maggie, at Lossiemouth.

“I was just north of Dundee when I checked my fuel gauges and it said it was half full, but when I checked the wing gauges, one said it was empty and the other said I had only half an hour left of flying.”

Mr Hagedorn said he looked at his charts and saw he would have to land at either RAF Leuchars or Dundee – and Dundee was closer.

“But because I was north of the city, and the airfield to the south, I would've had to fly over the built-up city, which was not a good idea,” he said.

“Aside from not flying over the city population, I didn't like the look of the oil rigs and the bridges over the Tay, so I turned around.

“I saw a crop field which I thought looked fine for an emergency landing but, as I turned right, the engine cut.

“I called the Dundee tower and said, ‘Mayday, mayday, mayday', and I was losing height rapidly.

“I saw that there was a small housing estate in front of the crop field, so I had to rule it out.

“If I hit a house, I would be killed instantly, and I would also kill others, so I looked elsewhere and saw the golf course.”

He said he could not land on the fairway because there were too many trees – “so I lined up the tree and did what Biggles did, and stalled, and pancaked into it.”

Mr Hagedorn, who was thrown forward in the crash and suffered bruised ribs, a grazed side and bump on the head, conceded he was “overall very lucky”.

He was the only person on board. No one on the golf course was injured.

The Flight Design CTSW microlight came to rest 40ft up the tree, near the 15th hole of the Caird Park Golf Course, about 4.50pm.

Andrew Blacklaw was playing the 13th hole when the plane crashed and he was one of several golfers who called the emergency services.

He said: “We looked up and saw it gliding past over the fairway.

“It looked like he was going to land there but the plane went up again and went into the tree.”

Mr Blacklaw, 26, of Longtown Road, Dundee, said the pilot was in a jovial mood despite the accident.

“We shouted up to see if he was OK,” he said. “He said that he needed a ladder and joked that he was our new branch manager.

“He said he’d run out of petrol and that his glasses had cut his head.”

Club secretary Greg Martin praised Mr Hagedorn for using his skills to avoid nearby houses and roads.

He said: “It’s incredibly lucky and it looks like it was a good bit of pilot skill on his part.”

Tayside Fire and Rescue’s group manager Pat Walmsley said the pilot had been lucky.

He said: “It appears he got into difficulties above Dundee and may have attempted to land on the golf course.

“We assessed the situation and were able to speak to him from the ground.

“We got a ladder up and checked whether or not the plane needed to be secured.”

Mr Walmsley said the aircraft was lodged between a fork in the branches, with another branch supporting it from below.

“We checked how badly injured he was and checked with the trauma team, who were happy for us to bring him down,” he said.

Mr Walmsley added that the pilot was able to climb down the ladder by himself, with the aid of a safety harness and walk to a waiting ambulance.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said it would be investigating the incident.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers' Comments
Well done Biggles .. I grew up with him too, but I don't know that I'd have had the presence of mind to recall his adventures, in a crisis situation! Well done, Mr Walmsley, glad you weren't badly injured.
Susie Main

CRX.

BIGJ91

14th Aug 2009, 00:28

It might of course be that the chap was still suffering from a degree of shock when he was interviewed and will find the Biggles comment even more cringeworthy than the rest of us. Possibly enough to not want to be involved in aviation any more. I'll await the AAIB report with interest.

It does concern me in general though that every time we get a story about a pilot "heroically" (or more sadly "sacrificing his life by...") steering his light aircraft away from houses, school, hospital or whatever else happens to be in a five mile radius from the crash site the implication is reinforced that light aircraft represent some kind of threat to the public on the ground when they "fall out of the air". In reality of course such a threat is minimal- far less for example than a car or even a motorcycle veering onto the pavement so maybe we should all emphasise that when discussing such incidents with our non flying friends and colleagues.

mad_jock

14th Aug 2009, 00:35

If i was him i would be more worried about getting MRSA in Ninewells than stalling it into a tree.

Nibbler

14th Aug 2009, 00:37

Having had recent dealings with this pilot (elsewhere) I thought "that was close" and "accident waiting to happen". To be fair the same thoughts came up a number of times during the shift, this is the first time I wish I'd had a fiver on it.

Roll the die of chance continually making basic mistakes, failing essential checks and talking to The Force will catch up with you in the end.

I doubt the overall reputation of GA has been seriously damaged by this nice man - nice apologetic man, at least he was when I met him.

Glad he and others were not hurt - anyone check on the squirrels?

Katamarino

14th Aug 2009, 05:50

“He said that he needed a ladder and joked that he was our new branch manager."

As a result of this, I have changed my opinion of him from 'What an idiot' to 'What a legend!'

:ok:

Pace

14th Aug 2009, 07:32

Reading that it comes across a lot better than the TV clip.

Even the Biggles statement doesnt sound so bad.

The guy obviously thought he was in a mess and what would his childhood hero have done.

Often films or books read or viewed as kids sow the seeds for future passions and Biggles must have been a big inspiration to many pilots flying today.

I hope he doesnt give up flying but does take stock and learns from this experience. I also hope that he gets some coaching in flight planning and management especially regarding checking his fuel and reserves before taking to the air again

Pace

C42

14th Aug 2009, 07:37

Anyway, some good news for all those "he is not a good pilot because he flys a plane that is lighter than a tin can" (just in case you think i am biased, I fly a 200mph tin can and have not owned /flown a microlight for years) He has recently ordered an brand new absolutely beatifull twin lycoming I0360 pusher powered air Taxi to provide comercial flights around the UK. so really he is one of us, not just a microlight pilot!! :eek:

I still love him to bits though!!

Pace

14th Aug 2009, 07:48

He has recently ordered an brand new absolutely beatifull twin lycoming I0360 pusher powered air Taxi to provide comercial flights around the UK. so really he is one of us, not just a microlight pilot!!

C42 intrigued ? who makes a brand new piston pusher powered twin suitable for AOC work? I know there was one built for rough strips?

Pace

vancouv

14th Aug 2009, 08:40

OK, just to summarise and make sure I've followed this: He was flying from Barrow, and during this flight he caused some issues round EDI - did he infringe CAS? Then later he noticed he was low on fuel, and while attempting to divert the donk quit and he ended up doing a forced landing onto a golf course and the best place he could find to land was on top of a tree as recommended by Biggles? Which he approached at 70kts?

Captain Smithy

14th Aug 2009, 08:51

Looks like some dodgy journos from a certain Weegie rag of questionable quality have cottoned onto this thread...

Golf course crash pilot blasted as 'complete idiot' by internet pilots - The Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/08/14/golf-course-crash-pilot-blasted-as-complete-idiot-by-internet-pilots-86908-21595952/)

Careful what you are all saying folks...

Smithy :suspect:

Pace

14th Aug 2009, 09:12

Captain Smithy

A good lesson to us to beware about what we do say without knowing the facts.

Only the pilot knows really what happened and there is no saying that he has disclosed all those facts.

ie why take to a tree? was he trying to glide to a clearing beyond?
Was the tree density too great to get enough landing distance on the ground below? We dont know but we mock what we percieve.

Strangely his Biggles technique for landing in dense forest is correct and based on water landing apart from the gear.

His 70kts I guessed was his glide speed not his impact speed into the trees

Again I stress that I hope he continues in aviation but does really consider the mistakes which are fact and gets those gaps filled in preferably with an instructor.

Finally from this press report is the last line which should be the approach we all use with the so called press in any situations we get in ourselves and which he should have used earlier.

Vince was not available for comment last night about the claims over his flying skills.

Pace

C42

14th Aug 2009, 09:42

As i understand it, he did recognise he was low on fuel and landed at a small airfield to get fuel but none was available so he took off again heading to a bigger airfield to get fuel, which i also understand he did a go around for reasons only he will know. after that is when the fan stopped

i have seen the pictures of this twin, its new and looks superb with a sort of loading bay at the back. cant remember its name though

Katamarino

14th Aug 2009, 09:47

Unsurprisingly, the brain-dead journalist who 'wrote' the piece managed to attribute at least one quote that was about a totally different pilot as being about the guy in the tree. They never cease to amaze me - can't even get a copy and paste job right. Yes, journalist sponging stories off the board, I mean you!

CRX

14th Aug 2009, 09:51

Kat,
THANK YOU.
That was my post that was totally misquoted and said it was about the incident pilot when it wasnt. I have deleted it now in case any other 'journalistically challenged' junior reporters also misquote me.
I saw the light with the Daily Record in 2001 when they ran a centre spread about how MS Flight Sim 2000 (then) was a threat to security and showed their reporter 'flying' into skyscrapers on his pc. They regarded it as a training aid for terrorists.
Makes the Daily Star seem like a good read.

CRX.

Munnyspinner

14th Aug 2009, 10:01

Pace,

A well balanced view which I think is fair in the circumstances. It is far too easy to leap to conclusions based on snippets of hearsay information. The Biggle story was perhaps the best way to explain to laymen (journalists).

All said and done, regardless of how and why he ended up making a forced landing he did walk away unscathed with no loss of life or damage to property. For this he must receive some credit. We will never know whether this was an ill judged mistake - that worked out well. Or a well reasoned and skilful approach into a tree where the pilot quickly assessed all the risks before using his expert handling skill to bring the aircraft to rest.

If you are ever going to hit a tree it is better to do so in the canopy then atthe base - Some years ago, I had the misfortune to witness a performance sports car disintegrate on colliding with tree. There was nothing recognisable after the accident and the tree - largely unscathed is still there! The gretest risk is perhaps that having landed 40ft up the aircraft then slips out of the tree - its not the fall that kills you but the sudden stop at the bottom. Ouch.

As the pilots wife explianed " my husband is an adveturer - planes, cars and motorbikes. He loves them all...." and no doubt his insurance premiums have just gone up.

We need characters like this to remind the rest of us how to do things properly - otherwise nobody would believe that it mattered.

T18

14th Aug 2009, 10:27

Wow, reading through this thread, I am beginning to believe that Biggles was't real, perhaps even just a fictional character.

Looks like I may have to review my flying emergency procedures. Help!

Re-Heat

14th Aug 2009, 11:25

As I said, I was feeling more charitable until I read the posts of what people heard of him on Scottish, which appear to be less hearsay and more fact.

Hence my earlier comments that I fully stand by.

Munnyspinner

14th Aug 2009, 11:35

Having re-read the journos story - some things just don't add up.

If G - VINH left Walney " in the morning" a direct routing to Kinloss would give a distance of around 220nm. Lets allow an average speed of say 80kts ( I don't have the weather for that day but, allowing for climb and headwind etc. (This is against a stated cruise speed of 120Kts) and positioning to land this would give a total flight time of around 3 hours.

So if , sometime "in the morning" was even midday. he should have been arriving over the Moray coast at around 3 or 4pm. The a/c is listed as having a range of 1000nm ( 30 reserve) at 97kts so Kinloss was easily in range.

The track would have taken him either over the lake district towards Edinburgh ( my track was through the overhead of EDI which was perhaps the best optional the height he was reporting , via Perth ( just to the west of the airfield) up over the Angus glens toward royal Deeside keeping the Cairngorms to the west and continuing North until the Moray coast was in sight. If we allow for an initial leg to avoid the peaks around the lake district and a weather diversion that took him further east then this might account for his positioning well to the east of his original ( obvious) track. But, the accident was logged at 4.50pm.

Now, Caird Park is only 145nm or so from Walney island and even allowing for a half hour or so of mucking around trying to get back to Dundee airport (which is only 3nm or so to the south west of the crash site) I am puzzled as to where the time has gone? He could have got to where he did in a little over 2hours from Walney and still have enough fuel to fly to Kinloss and back again - if he started the day with full tanks.

If he did leave walney " in the morning " ( i.e before midday) is it small wonder that he was not only fatigued but running low on fuel 5 hours later when he still had 80 - 90nm to go ( without weather diversion etc.)

Where has he been? He is logged as stumbling through the Edinburgh Zone and we know he came to rest in a tree at teatime but what of the earlier part of the flight? When did he leave and would simple , very simple arithmetic not have alerted any pilot that the donkey was getting hungry?

I'm also a little bit fuzzy as to why he chose to aim at the golf course when, if you look at the location to the N of Dundee you will see acres of fields. All a bit of a mystery as to why you should rely on a childhood memory of a fictional character when there were a list of other options that had been available - before the fuel state became critical. No doubt, this man is oft to be seen at the side of a road with a little green can when he is out adventuring in his classic cars and motorbikes.

C42 - I'm intrigued. You say he is about to start an air taxi company with an unidentified pusher twin. Can you give more details. It is a business I think I might avoid!

FrustratedFormerFlie

14th Aug 2009, 13:00

As my golfing mates will attest, I have real trouble hitting a fairway off a tee - but I'd like to think I could hit one in a light aircraft!

fisbangwollop

14th Aug 2009, 13:01

I guess his climb to FL 100 in a busy bit of controlled airspace didnt help his fuel burn!!!!!!!!!:(:(:(

pilotmike

14th Aug 2009, 13:05

It was with a mixture of sadness and irritation that I read about Mr Hagedorn’s apparently highly avoidable accident.

People who simply refuse to accept responsibility for their mistakes, people who refuse to listen and to learn will forever remain a danger to themselves, and more importantly, to the wider public. Choosing as he does, to bask in the limelight with stories of heroically ‘saving the day’, he shows no sign of taking even the first vital steps to becoming a safer pilot.

For some on here to blame his instructor or examiner is not fair. Many people present themselves for both flying instruction and indeed for examination for grant of PPL (or NPPL) who are of marginal ability. However, an examiner can only judge what is demonstrated on the day. Neither the instructor nor the examiner have any control over any possible degradation of performance, or their growing propensity for risk taking after the grant of a licence.

Possibly there is an over ‘inclusive’ attitude in some flying schools, demonstrated by a ‘we can teach anyone to fly’ attitude, which can give false expectation to some. A more realistic assessment at an early stage of flight training might well help to minimise later accidents by over ambitious pilots of marginally ability. By contrast, it was refreshing to hear in a Safety training lecture at a very early stage of my commercial helicopter fight training that “helicopters are not for everybody”.

Mr Hagendorn’s woeful tale and his manner on TV remind me of two particular students that I have at one time tried to instruct. They shared distinct similarities; being ‘older’, ‘intelligent’, of a somewhat ‘bumptious’ manner, having a distinct preference for talking rather than listening, and being apparently incapable of accepting any responsibility for their mistakes. Indeed the two in question never, to my recollection, ever felt they had made a mistake. It was always “because of this, that or the other factor” beyond their control.

The fact that they are intelligent sadly does nothing to help these people to learn, and thereby to become safer pilots. Quite the opposite. Their intelligence has allowed them to cruise through life being the ‘instructor’ not the ‘student’, and changing roles in later life is not something that comes easily to them. They will typically spend more time in pre-flight briefings talking rather than listening to the instructor. They will usually be trying to correct the instructor, based on their long-held and invariably erroneous ‘knowledge’ gained from dubious sources such as MS Flight Sim (or in Mr H’s case, Biggles books). Blind faith in these false props rather than the wise words from an expert instructor is a poor substitute for the day to day task of flying safely, and especially so in an emergency.

Both of the students that Mr H reminds me of went on to have serious accidents. Thankfully, like Mr H, the one who did eventually manage to get a PPL survived to tell the tale. Not so the other one.

Lets hope that Mr H takes this opportunity to have a real hard look at himself, to review his attitude to airmanship and his need to listen and learn from both his mistakes and from others who are wiser. This would give him his best chance to become a better pilot before it is too late. As an airline pilot who regularly flies a jet full of passengers in the EDI airspace that Mr H apparently violated, I am appalled to know that my passengers and I are being put at such serious risk by fools like him. The saddest part is that he seems to be completely unaware of the danger he is putting so many people in.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to listen.

BabyBear

14th Aug 2009, 13:10

Presumably during the approach and time in controlled airspace he was warned by Scottish and given instructions to leave by the safest and quickest route.

Did he simply ignore same, or did he have difficulty understanding his predicament and the instructions given?

Too many examples of things not adding up for this one to be as straight forward as is made out.

Munnyspinner

14th Aug 2009, 13:48

Unless he was thought he was flying a jet, climbing straight out of the CTR/CTA was never going to be the quickest option - nor the most economical on fuel. Although, it may have been safest to climb as he was routing away from trouble if he then had to cross the Forth at a wider point than the bridges.

Looks like this was one of these flights where an accident was the only likely outcome. I think PilotMike has summed up very well - Poor Mr H - it wasn't his fault that the the machine conked out and what a great job he has done saving the day. I guess he must just be wired differently.

Had he chosen to land with fuel or made a precautionary landing on farmland he would not have endangered so many other people and would perhaps have been of a lesser risk to himself.

I still dn't understand how you can spend 5 hrs getting from Barrow in Furness to Dundee! F**k I can drive there and halfway back in that time! What was he doing - looking for an accident?

worrab

14th Aug 2009, 14:04

BabyBear - Look at the comments by FishBangWallop and CRX who seem remarkably well informed on the additional workload caused to (the excellent) Scottish Information.

Re-Heat

14th Aug 2009, 14:10

Good comments, pilotmike - I'm glad someone agrees with me (in a manner more eloquent than I managed)!

RatherBeFlying

14th Aug 2009, 14:20

In the credit where credit is due department, he did avoid built-up areas when he became concerned about fuel -- and when the engine quit, he quickly made a plan that fit his perceived circumstances, stuck to it and walked away from the final result.

Now in the what to do if you are short of fuel department, one can point out several poor decisions. It seems he landed somewhere in a low fuel state to get gas but there was none. I would be most reluctant to take off again without precisely measuring my remaining fuel and having a precise route worked out to a fuel stop that allowed me an hour's reserve.

In the event that my hour's reserve was about to be used, I would most certainly climb and begin working my route from one landable field to the next. Of course once high enough, you can usually head off in the general direction as I do in a glider until low enough that I want to have a good field in my pocket.

As a private owner, I would become highly cognisant of the fuel burn plus stick the tanks against the fuel gauge readings so that I would know what they were really telling me.

In a machine with a 1000nm range, mixture can have a large effect on consumption. You can't achieve book figures or often anything near that without optimal mixture. I would definitely log expected against actual fuel consumption for at least my first flights until I knew what I could expect.

One watch I had had a countdown timer. That was set to how much time was in the tanks of the C-172's I was flying.

Getting short of fuel can happen because of diversions, unexpected headwinds, or leaks. When you are down to that know last 30 minutes or so of fuel (depending on how well you know the a/c and the gauges), a precautionary landing gives you the opportunity to check out a field before committing yourself to it.

Then there's navigation. The pilot does seem able to get from A to B and manage a diversion. But the question arises about his ability to identify airspace, work effectively with ATC and adhere to a clearance. But we do have to give him credit for contacting ATC and being honest:ok:

Somehow I suspect whichever insurer that is persuaded to take him on will be insisting on a safety pilot with specified credentials:E

serf

14th Aug 2009, 14:43

Evening Telegraph: News (http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/output/2009/08/14/story13614806t0.shtm)

airborne_artist

14th Aug 2009, 14:50

Also saying that "“The criticism is inevitable. These people are responding to news reports and they don’t know what actually happened — I did not run out of fuel.....I had just enough fuel to get to Kinloss but what happened was that I burned my margin [which means he did run out of fuel, surely?]........he believed the engine cut-out was caused by a problem with that particular type of aircraft when one of the tanks is empty, and that the incident would lead to all models being grounded for further investigation to prevent a repeat."

Anyone with experience of this model care to comment? Has the BMAA issued a statement/advisory?

Re-Heat

14th Aug 2009, 15:15

Since Mr H is clearly reading this (judging from news articles):

Please take onboard the valid comments on here, and stop blaming everyone but yourself. Sure, there may be mitigating circumstances, but we all know that accidents often have more than one single cause, some of which appear exacerbated by airmanship.

We're all here to keep each other safe; we are not here to pander to PR and the media who will subjectively quote without understanding the larger picture. Comments here will help improve everyone's safety if they are taken onboard.

If, for example, you knew the aircraft to have fuel feed issues, particularly if advised by maufacturers, it is your responsibility to add sufficient margin.

Neither are "weird clouds" an excuse: unforecast winds and their effect on fuel consumption would be spotted if flight planning contained ETAs, and late ETAs resulted in recalculation of ground speed and fuel remaining.

All these are complex, but within the syllabus of the PPL; there is no shame in asking if you forget certain aspects of the syllabus post-PPL at your local flying club, indeed you should be doing so in the post-PPL stage.

While clearly we don't know all the facts, there is a large body of factual evidence of airmanship from fellow users of Scottish, and an abandonment of reason in going down the "Biggle landing" route, contrary to all PPL training.

Take note, Mr H, and good luck for the recovery. And stop talking to the media. It is that which irks people most in this case.

Read: GASIL 2009/07: General Aviation Safety Information Leaflet. The CAA Accident Prevention Leaflet. | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3681)

Aviation safety and skills are not to be taken lightly, whether you are a 1 hr a month or 80 hr a month pilot.

ex jump pilot

14th Aug 2009, 15:26

What an excellent thread this has been. Very enjoyable and thought provoking. It's waht I like about pprune and long may it continue.
Coming to it late in life (ditto flying), I can understand how a professional person can bring their "baggage" into a new realm and suspect the pilot in this case may well have done. Competency in one field sadly isn't always transferable to another.
Being a trainer, I suspect the person involved may well not have taken on board "the music in the words". Instructors may well have multiple agendas. I'm (paid) to give the course - I got good feedback - hence that's it. In an ideal world it's "when this person leaves the course, I am satisfied that they can cope without me" (a perennial problem where I work - the management believe they are paid on delivery whereas you actually get paid on acceptance of the product by the client). I suspect also that judgment by the person involved in particular circumstances may be lacking. Was there sufficient understanding by them of the principle of the "superior pilot"?

Running out of fuel (viewed from the ground) is poor planning (assuming that the fuel system hasn't sprung a leak). Discovering it in the air is different and shows us a great deal about people's judgment and motivations.

Lastly, let's address the challenge of getting someone who's been in a crash back flying again.
From conversations with insurance principals, my view would be to get the insurance people to state their conditions for issue of insurance (e.g spend 25 hours flying with an instructor, do 6 diversions, plan 10 cross country flights etc.).
Basically, instill some practice to turn someone who has a bit of paper declaring their competence into someone who has met the subtle challenges that flying throws up over at least one season.

My own log book (spread over 25+ years) has many learning examples in its bland entries.

pilotmike

14th Aug 2009, 15:39

As I wrote in my earlier post:
People who simply refuse to accept responsibility for their mistakes, people who refuse to listen and to learn will forever remain a danger to themselves, and more importantly, to the wider public.

As well as:
...having a distinct preference for talking rather than listening, and being apparently incapable of accepting any responsibility for their mistakes... [they] never, to my recollection, ever felt they had made a mistake. It was always “because of this, that or the other factor” beyond their control.

How prophetic!

“Mr Hagedorn… insisted today he had ‘done nothing wrong’, and had been following the instructions of air traffic controllers throughout.” That’s the first box ticked – ‘done nothing wrong’ – and of course ATC are to blame, not him.

“it was ‘weird clouds’ which had resulted in him burning more fuel than expected” Now we can add the clouds to the list of culprits, but not our hero Mr H.

“As a pilot, I did everything I should have done.” Still squarely not to blame; re-tick box 1.

“My route was chosen in conjunction with the Dundee control tower, but nobody expected the engine to stop when I still had half an hour worth of fuel.” Still not Mr H to blame for anything, but the net is cast wider to include both Dundee Control Tower and his idiosyncratic engine to blame!

“I had just enough fuel to get to Kinloss but what happened was that I burned my margin.” So apparently there is still absolutely no way it could possibly be Mr H’s fault…

“I was flying above the clouds, which were broken so there was good visibility of the ground.” So presumably he feels that this demonstrates perfectly good airmanship for an inexperienced pilot? But again, presumably still somehow not Mr H’s fault that he found himself above the clouds…

“But there were weird clouds, patches at different heights, and I got permission to fly at 9000 ft while I was going through Edinburgh airspace.” I somehow doubt very much that he gained permission to fly in controlled airspace – rather that ATC felt it better to at least be talking to him once they discovered him there…

“The higher the altitude, the more fuel you burn” Not so, but probably Mr H with his expert knowledge of all things aviation and physics will somehow once again not be mistaken, and most definitely not to blame. I wonder, did he revise his fuel consumption figures and endurance before choosing to climb higher? Possibly Biggles ought to be consulted for definitive fuel consumption figures…

“He said he believed the engine cut-out was caused by a problem with that particular type of aircraft” Absolutely true to form for characters of his sort; there is still absolutely no blame laid at his feet – it is now the fault of the aircraft!

“… [he believed] that the incident would lead to all models being grounded for further investigation to prevent a repeat.” In the vain hope that once again, it will turn out to be absolutely no fault of his whatsoever!

“I said it wasn’t a crash, it was a landing.” Oh, silly me! There I was believing that it was his crash that was being reported. I achieve well over 1,000 landings every year; thankfully they are not newsworthy and the plane or helicopter can be flown again. Other competent pilots do exactly the same. That is what tends to distinguish the difference between a landing and a crash, Mr H.

Never before have I seen such a comprehensive catalogue of deluded self-belief, where everyone and everything is to blame, but not the idiot pilot. Clearly my hopes that Mr H might just reflect on his bad airmanship and his good fortune, then start to realise his mistakes in order to become a better pilot are dashed by this defiant defence of his blameless flying.

My view is becoming loss tolerant. What a complete idiot! PLEASE Mr H, don’t even think of flying again until you can accept that you made serious mistakes, and that you need re-training. And if you do ever find yourself airboune again, please, oh please, not in the same airspace as me.

Torque Tonight

14th Aug 2009, 16:01

I wouldn't normally comment on an accident until the facts are established, media reports being notoriously unreliable. However, Mr H has already said enough in interviews his various interviews. He seems to enjoy the attention but he really isn't doing himself any favours. A few thoughts:

Running yourself out of fuel is almost unforgiveable.
Not diverting or making a precautionary landing when you still could shows poor decision making.
Putting yourself in a situation where you have no options to deal with contingencies is bad airmanship especially when you have very limited experience.
Weather, air traffic, higher burn rate, etc does not justify the accident. It's your responsibility to be prepared for unforeseen events.
Running a tank to empty on aircraft with multiple tanks is best avoided where possible.
Choosing to fly into a tree at double your stall speed based on a tale in a children's book rather than carrying out a forced landing to a suitable area (a golf course for instance) is absolutely barking mad!

There used to be an accident cause category for RAF Boards of Inquiry back when blame culture was strong, entitled 'Aircrew Error (Negligence)' I have a sneaking feeling that despite Mr H's many excuses and justifications, such a category might have some relevance to his 'accident'.

T18

14th Aug 2009, 16:07

The CT does suffer from a known fuel situation, in that, should the a/c be flown out of balance, or indeed be parked on sloping ground, the fuel gravitates to the lower tank, when flying in this condition, the a/c does tend to drop the heavier wing, that condition will remain I guess unless the wing is raised higher to compensate and equalise the fuel. It may well be that Mr H had fuel in the lower wing which failed to reach the carb. I would imagine that this would only occur when very low on fuel.

I doubt very much that there would be any mixture control on this aircraft.

It is a very nice aircraft to fly, relatively fast and very slippery, with as previously mentioned a very low stall speed, with when required a very short landing. Probably much less than 100metres in skilled hands.

Torque Tonight

14th Aug 2009, 16:10

it wasn’t a crash, it was a landing

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/output/2009/08/14/images/WWWBIGGLESN.jpeg

Yes Mr H, of course it was. That'll polish out just fine.

Nurse, get the straitjacket.

Re-Heat

14th Aug 2009, 16:31

Mr H

We've all done stupid things in the air; nobody is perfect. Learn from those errors and admit to them, as the most dangerous person is one who does not learn. We will all freely admit to doing dumb things in the clubhouse, as that is how the temprement of the pilot should be.

As someone once said, you are continually learning in aviation. If you think you have nothing more to learn, quit before you kill yourself.

Squadgy

14th Aug 2009, 16:50

“I was just north of Dundee when I checked my fuel gauges and it said it was half full, but when I checked the wing gauges, one said it was empty and the other said I had only half an hour left of flying.”

The electronic fuel guage on the FDCT is set by the pilot prior to flight on the basis of the physical quantity of fuel in the tanks, established by dipping. The electronics will then calculate fuel remaining on the basis of fuel burn.

If the electronic guage is set incorrectly to start with then it is quite possible that the it could show more fuel available then there actually is - hence the reason sight guages are available in the cockpit.

BabyBear

14th Aug 2009, 17:02

I wish Mr H a speedy recovery, however I am firmly of the opinion that he should never fly again, irrespective of how much training he has. It is not his planning abilities, or indeed his flying skills that should ground him, but his complete and utter arrogance! There is no amount of training going to cure his self righteousness!

hhobbit

14th Aug 2009, 17:05

2C worth from a CTSW Pilot.

I am similar in circumstances to the accident pilot; in ownership, age, experience, hours logged technical background etc; having bought my rather delightful CTSW six months ago and put 60 hours up on it so far.

Mainly I want to concentrate here on the report of engine stopping in what appears to be the final turn.

The two wing tanks are 65 litres each. This puts the plane pretty much top of the class AFAIK regarding endurance. Flogging the 912 is 5.4 hrs to zero, double that if flown at the factory’s economic cruise. I have mooched around on as little as 9 l/hr.

This aircraft is sold as a microlight, VLA, S-LSA with perhaps 1800 produced to date all variants, but essentially the same plane except for:

The earlier CT2K had fuel changeover valve, later changed to simple tee piece feed from the two wing tanks. This was the decision of the manufacturer, as the lesser risk, following in the field accident experience.

The CTSW has these two tanks, with inboard feeds to the unvalved tee.

The CTLS has additional slosh tanks, small inboard compartments with restricting flapvalves that trap a quantity of fuel over that feed pipe.

All versions have in the wing root sight gauges, but the very flat tanks, and the CTLS slosh tank can lead to some counterintuitive readings. A detailed discussion of this is here:

Flight Design CTsw Forum.... :: View topic - CTLS Fuel Balance (http://www.ctflyer.com/viewtopic.php?t=1652&highlight=tank+balance)

In particular the words of Russ and Xrayspecs are relevant to this event.

Bottom line: fly true or else your engine will starve before all the fuel is gone.
It takes me more attention than I want to give, to achieve this result, but I have done it to within a few litres on a long trip.

Others here may know of similar characteristic in flat tanked aircraft. Is this a fault or a quirk? It may take a fatality and a court case before this question gets answered. There needs to be total clarity when specifying what “usable fuel” means here. The ongoing improvements suggest the manufacturers are responsive to the problem. I wonder what the position is in relation to older craft without the slosh tanks?

Finally don’t be hard on the dude, at least on this point. IMHO (amateur shrink) and to give him the benefit of the doubt, he was in some sort of shock elation (the joys of survival) and at that moment WAS Biggles. Ever been Biggles?

C42

14th Aug 2009, 17:06

Here you go, from the horses mouth as it were,

There was fuel in the plane, 10 litres equates to about 45mins in that plane

Take this in the spirit it was written, Vince IS a character!! :ok:

Yes guys it IS "your" vince.

In answer to questions:

"RUNWAYTREE" was selected after MAYDAY - engine cut out unexpectedly with between 5 and 10 litres in the port tank. The AAIB will concentrate on this.

Under instruction from Dundee Tower I was where I was, doing what I was doing.

"Mayday Mayday Mayday November Hotel engine out" - River Tay too far across with hard looking dunes (with grass) and a road in the way.

Too low to consider engine restart - might have worked as 5+ litres fuel back in sightglass but if not????.

0 deg flap for best glide angle "November Hotel Heading for Crop field due North of Tay Bridge"

Did 180deg turn toward a handy crop field (noted as part of ******* safety training), but that was up a slight hill and the other side of a small group of houses. "November Hotel Negative crop field."

Discarded playing fields off to the East nice and flat but full of kids and goalposts (Oliver would have landed past the lot, he does sheep!, but I didn't fancy a scottish kid on my conscience)

All that was left was a golf course. "November Hotel - Will try golf course to Left" Looked at fairways but riddled with bunkers, trees, shrubs and dozens of golfers (later found it was their annual competition day!)

"Negative fairway."

That left terminal tree!

Recalling Biggles crashing his SE5a deadstick into a forest I threw a viscious side slip Right (to add a downwards component to velocity) and at the last moment yanked back the stick to "stall" into the tree. Biggles calls it a "pancake" and that is a good description. Going mad might suit better!

Went into tree bottom first, wings fuselage etc took the strain - the CT behaved impeccably in the air and in breaking my arrival cushioned the impact.

result - bruised ribcage - getting better with hot baths, sprained ankle - (as that and my shoulder was all that kept me from falling out through the RH door) and a few light scratches on face - makes me look rugged I'm told.

A Senior RAF instructor has told me since that this was in the manual for flying over Burma - which is 99% forest, and that Biggles had described it perfectly!

I am up and about and fine - playing Bridge tonight.

There will be a full description of the manoeuvre with pictures in the Chronicle next edition and there are a couple of film crews coming - might have to get my hair tinted!!!

If you want to try it yourself, please tell me so I can be 10000000 miles away!

I came to Damyn's to get my car this morning but apart from ******* who was at least pleased to see me and ******* who definitely wasn't there was no-one there.

I am lucky my parents gave me Biggles books when young!

Incidentally that was not a "crash" which is uncontrolled but an "Emergency Landing" I am told by the AAIB. And there were NO bounces!

All the best to you all,

May drop in tomorrow if time.

Vince

vanHorck

14th Aug 2009, 17:45

i don't know what to say..... He must be related to Sully OR the Flying Vet...

fisbangwollop

14th Aug 2009, 17:52

This thread has given me a certain amount of amusement....:):)as I know a fair ammount of the history of this flight but certainally would not post on this public forum the only real conclusion I will at this time come to is this guy is a total "muppet" and one that can only do those that take some thought and care into how they operate their flying machines a very bad name!! :eek::eek:

JAR FCL

14th Aug 2009, 18:02

What a deluded old fool. Rather than feeling humble after escaping with his life, he still chooses to try and justify his actions within the professional flying fraternity. I myself am a low hours PPL holder, but I promise you chaps, I will never do anything as stupid as this. And, should it happen, I wouldn’t try and explain it as a perfectly normal procedure. It would make me look even more of a tit.

Words fail me. :rolleyes:

chrisrobsoar

14th Aug 2009, 18:05

Vince,

I am a professional gliding instructor at the Scottish Gliding Centre (based at Portmoak, near Kinross) and this week had the pleasure of flying with Derek and Mo Jones, well known in the helicopter world, having a holiday gliding. As is my usual practice I have an earpiece and listen out on the Scottish frequency, the glider radio is set to the local gliding site frequency and I have a hand-set as back-up, usually monitoring the standard glider cross-country frequency.

During your “Triumphal” progress across the Scottish TMA, I heard the whole transgression, but did not make the connection with your arrival near Dundee.

This is not Biggles, but Flashman, bravado is no substitute for skill or experience.
So far the CAA has not promoted capital punishment for digressions; in this case I wonder how few would say nay?

If you want to fly agian, what we need to addess is what is go on in your head.

Their are lots of instuctors who can help, just because you have the money and the "CHAT" dosn't mean you cam fly.

My advice, get a good instrcutor, put your lip (ego) in a vice for a while, go gliding (no engine) open your ears; do it soon, because, very soon you will no longer be a problem to the rest of us; because you will be dead.

The tree stuff, "Biggles" may have fooled the press, but not us, just go way.

Chris

p.p.s. Or very soon you shall be dead, no BS, just dead.

Kiltie

14th Aug 2009, 18:11

Regardless of his questionable ideas and practices, fair play to VH for not rising to the name calling, judgement and spiteful remarks you lot have happily posted on here.

biscuit74

14th Aug 2009, 18:17

pilotmike. Most eloquent.

Mr H, please read and learn for your own skin's sake if not for our remaining, somewhat tattered,reputations as pilots thanks to you and others like you. Our exasperation is because this nonsense was quite unnecessary, and was easily avoided with the smallest smidgeon of that sadly rare commodity, common sense. We all get it wrong sometimes, but most of us manage a bit of sensible humility and LEARN from others, and from our mistakes. Come on man, you are old enough to know better.

What the devil do you mean 'weird' clouds? If you don't understand met, buy a book. If those were,for example, wave clouds, go talk to some glider pilots. They will soon put you right. Wave can ruin your day if you don't understand it, even in quite big aeroplanes.

C18 and hhobbit - that seems a very probable scenario. Not the first or only type to have that issue, as anyong who listens and reads about aeroplanes would be aware. I bet that occurred to several readers here. Dissapointing, but not at all surprising that it was news to this gentleman.

Vince, if you mentor, you should also know how to listen and learn. Yes?

vee-tail-1

14th Aug 2009, 18:27

This arrogant idiot must never fly again.

CRX

14th Aug 2009, 18:31

But the public are happy/relieved anyway.
From the letters column of the Evening Telegraph:

WHAT AN amazingly lucky escape for the pilot of the light aircraft, which crashlanded at Caird Park golf course in Dundee.
It is truly miraculous no one was hurt. He landed so close to one of Dundee’s main arterial routes. If he had hit the road it could have been a disaster.

Equally, Caird Park golf course is a very popular municipal facility, which is usually a hive of activity.

If he had landed a few metres in the other direction, there could have been serious consequences.

The pilot says his landing was part down to good instruction and partly to reading Biggles.

Whatever the reason, he did very well to minimise the impact of what could have been a very serious incident. — Relieved.

Captain Smithy

14th Aug 2009, 19:04

Well things have come full circle it seems. Now we have idiot journos all over the country writing articles about a non-story - stories about a bunch of pilots on an internet forum criticising another pilot after an accident. :rolleyes:

Front page stuff of course... like some Radge Right Americans slagging off the NHS, some Essex slapper splitting up with her plastic-chested husband, who's been evicted from Big Brother this week, all important stuff in the world of course. :rolleyes:

The problem is, PPRuNE seems to be feeding it all. With all the "idiot/should never fly again"-esque posts here, this is giving more and more ammunition to the idiot journos who write these sorts of articles.

Personally, the choice to land in a tree seemed odd, and the capers around Edinburgh seem bizarre to say the least. But I'm not in posession of all the facts. I wasn't in the aircraft, I don't know what happened, I saw nothing. All I can draw from is some, to say the least, sketchy news reports, a bizarre interview with the pilot and the opinions of some anonymous contributors on an internet forum, who claim to be pilots but for all I know might not be pilots at all. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog and all that.

It's natural to gossip when something like this happens. But we don't now all the facts yet. That's what the AAIB are for. So for the meantime let's all calm down and try not to say anything silly. Especially a good idea now that idiot journos are writing whole articles based on comments posted here.

Smithy

chrisrobsoar

14th Aug 2009, 19:10

I think the point is that just because the lucky bastard got away with it this time, why should we have put up with the spin-off crap, when he crashes next time.

Munnyspinner

14th Aug 2009, 19:23

“But there were weird clouds, patches at different heights, and I got permission to fly at 9000 ft while I was going through Edinburgh airspace. The higher the altitude, the more fuel you burn.”

Not where I live! Less air=less fuel.

The more I read about the illustrious Vince the less faith I have in his implausible story. The only facts that are true are that he arrived in a tree on a golf course - the rest, as the say, is only speculation.

Captain Smithy

14th Aug 2009, 19:32

Must say Munnyspinner, despite the circumstances I enjoyed your "Biggles Flies Undone" story earlier on in the thread. Must say I found it very amusing indeed. :ok:

I do sincerely hope however I never have the misfortune of making a mistake, having a prang and having the PPRuNE populace calling me all the bastards under the sun and telling me I should never fly again because I'm a complete idiot.

And I hope the same never happens to any fellow PPRuNErs. Fly safe all.

mikehammer

14th Aug 2009, 21:03

Personally, the choice to land in a tree seemed odd, and the capers around Edinburgh seem bizarre to say the least. But I'm not in posession of all the facts. I wasn't in the aircraft, I don't know what happened, I saw nothing.

That's it, and that is all. Leave the rest of the speculation, and that's all it is, to the journalists. After all they're better at it than we are.

hhobbit

14th Aug 2009, 21:08

Hey Vinsce

those that fly CT know they are only capable of a modest but adequate sideslip. Did you increase the rudder throw?

“But there were weird clouds, patches at different heights, and I got permission to fly at 9000 ft while I was going through Edinburgh airspace. The higher the altitude, the more fuel you burn.”

Lenticular clouds could be described a weird I suppose. You meant to say you burn more fuel to attain not maintain altitude didn’t you? I’m actually against a lot of uninformed slagging I have read here. Be assured none of those gentlemen would ever be deemed worthy enough to find out the cold truth in the way the AAIB will.

You did know of ctflyer forum and the tremendous know how available there, particularly the thread I’ve mentioned earlier? Someone under the name xrayspecs had a near identical experience. It’s possible to turn the car-like ignition key while flying left hand on the stick, something I don’t really like but have to put up with.

Oh and BTW must re-read my old Biggles books again J before I get my next top-up lesson from Vincent Vaughan. Did any of the people on the last chance fairway thank you for not landing on their noggins?

If you are reading this, I'm glad your'e alive and extra glad I have a CT if I screw up! (However thinking of trading it for a motor glider.)

Munnyspinner

14th Aug 2009, 21:41

Hhobbit,

It was a cheap shot for which I apologise. I am sure thet Mr H did mean that the it takes more fuel to climb than cruise.

For what its worth , although this thread will rumble on , I think that what needs to be said has probably already been said and that there is little merit in speculating any further as to the cause. Nor do I agree that the flying community are suggesting that Vince be prevented from Flying. No.

There is always something to be learned from an incident like this and for all these low hour students and others who smirk and say “ I’ll never let that happen to me “ then take this opportunity to work out why it could happen to anyone. I don’t know Vince but I am very happy that he is OK and that nobody was hurt. Whatever the cause, it turned out OK for which we should all be grateful.

Yes, I think any pilot who experiences an incident like this needs to reflect and be prepared to accept full responsibility – I’m sure this pilot will. But, don’t give up. Use the opportunity to learn.

When I was doing differences training on my first retractable my instructor let me make an approach without me lowerering the U/C. Three Greens? he questioned as I was doing my fixed gear CRAP check. Oops, a go around was initiated. He later told me that there were two types of Pilot - those that had made a wheels up approach and those that hadn’t - yet! Or words to that effect. Some pilots I know have had all sorts of grief with engine failures and forced landings - non of which have been as a result of their airmanship and I regards them as even better aviators as a result.

Oldpilot55

14th Aug 2009, 21:45

We will all benefit from his incompetence..higher insurance premiums all round.

Hyperborean

14th Aug 2009, 21:56

Didn't read, or perhaps remember, your W E Johns too well Vince. When I read the books Biggles flew Camels, indeed he was somewhat disparaging of SE5s; called them glasshouses as I recall ( a reference to the enclosed canopies on some of the later airframes).

grumpyoldgeek

14th Aug 2009, 23:10

I'm also a CTSW owner. After seeing that the pilot was ok, my first reaction was "what a waste of a nice aircraft". I really don't understand the 70 knots reference. Anyone properly checked out on a CT should be able to fly a 50 knot zero flaps glide with no effort at all. A full-stall landing with 40 degrees of flaps will get you down to less than 35 knots and stop you in a correspondingly short distance.

The usable fuel is an issue. My POH says that the last 6 liters are unusable which seems to contradict his experience. OTOH, I find the aircraft far more enjoyable to fly with at least half the tank full and wouldn't think of flying with less than 5 gallons remaining.

In any case, the accident continues to demonstrate the crew survivability of the carbon fiber airframe.

b.a. Baracus

14th Aug 2009, 23:39

I don't like the way journos from trashy tabloids are using pprune... but this made me laugh :O

travelled south on the train wearing his hospital pyjamas and a high-visibility vest.

C42

15th Aug 2009, 00:18

just to show that its not just pilots can make mistakes, see the video below

FAA Suspends 2 Workers in Hudson Plane Helicopter Crash (http://news.aol.com/article/faa-suspends-2-workers-in-hudson-plane/618357?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2F article%2Ffaa-suspends-2-workers-in-hudson-plane%2F618357)

avgh

15th Aug 2009, 05:38

I am Vince Hagedorn the pilot. If I have learned one thing it is how difficult it is to get into a site like this and respond.

I am grateful for (most) of your messages, but some seem to be based on newspaper reports rather than fact.

I did not run out of fuel. Nor wasthere any danger I would (see bit about flight plan below) The engine stopped with about 5-7 litres showing in the port visible fuel gauge. I was under the direction of Dundee Tower and had been instructed to go where I was going (to a "long Final" along the beach. I do not want to enter into any discussion about this as I might have been given a wrong direction, or misunderstood the direction I was given and it will be for the AAIB to work that out.

When the engine stopped I immediately called my Mayday. River estuary was beyond reach across sand dunes and a road. Did 180 deg turn towards a crop field (noted on way past) for a soft landing, but not enough height for me to reach it and an undershoot meant a small housing estate to hit. Called negative cropfield, assessed a playing field to the East but children and goal posts ruled that out. Had a golf course to my left (west) so called attempting golf course but when I got closer the fairways were crammed with people and full of bunkers anyway. It was competition day I learned later. That left the tree as that way no-one would get hurt.

For the pilots amongst you I pulled a hard right sideslip, then just before impact pulled the stick back hard and the CT went into the tree belly first, which is why I walked away.

After impact the momentum of the engine pulled the aircraft flatter, which was nice as otherwise I would have been balancing on my right ear!

A veteran aviator tells me that the pancake manoeuvre was part of the ops manual for Burma operations - over almost exclusively trees. My Bridge partner told me last night (he was a Mosquito navigator in WW2) that pancake landings were quite common at that time, but were harder to walk away from at 400mph!

As for flight planning, I did this with Captain ************ (pilot and instructor), Head of Flight Ops at Barrow in Furness from where I departed and with the Airport Manager. We all discussed the fuel issue and, although in perfect conditions I had a 50% margin on the direct flight to Kinloss, we discussed Dundee as a fuel diversion. I was told that they were welcoming to pilots of small aircraft and have no reason to think otherwise.

On leaving Barrow the tower told me to contact Scottish Radar which -when in range - I did. There was layer on layer of broken cloud over the hills so I climbed to 7,000 feet and called for a transit at that height through Edinburgh airspace. The cloud heads got higher (though I still had good ground visibility so I asked for 9,000 and then 10,000 - all granted though at 10,000 the controller called me at fl10. Yes I enjoyed that - I've never had a "flight level" before!!

On the descent North of Edinburgh, I checked everything (D####### - height is safety) and found 10 litres of fuel (50 mins at 12 litres an hour which is the long term average for November Hotel). I ran out of MARGIN for Kinloss, NOT FUEL. The Press did not explain this in their reports.

If I had endangered myself and others by running out of fuel I would be far more angry with myself than any of you could possibly be with me!

It is absolutely true about Biggles being the inspiration for the manouvre. Deepak, my former instructor was also a key part of the landing. And this is where pilots understand but others not. From the moment I called the MayDay I was following training. It was not a good option to try a re-start - I still do not know why the engine stopped in the first place - because the terrain was not very friendly but all else was as taught.

There was nothing heroic and no time to think of any consequences. Far from revelling in the attention i have a cremation on monday and a seriously troubled daughter to visit in Findhorn (next to Kinloss).

I should be very happy to enter into any discussion about all this and am keen to complete my report to the AAIB when the inspector returns on Monday. Thanks for reading this. Vince

avgh

15th Aug 2009, 05:45

I am happy to accept all criticism - based on fact. I have just posted a resume of what happened. Vince

thank you for your advice. Most kind! Vince

Thank you. that really IS kind and thoughtful. I wonder how many happy typers would like themselves to be exposed like this on the basis of news reports? Since beingtold by a reporter of the existence of this site it took until this morning to get to access it. Vince

flight time to dundee was about 2 hours - all recorded on instruments still in November Hotel. Other comments do not seem to fit what happened. Vince

I tried to get a bath in Ninewells to relieve the rib ache (caused by the landing, not the humour on this thread cos I hadn't found it!). they told me baths were not an option because of Health and Safety! Vince

I spent an hour on the branch and saw no squirrels. Apparently they were as shocked by my landing as some of you! Would they have been red squirrels there or have the greys invaded scotland as far as dundee? Vince

Munnyspinner. Please read the synopsis of the flight. You have made some thoughtful points, but based on some misinformation. My direct route as plotted on the chart agreed eaxctly with the Satnav. I had permission to cross Edinburgh CTA under the watchful eye of Scottish Radar. I did not run out of fuel, I ran out of margin for Kinloss (because of the cloud dodging and altitude I guess). I went for Dundee as agreed with the much more experience pilots who checked my flight plan. I had plenty of fuel visible in the port sight glass just before my turn, and when gliding. Will have to await the enquiry for explanation of engine cut. For the other guy's interest there is no mixture control on this type of engine.

The satnav will reveal all and I have no fear of that!

Vince

Sorry - never saw the Nunnery so cannot claim credit for that one! Vince

avgh

15th Aug 2009, 06:57

Thi is my first mesage board - what happens is:

Pilot gives Press Interview
Press prints stuff - mostly accurate, but with errors (such as running out of fuel - their interpretation for stopping at Dundee for fuel when I ran out of MARGIN for Kinloss but had 50 minutes fuel)
Message board writers pick up the story and add their own speculation - they do not even interview the pilot!
THEN - and this is the bad bit - the Press begin to quote "A professional Pilots Message Board" and start to magnify the story beyond all recognition.Now I don't know about you but I am not a Professional pilot and and was asked no questions about whether I was even a Pilot when joining the site.

Is it right that the views of people who are not in posession of the facts and do not always hold any qualifications themselves (I know that some of you do of course) should be treated by the Press as those of Professional aviators?

I find it all rather saddening really, whilst welcoming the comments of those who have taken the trouble to study facts. Vince

avgh

15th Aug 2009, 07:13

Captain Smithy. My point exactly - thank you for standing out from the crowd. Until I was able to find out how to access the site this morning I was being hung out to dry by a - no doubt well meaning- bunch of guys who were now feeding the Press with even more misinformation than they started with. This is not good for aviation. Neither is landing in a tree, but lets leave the Inspector to work out the blame.

I broke an Aeroplane, no-one on the ground died, I pancaked following Capt W E Johns' instructions. Wasn't part of my pilots course at all. Did any of you pilots learn how to do a "pancake" landing in a tree?

A bit you did not know is that I have been flying various forms of model aircraft, including Radio Control, for many years so I guess I have some extra knowledge of the principles of flight you will not have known about.

And best of all I am OK too!

Before making any further comments, a constructive dialogue might start from my synopsis of the flight. All that will check out in due course.

Otherwise aviation suffers, not just me. Vince

fisbangwollop

15th Aug 2009, 07:25

Hello Vince.......welcome to the rumour network of pprune..:ok: despite all the slating you have taken I guess each and every one of us are glad to see you fit and well after your experiance.....the main thing is that lessons will be learnt by not only you but by others as is always the case when these little incidents happen.....:cool::cool:

avgh

15th Aug 2009, 07:45

Hi - just read your comments. I am preparing to get another CT from Oliver, Beautiful a/c.

As for the sideslip i suppose it would have looked a bit odd from the ground but it was a question of attitude mostly - a big, quick yank on the stick to the right with a big kick on the rudderbar to the left surprised it a bit and the backward pull on the stick just threw the plane at the tree bottom first.

It worked is all I can say. My Mosquito friend said last night that few survived pancakes in the trees over Europe because of the greater speed, and with jets it is all but forgotten.

Look forward to a new CT - cnnot wait to get airborne again. Took 6 hours to get from Dundee to Kings Cross by train! Yuk!! Vince

VP959

15th Aug 2009, 07:51

Vince,

Thank you for coming on here, but you really do need to look very hard at the real causes of this accident (it is clear already that there is more than one causal factor, as is usually the case with aviation accidents).

You say you didn't run out of fuel, but also say that you were down to, or below, the minimum usable fuel level (6 litres is min usable for the CT, I believe). The immediate conclusion is that you did, indeed run out of fuel, as "running out" in an aircraft is letting the level drop below minimum usable. Flying down to within a litre or two of min usable is pretty poor airmanship, in my view. The engine had to stop for a reason, and my money is on the AAIB finding that it stopped because there was no fuel reaching it, which means you ran out of fuel.

You also say that you flew as directed by an ATC unit, implying that their directions may have contributed to your predicament, rather then your own judgement. I'm unfamiliar with the area, but were you in controlled airspace at the time of the accident? If you weren't, then an ATC unit cannot give you directions, they can only advise. In the open FIR (class G) you are responsible for your own navigation and actions, not an ATC unit.

It was reported earlier that you landed at a field for fuel, but couldn't get any, so you took off again. If this is true, then the implication is that you initiated a flight (from that field) with doubts as to whether you had enough fuel. If this is the case, then it is not just poor airmanship, it's bordering on negligence.

Lastly, you were flying a microlight aeroplane. Just like everyone else who has learned to fly a microlight I am absolutely certain that it was drummed into you by your instructor to EXPECT an engine failure. Engine failures and forced landings are (or at least were) an inherent part of microlighting, so the syllabus places a fairly hefty emphasis on flying defensively (i.e ALWAYS thinking about where you're going to land WHEN the engine stops) and avoiding flying over terrain where an engine failure might leave you in the position you got yourself into. You were tested on engine failures as part of your GST. You had to demonstrate to the Examiner that you could cope with an engine failure at ANY point in a flight and get the aircraft safely back on the ground (crashing into a tree is not "getting the aircraft safely back on the ground", no matter how incredibly lucky you were to have go away with it this time).

I am very glad that you escaped relatively unscathed, but there is no doubt in my mind that your actions contributed to the majority of the causal factors in this accident, as I am sure will be revealed when the accident report is published. The biggest single problem you have seems to be an inability to accept that you may have made a chain of serious errors of judgement.

Was it wise to plan to fly over the top of high cloud in a VFR only microlight?

What were you going to do from that height if the cloud closed up beneath you and you lost sight of the ground?

Was it wise to cause such disruption in controlled airspace?

Was it wise to take off from a field knowing that you may not have enough fuel to complete your flight?

Was it wise to ignore the minimum usable fuel limit and carry on flying with just a litre or two above it?

Was it wise to fly over terrain where safe landing options were non-existent in the event of engine failure?

Was it wise to believe that emulating the actions of a fictional pilot in a novel was a better course of action than your training?

Unfortunately, your actions and your subsequent comments in the press have just made all microlight pilots look like a bunch of maverick incompetents, which is far from the truth - most are very careful and professional pilots. Microlighters have worked hard over many years to overcome the prejudices that some aviators have regarding them. Your actions have set that hard work back and will have created a great deal of extra work for many people.

You had an entirely avoidable accident that was most probably wholly caused by your own poor judgement. Please accept that, learn from it and become a better pilot because of it. As another instructor has commented earlier in this thread, if you don't learn these lessons and change your approach to flying you will have another accident, I'm sure, and you may not have luck on your side next time.

VP

JAR FCL

15th Aug 2009, 07:54

Well, I suppose we might have been a little unfair. One can’t help but wish that "pancake" landings had been on my JAR FCL syllabus. I must speak to Malcolm about that. :confused:

avgh

15th Aug 2009, 08:07

thank you fisbangwallop. your name is a bit too close to my recent landing style! VERY keen to learn from constructive comment, and to help others learn from any errors too. Lesson one. Say nothing to the Press - any mistakes they print will be magnified 1000 fold and thrown in your face by PPRuNe ! Vince

fisbangwollop

15th Aug 2009, 08:11

Vince....I think you owe a big vote of thanks to the Lady controller who kept all those big birds away from you as you trundlled through the Scottish TMA at FL100....:ok::ok:

avgh

15th Aug 2009, 08:19

Flight design say safe to 1/2 litre (email yesterday)
No stop at a field for fuel. FictionI am afraid
Was in good Vis at 10,000 feet, and well clear of the mulitiple layers of cloud. If I had needed to descen I would have done so to the East of Edinburgh controlled airspace where weather was a bit clearer. Someone suggested that my route should have been there anyway, but the plot went straight through the Forth Bridge -try it yourself.
Stuff about Stottish Radar seems to be from one person listening in. Maybe a pilot? Let the Inspector decide. My track was straight as a die (see satnav later).

As for the rest I should like to discuss with you but find it frustrating to try to remember your comments and reply to them - is there no way of showing the comment and the reply sheet together? Vince

re Controller - of course, but I asked permission before entering the area and was granted. Flew in a dead straight line (see satnav later). My apoloies if that was wrong. Leave the enquiry to decide.

fisbangwollop

15th Aug 2009, 08:26

Vince...no thats dead right and not wrong at all...it is calss D airspace and providing you have a clearance to enter which you did you can indeed operate VFR......the fact was it was a rather busy piece of airsapce and one not too used to seeing an ultralite flying at 70kts!! at FL100 :cool::cool:

avgh

15th Aug 2009, 08:26

VP - all accidents are avoidable- but then would we ever fly?. Hope you never have one. Vince

Point taken fisbangwalop, She did have to ask twice for the aircraft type.....

JAR FCL

15th Aug 2009, 08:28

I found this on the Press & Journal website. Its' a response posted by a reader to the amazing story
Plane recovered after crash into tree, Biggles-inspired pilot ‘will be back in cockpit soon’

Reply by reader. A classic.
Readers' Comments

Mr Hagedorn’s wife Carole yesterday said the experience had not put her husband off flying. She said: “He’ll be back in the cockpit as soon as he possibly can. He’s one of life’s great adventurers. I hope he stays out of Scotland this time for our safety.
Keith Stirton
Report this comment (http://www.pprune.org/ReportComment.aspx?comment=25139)

vee-tail-1

15th Aug 2009, 08:32

<< Look forward to a new CT - cnnot wait to get airborne again. >>

CAA, ATC units, Aircraft insurers, police, hospital A & E depts, and the general public, be warned. This overbearing, pompous, arrogant and incompetent idiot intends to buy another CT and 'fly' again.

Next time this fool crashes some innocent might become a victim.

We recommend that mentors receive training to become more skilful at listening, This from his own website! :ugh:

pilotmike

15th Aug 2009, 09:15

...having a distinct preference for talking rather than listening...
That's box 2 ticked over 17 times
, and being apparently incapable of accepting any responsibility for their mistakes... [they] never, to my recollection, ever felt they had made a mistake. It was always “because of this, that or the other factor” beyond their control.
And now box 3 gets ticked every time his lips move...

Mr H - a simple suggestion... You have 2 ears and 1 mouth, use them in that proportion.

Or put more succinctly, JUST SHUT THE F**K UP!

But wait, here are yet more tales of woe and misery, Mr H moaning about his most recent difficulties...If I have learned one thing it is how difficult it is to get into a site like this and respond

Be very clear, flying an aircraft and navigating successfully to a specific destination without running out of fuel and crashing is a whole lot more difficult than getting onto a website. Seriously, if you're coming on here moaning about how hard it is to log on to PPRuNe then there is virtually zero chance of you being able to fly safely. Your woeful recent exploits go a long way to prove this.

Sadly, with your bumptious, arrogant and 'knowing better than you' attitude, combined with your distinct inability to listen and learn, and your propensity to blame everybody and everything but yourself for getting into dreadful situations of your own making, you will forever be an accident waiting to happen in whatever situation you are in, aviation or otherwise.

vanHorck

15th Aug 2009, 09:18

AVGH, why 70 knots in the glide? Why not 40 with full flaps?

On speaking to the press: Why do that in the first place? At the very least it comes across as wanting the limelight.

I'm glad you survived and didn't hurt anyone on the ground, sounds to me you should have diverted much sooner to a different airfield considering your own statement about remaining fuel. At the very least that is an error on your side and a grave one, it's called get-home-itis and is the most common reason for people getting killed in planes. Read the mags and you'll know.

Pace

15th Aug 2009, 09:43

Vince

I must admire your guts or ??? in coming into this site with so much flack flying around. I think I would have slunk off and hidden.

Personally I like colourful people we need a bit of colour now and again and your incident certainly brightened up this forum :)

When and if you get the new aircraft please do get a good instructor to access your flying you have a daughter who loves you.

I would actually be happy to come on a flight with you that aircraft appears so interesting? I am sure others here would too (not all at the same time otherwise we would pancake into another tree :) )

Anyway take care do learn from this and do get checked out

Pace

hhobbit

15th Aug 2009, 10:20

Hi Vince
If you were able to see either sight gauge with fuel in it, you did not fly sufficiently un-coordinated (if at all) to starve your engine. FD's half litre is alas a tad unrealistic. When I am 101% sure of my dead stick landing abilities with zero damage (presently 70%) maybe then I will know by doing it for real.

Some forumz have a quote icon, not this forum, so cut, paste and indent if you must.
On the basis you have had a genuine engine failure, I predict you will be not only exonerated by AAIB but commended for creative lateral piloting skills;)

What models do you fly? I do 3d heli sh1t, sort of good average. Models are a bonus when learning to fly, and if you crash you will not die.

worrab

15th Aug 2009, 10:41

Some forumz have a quote icon, not this forum:confused:

mad_jock

15th Aug 2009, 10:45

Vince first of all I presume dealing with the authorities was quite low stress compared to dealing with your daughter.

The pilot that heard your transit is definately a pilot (a short stocky one) in fact he used to be my company type rating examiner. He is not a big plane only person and in fact a CRE on SEP's. In fact his own aircraft from what I can see of it, the main gear has alot of rubber bands keeping it together.

And for the other's after doing a ferry the day after the comments about crap RT could be leveled at 80% of the traffic speaking to scottish info. So much so my gash RT was getting used as an example of how to do it by an instructor at tayside.

Anyway Vince if you want to get back into the saddle, pm me. I might have to ferry a C172 down to Dundee and back from INV on Tuesday or Wednesday or if you just want a fun hour of dual to get your confidence back I can arrange that as well (I don't think I will be able to last a hour without taking the piss though :p ) we can leave any instructor debriefs until you get back home.

And don't try and answer and justify yourself to everyone. Its done now and you just need to move forward learn from the experence. Most high houred pilots have done daft things, the only difference between you and us is that we managed to get away with a sweaty arse and a few more grey hairs instead of stuck up a tree.

MJ

hhobbit

15th Aug 2009, 10:51

Quote:
Some forumz have a quote icon, not this forum
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif found it!:D I think I meant some forum software automatically embeds the quote.

fisbangwollop

15th Aug 2009, 11:13

Mad Jock...Quote "And for the other's after doing a ferry the day after the comments about crap RT could be leveled at 80% of the traffic speaking to scottish info. So much so my gash RT was getting used as an example of how to do it by an instructor at tayside." Unquote

To be fair "mad jock" the standard of R/T that talks to me every day on Scottish Info is pretty good...I have no complaints, and for those that are not so hot well I just guess they are nervous of speaking to ATC.....so for those that are nervous dont be affraid...I am here to help and to be honest my own R/T may at times be a little slack..:cool::cool::cool:

And p.s. thanks for the photo's :ok::ok:

mad_jock

15th Aug 2009, 11:49

honest my own R/T may at times be a little slack

You and me both mate. It doesn't help that CAP 413 has such longwinded pish for a booking in call. Half way through it most seem to loose the will to live or forget what they have said already.

I think mine was "G-xxxx C172 departed Dundee to Inverness, 2000ft at Rattray, routing A9, estimating INV at min 35, request Basic service" a henious crime to some.

Must be turning into a grumpy old git, it just seems nobody is teaching the words "rodger", "wilco" and "affirm" or for the exclusive use in the scottish FIR "aye" and "nae bother".

Most just read everything back.

Chris.G

15th Aug 2009, 12:09

found it!:D I think I meant some forum software automatically embeds the quote.

This forum will, too... I thought Pilots were supposed to be technically minded... ;)

Pace

15th Aug 2009, 12:11

And don't try and answer and justify yourself to everyone. Its done now and you just need to move forward learn from the experence. Most high houred pilots have done daft things, the only difference between you and us is that we managed to get away with a sweaty arse and a few more grey hairs instead of stuck up a tree.

Mad Jock:ok:

I remember a recent twin star takeoff crash out of Lands End never got the flack that this thread did and that was with a so called experienced pilot.

Pace

fisbangwollop

15th Aug 2009, 12:34

Mad Jock....that all sounds pretty slick to me....we get the odd one that tells us their life story but then again thats what were here for....:ok::ok::ok:

mad_jock

15th Aug 2009, 12:49

Well bugger me have just had a look at the latest CAP 413.

That was nice of them to change it to the way I have been doing it for years. It seems I have been a bit behind reading CAP 413 missed 5 revisions.

So score my last comment about intial calls being long winded pish, top marks CAA.

Who you are
What your doing
Where your at
What you want

Its a bit like being told that ray ban aviators are now in fashion.

VP959

15th Aug 2009, 12:52

Vince,

Sorry if I got some of the details incorrect, but it doesn't change my view one jot that this accident was absolutely 100% of your own making. You made a series of poor decisions, and the inevitable occurred. A great deal of luck saved you from serious injury or death.

Many of us will have had mishaps or accidents in our flying careers. I've been in a helo that ditched (through mechanical failure whilst doing maritime ops), had the misfortune to endure a couple of forced landings (with no damage apart from to one's pride) and one accident where we had no choice but to turn back from an EFATO, with the inevitable stall/spin into the ground. The latter was with a pilot with 18,000 hours sat next to me - we both made exactly the same error when assessing the fuel state.

The difference is that I cannot ever recall trying to justify any of my actions afterwards. Each time I've just felt incredibly lucky and stored away the experience as a learning one, not just for me but to others to whom I've related the tale of woe leading up to it.

From what has been posted here, I rather hope that the transcripts from the ATC tapes are made public, as it sounds as if your conversations with them, and their efforts to accommodate your rather unusual microlight flight plan, may prove entertaining.

Finally, any talk of ANY aircraft being able to safely operate down to 1/2 litre of fuel is plain ludicrous. I know the people at P&M Aviation well, and have a lot of respect for them and don't believe for one minute that they gave any assurance that it was safe to fly down to 1/2 litre remaining.

The CT has a long history of a fuel imbalance problems between the wing tanks, in fact I remember raising that it was not a particularly well thought through fuel system at least two years ago. An SB came out as I recall to partially fix the problem, but that same SB also contained some warnings about cross-feeding from the tanks, the need for the pilot to use wing tank indicated fuel levels as the primary source of fuel state information (the Brauniger in the panel is NOT a true fuel gauge, as you probably know already) and the need for the pilot to side-slip to correct any significant imbalance between tanks. As a CTSW owner you should have been aware of the aircraft's operating quirks, they have been known for long enough, even by those of us who don't fly the type.

VP

hhobbit

15th Aug 2009, 14:08

VP959 did you notice post #138, The engine stopped with about 5-7 litres showing in the port visible fuel gauge.I as a CT owner would be very worried if I ran out of fuel in this config. Fact is we flew over the sea with one tank emptying a lot faster, but the fuel fed fine from the other fuel tank. Lesson learned was to straighten up and fly right. AFAIK all flat tanked (in the wing) planes will have this characteristic, especially if the dihedral angle is shallow, esp high wing vis a vis low wing. Try half filling a tray with water and observe as you walk.

There is a big discrepancy between half a litre from FD and 124/130 usable per USA LSA category POH. I would be getting very worried below say 15litres.

VP959

15th Aug 2009, 14:45

I did spot that, yes, it was what prompted me to refer to the 6 litres min usable in my first reply on this topic, which in turn prompted Vince to say that he'd had it confirmed that the aircraft was safe down to 1/2 litre remaining.

I wholly agree about the difficulties with flat wing tanks, especially high capacity ones that are of necessity quite long. My preferred solution is a big (maybe 10 to 12 litre) conically shaped collector tank in the fuselage fed from each wing tank, with it's own fuel gauge. Those who know me will know of a type that has just such a system. I actually suggested it as a fix for this problem on another microlight with wing tanks, the Foxbat, which has the same problem. When in doubt about the fuel state in the wings, one only has to glance back at the collector tank level to see if one has enough fuel for another half hour or so. As long as the collector tank level is full, you can be assured that the wing tanks still have some fuel.

One major difficulty with implementing a mod like this to a microlight is the already tight empty weight limit. Many of these hot ship microlights are so close to their maximum allowed empty weight as to preclude any sort of mod like this.

The Brauniger fuel flow indicator is a source of confusion for those who don't read the manual properly. I've met several people who have misunderstood the way in which it gives a rough indication of fuel remaining. From the comment Vince made of his Brauniger telling him the tanks were half full, I suspect he may not have understood how this system works, either. If his tanks had of been half full at that time, then he'd have had around 3 1/2 to 4 hours worth of fuel left. In fact, the manual for the Brauniger has a big warning in it about pilot's needing to have an alternative, accurate means of measuring fuel quantity and not to rely on the fuel state gauge to determine quantity remaining.

VP

RatherBeFlying

15th Aug 2009, 14:54

Vince,

Your account is an instructive illustration of the discrepancies between what really happened and what people imagined to happen.

It seems there is a discrepancy between the margin you thought you had and the margin you really had. That is a common story and I can contribute at least one recent example of my own.

The engine stopped, likely because of fuel feed, imbalance or unusable quantity problems. It sounds like you were down to half an hour's fuel which to me is time to land ASAP. That last half hour's worth of usable fuel is test pilot territory in my book. I'd want to be high up over a long runway with lots of recent power off landing experience in type before exploring fuel feed at low tank levels. Usually the test pilot has an auxiliary tank that he can switch to when the engine can't get any more from the tank under test:E

Manufacturers tend to maximise their performance numbers and minimise unusable fuel quantities. In so doing, their test pilots fly very precisely to get the best numbers. You will not get those numbers yourself unless you fly exactly as well as the test pilots.

It looks like the altitude Dundee ATC assigned you had you too low for options or restarting if the engine stopped. That is life, but if I were concerned about fuel or the engine, I would want to be as high as possible and let ATC know that.

AJWTCX

15th Aug 2009, 15:20

Vince,

Just a couple of thoughts, surely you must of come away from this knowing you have made at least one mistake...talking to the press.

I think most people here would say that talking to the press can be the worst thing you do, by the sounds of this you have seen why. Im sure at the time you enjoyed the limelight and it has certainly got you coverage but has that come at a price?

You also have never admitted at any point that you could of done something differently. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but most people normally say that if they could do it again they would do..... differently.

5 or 6 litres of fuel sloshing around. You say you had one tank empty which means you were flying out of balance (it happens) and i imagine didnt correct it quick enough but are still seem sure that it wasnt fuel starvation?

Im also surprised your insurers havnt asked you to pipe down slightly. I know following my accident in a CT earlier this year the insurers asked me to say as little as possible to people while it was under investigation.

You also seem to have spoke to the AAIB a lot already, yet I've not really heard much from them and was told it was going to be a while until i did as they were fairly busy at the moment.

Munnyspinner

15th Aug 2009, 15:58

Im also surprised your insurers havnt asked you to pipe down slightly. I know following my accident in a CT earlier this year the insurers asked me to say as little as possible

I'm not surprised. With you two as customers the manufacturers must be delighted.

AJWTCX

15th Aug 2009, 16:24

I presume then munnyspinner that you also know the full circumstances in regards to my accident?

yakker

15th Aug 2009, 17:11

Vince
I am struggling with this fuel issue. From reading this thread you intended to fly from Damyns Hall to Barrow and onto Kinloss. I have not done a flight plan but that seems to be around 450nm. The CT has a range of 800nm at 125 kts (correct me if I'm wrong). Barrow is about mid-way, so when you checked your fuel before departing you said you had 50% more than required. So with 45mins reserve you had 25 litres (usable fuel). Dundee is mid-way 100 nm or so, and you used 25 litres. At 125kt cruise and 12 l/hr you used more than twice the fuel expected.

Was the aircraft full when you started the trip, 130L? Why depart Barrow with 25L of a 130L tank? I dont understand running out of margin, what does this mean, the margin is 45 mins reserve ( 90 nm) is it not?

fisbangwollop

15th Aug 2009, 17:32

Any thoughts on mogas that has been up to 10000ft and then back down again.....condensation ..!!!! could that be a problem.......OK dont shoot me I am only an Air Traffiker but just a thought!!:ok::ok:

Munnyspinner

15th Aug 2009, 17:36

Yakker,

this was the point I was rasing earlier in the same thread. Somethings just don't add up. However, I guess that the insurers will now have sat on Vince as they did to AJWTCX - whose accident was no doubt not of his own making either - I do not know the circumstances!

I had a mate once who rented an aircraft to do a bit of general handling and bash the circuit. He queried the fuel state on booking out and was told " it's OK G---- has long range tanks ( I think it was a c152) so you will have plenty of fuel. " On his penultimate circuit he made a full stop landing as the weather was closing in and he thought that he'd had enough after an hour an 10 mins or so. Taxied to the pumps and was gobsmacked to hear the Avgas hit the metal on the bottom of the both wing tanks - another circuit and he would have been making a deadstick landing! Ordinarily he would, like me, have made visial check but because the flight log looked like the A/c needed fuel, he hadn't and relied on unverified advice from the dispatcher. He now has a calibrated dipstick!

I am not familiar with the CT but note that dipping the tanks may be an unreliable way to verifiy contents due to there shallow but long construction. If this is a problem with type then all the more reason to watch the clock and work to a very generous margin.

Finally, just for the avoidance of doubt for anyone south of the border. Within 20 minutes flying time of the redoubtable Vince's Crash site were , in addition to Dundee airport (about 3 minutes away), Perth ( tarmac & grass with lots of fuel and good advice), Fife ( tayside aviation - great), RAF Leuchars (boys in blue will always accept an emergency) not to mention those overflown on your way to Dundee - Portmoak ( probably no Avgas but at least a safe landing site) Balado (again, lots of open space. ) Conversely, North of Dundee on a direct track to Kinloss I cannot think of any active airfields unless Edzell is still being used by Microlights? He had probably flown though one of the most well served concentration of GA airfields anywhere in Scotland - and not bothered to stop for fuel (or ask directions). Inexcusable!

Perth is a popular stopping point for a lot of traffic heading into the highlands and , from personal experience, I would commend this aerodrome to those unfamiliar with Scottish Airspace and local weather phenomena. It is a great overnight stop with engineering and all manner of facilities available. The same also applies to Cumbernauld and Fife where you will also be welcome.

VP959

15th Aug 2009, 17:50

I'm afraid Vince rather reminds me of the most dangerous pilot I ever had the misfortune to fly with. The similarities are striking. The chap that scared me rigid was unable to see that he'd done anything wrong, was an extremely intelligent and well-qualified individual and never missed an opportunity for a bit of self-promotion. What he lacked was any sort of intuitive feel for flying safely, hence my unease.

In the case of the chap that scared me rigid, I took the unusual step of going to see the examiner who'd taken his GFT to express my concerns. The examiner felt a similar unease as to the chap's lack of natural ability, but told me that, on the day, he'd flown well enough to pass, so there was nothing that could be done.

For some reason, I've found myself getting asked to assist with the aftermath of a couple of aircraft accident cases in the last year or two. One common factor seems to be an element of arrogance by the pilot. Another common factor is that those that knew of the pilot's failings only spoke out after the event. Perhaps we should be more open about expressing our concerns when we sense failings in those around us. I've no doubt that some lives would be saved if we did. I'm still haunted by the words of one instructor after a fatal accident I was involved with; they were "I'd been meaning to have a word with him about his flying".................

VP

Nibbler

15th Aug 2009, 17:53

Vince you did very well indeed to keep calm in an unexpected and frightening situation. To change your landing plan in the heat of the moment and then go on to execute something you've only ever read about is more than I would have thought of or could pull off if I were in your place. :D

What circumstances brought you to this position in the first place can best be described as 'open to investigation' and you are clearly doing all the right things in this respect.

Good luck to you.

Er... as you seem to be gifted with lady luck perhaps you could suggest the lotttery numbers for tonight?

Munnyspinner

15th Aug 2009, 18:50

I think you would be better posing that question at Biggles, Ginger and Algy!

mad_jock

15th Aug 2009, 19:09

dont shoot me I am only an Air Traffiker

Its a good point to be honest. I don't know either I didn't think you could go above 6k using it, but i could be wrong.

Munnyspinner

15th Aug 2009, 19:32

I did not run out of fuel, I ran out of margin for Kinloss (because of the cloud dodging and altitude I guess). I went for Dundee as agreed with the much more experience pilots who checked my flight plan. I had plenty of fuel visible in the port sight glass just before my turn, and when gliding. Will have to await the enquiry for explanation of engine cut. For the other guy's interest there is no mixture control on this type of engine.

Vince,

Let's just be clear here, you flew right past Dundee before you decided to divert - if you accoun of the landing is correct. A long final along the beach would put you to the East of the field approaching the westerley runway over the two bridges. Therefore if , when you fuel state dropped to 5-7 Lt ( apparently 6lt are unusable) you were still on base leg. The 180 puts you back heading North and Cairpark GC is at the edge of the built up area. The rest is history.

However, I still maintain that the you left your decision far too late given that you were down to 12Lt ( 50 mins). A direct route from Barrow to Kinloss would keep you well to the west of Dundee and Perth woul dbe a much more logical diversion. However, if it had taken you 2 hours to fly the 140Nm from Barrow to Dundee then your speed over the ground was a paltry 60kts. This would give you ( with no margin) a flight time to Kinloss of a further 1Hr 10. Not 50 minutes. Your say nave shoudl have been giving you a speed o/g readout and simple maths would have given you due warning that you were experiencing some headwind.

What I don't understand is how you ended up to the North of Dundee when the airport is to the South where you had approached from. A more conventional approach to Dundee would perhaps have been a downwind join or base leg over the Tay. "Ye canny miss it" , was the advice I was first given. " just fly doon the water and aim at the middle span of the bridge." Or something like that ( with all respect to local accents) ATC at Dundee are great but have to mix in training and other GA traffic with commercials, Again, Perth would have been a much more logical stopping point with Dundee as a diversion. However, I accept the choice is yours and that you should be free to plan whatever you feel works.

Anyway, what I may think is pretty academic and falls into the heading of speculation. On the day, it was your call and your flight. I'm sorry you bent your aircraft and put your nearest and dearest through the trauma but am pleased you are alright. I suspect you are one of these people that will never see it the same way as the rest of us but then, we are all different. I would like to think and hope this won't happen to you again - whatever the real facts are. I doubt the AAIB report will be anywhere as entertaining as your 15minutes of media interest and doubt anyone will be that interested by then. 10 pages on a PPRUNE thread is a pretty good result - well done and thanks.

Crash one

15th Aug 2009, 19:47

Well, everyone & his dog seem to have had their say so I think I'm entitled as well.
As another low time NPPL(A)
Biggles, model aircraft,:ugh::ugh::ugh: Is this a "Biggles & the Red Baron meets Flight of The Pheonix, fairy story?
Vince, in my opinion, this whole sorry saga is entirely your fault.
The Scottish expression "It was'nae me, it was him an'a" does not apply.
Whether you had clearance to fly through the Edin zone or not, or talking to Scottish Information, or Dundee tower, is totally irrelevant.
Perhaps someone should point out that an Air Traffic Controller does not actually have physical control of the aircraft under their "control", YOU have.
If you had a concern regarding fuel quantity in the vicinity of the river Tay, why did you fly out of glide range of Dundee? You had approx 90 nautical miles of very inhospitable terrain to your destination. You were surrounded by fuel available airfields, Fife, Dundee, Perth, Strathallan, Cumbernauld, Edinburgh, East Fortune, Thornhill. Yet, on the advice of a childhood hero, you chose a tree, on a golf course with long grass fairways, a few miles north & the other side of town to your nearest airfield & you seriously expect people to believe this was your best option?
The press report your last position as, on a train wearing pyjamas & a yellow jacket!! What else is there to say?:D:D

Munnyspinner

15th Aug 2009, 19:50

Spot on - but he'll no listen!:ok:

JAR FCL

15th Aug 2009, 19:59

Is it just me, or is anyone else rather worried that this chap could be airborne again tomorrow? In instances like this surely the maniac involved should have his licence suspended, pending the findings of the initial investigation?

jxc

15th Aug 2009, 19:59

Stonebase

15th Aug 2009, 20:04

Vince,
I hope you are doing fine after your experience. Please make another visit to Caird Park, but bring your clubs next time as it is a lovely course!

However, i feel things are not adding up with how you came to visit the course. Im sure it will all become clear when the AAIB publish their report!
Cheers!

Roffa

15th Aug 2009, 20:48

Mogas. (https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webSSL04.pdf)

Not above 6,000ft unless written exemption for the particular aircraft received from CAA.

Was it mentioned anywhere mogas was being used and is it relevant as the engine didn't stop at FL100?

vanHorck

15th Aug 2009, 21:04

I think Biggles II has now spoken to his insurer and has decided contrary to his low key instinct that he had better no say anymore till after the report came out.

Surely when he does come back he will boast about how he had the wisdom to immediately inform the pilot community of his original alternative to a normal emergency landing site via the wold press and PPRuNe

mad_jock

15th Aug 2009, 21:07

No mention but it is the fuel of choice for microlites, it could account for the higher than expected fuel burn.

And who's to say that it wasn't carb icing that stopped the donk. Long decent from FL100 power up to fly level to the castle cough, splutter, fart bobs you uncle.

What engine is fitted to these things?
Do they have the ability to lean?
Do they even have a carb heat?

fisbangwollop

15th Aug 2009, 21:51

Rotax....still an air traffiker but going for the mogas theory at 10000ft......................and oh by the way I have cancelled this next months Beano as the read here is far far better.........could get the best crack of the year award......well done Vince for giving us mere mortals so much entertainment :ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::D:D:D:D

Gertrude the Wombat

15th Aug 2009, 22:06

cancelled this next months Beano
Where d'you get it from anyway? - we used to buy it with the week's shopping but I haven't seen one in Tesco for years now.

mad_jock

15th Aug 2009, 22:21

I don't think he is reading the beano if it has..

could get the best crack of the year award

He must have seen a magazine in the teles engineers toilets and he got confused

sinky

15th Aug 2009, 22:26

vince,

its brave of you to come on here and not hide behind some alias as most do.

you need to grow a thick skin to live in this community.

what is going on here you or the AAIB will hopefully prove wrong. then, my advice would be to pursue slander and defimation actions against those who made the comments against you.

good luck

Munnyspinner

15th Aug 2009, 22:29

Mogas ... Ah, well there's the answer. Vince didn't say this earlier and being not familiar with the Microlight I had assumed Avgas.

The other problem our Vince now has is that Dundee doesn't list Mogas as an available fuel neither does Tayside aviation. Is Avgas100LL an acceptable alternative for a mogas motor? DND will supply Jet A1 or Avgas100LL. Odd that he should choose that as an alternate given that there are microlights at Perth but none at Dundee - and CFI at Barrow is getting the credit for vetting and giving OK to old Vince's flight plan - poor sod. PIC has to be responsible - regardless.

mad_jock

15th Aug 2009, 22:37

The Katanas at Dundee were all rotax and they all used avgas. And certain people advocate using a 50/50 mix of the two so it wouldn't make much difference sticking one on top of the other.

I suspect there are going to be a series of factors both technical and human that come out of this.

Pace

15th Aug 2009, 22:58

vp159

One common factor seems to be an element of arrogance by the pilot.

I have flown with numerous captains and now fly as a Captain on corporate jets myself. One trait that they all have is a certain arrogance :)

Pace

avgh

16th Aug 2009, 02:00

VanHorck

No restrictions from insurer. Just arranging a funeral for tomorrow (someone else!) so not time before now to engage in chat. Life goes on - fortunately. Vince

mad jock

no lean, no carb heat, Rotax 912. I applied short bursts of light power throughout the descent to keep it warm, and was motoring at decent revs when I began turn.

Will speak to Inspector on Monday and have completed the AAIB form, but waiting for some flight records still in Dundee. Vince

Fisbangwollop - From where I am standing I'd prefer the Beano, but pleased to give y'all some pleasure in life! Vince

crash one. Be fair - I only chose the tree after all other options looked dangerous. Vince

Thanks Sinky for the advice. But how do I sue anonymous slanderers? Even if I wanted to? "Vince slagging off" looks a great sport anyway, I just get a bit concerned when anonymous commentators of undisclosed provenance get quoted as "professional pilots" in the Press! Surely the rumpour mill should be treated as such. Were the AAIB to come out with a critical report this will be reported in the Press - but it would be based on fact, not guesswork and vivid imaginations. Vince

Munnyspinner. Yes the Rotax uses either or both Mogas and Avgas and I was putting down (on the advice of the experts at Barrow) at Dundee. If I had known how hostile the surrounding territory (not the people who were great) was I'd probably have gone somewhere else. But Dundee was the planned divert so I went there. Approaching from the North had me looking at high rise office blocks, an oil rig, a high mast and the Tay bridge. Pooleys (in cockpit) did not really help with this, the chart was not very helpful either and the satnav just showed the outline of the town - which I kept outside. Vince

Pace - further to your comment re arrogance. It is sometimes hard to differentiate between confidence and arrogance. Surely you need to be confident of yourself, your knowledge and your ability to be able to fly at all. If you are confident you know what you did and why, then let the Inspector decide. But is this arrogance? After all I am responding to a bunch of anonymous guys who for all I know may not have ever flown solo, nor even at all. Some are clearly experienced and making valuable points, but others just seem to me to be unkind. Vince

Van Horck. If you really want to know why 70 knots with zero flap (normal is negative 12 degrees on CT), you need airspeed to execute a "pancake". Too slow and throwing the plane at the tree bottom first would not work. One of the golfers described how I dived at the course before impact. Very observant. See the Burma ops manual referred to above (I haven't) cos it would be good to know how it was supposed to be done!!

My pal who navigated Mosquitos in the war said that many pancakes were attempted over forests in Europe, but the pilot and navigator were usually killed anyway because of the light construction (ply and balsa sandwich) and speed.

Full marks to the CT - the carbon shell protected me just as it is designed to do in the event of difficulties. It is a very safe aircraft.

What do you fly?

Vince

fisbangwollop

16th Aug 2009, 06:49

Vince ....you must be totally knackered after the events of the last few days...yet you still have the stamina to stay up till 0330 in the morning to respond to the questions asked on this BB. :ok::ok:

tow1709

16th Aug 2009, 08:49

Do we know for how long Vince was flying at 9-10,000 ft asl? If he was not carrying and using a portable O2 supply, then the possible effect of hypoxia on his perceptions and decisions made while under those conditions need to be considered.

He was not apparently used to flying way up there - he says in his own first post that he had never had a "flight level" before.

Munnyspinner

16th Aug 2009, 08:50

Vince , all credit to you in taking time to respond personally to the points raised. I am sure you have plenty of otherthings to do. You will find that PPRune threads can become endless and thankfully this one is generally in good humour despite one or two pointed comments.

From what you say you were approaching Dundee form the north. This implies that you had already embarked on your route North but had decided that you didn't have enough fuel for Kinloss and therefore had turned back. I kno wthe area very well having been stationed in that neck of the wood s some years ago. Dundee and Perth ( scone ) are actually very close separated only by a line of hills.

You have been kind enough to explain much about the approach to teh crash but we haven't heard much about your routing after Edinburgh and at what point you needed to divert.

Whilst your airmanship in putting down ina tree pancake style is obvious it would seem that having flown past a string of potential fuelling stops the diversion to Dundee was left until too late, when there were airfields nearer to what would have been an obvious track.

Clearly, I don't know your chosen route nor your fligh path from Edinburgh to Dundee. But if you went to the east of the Dundee you would either have had to go around the Leuchars MATZ or through it. Leuchars to Dundee is only 10 minutes and if a diversion was on the cards it would have been sensible to make that call after Leuchars. if you were flying to the west of Leuchars MATZ, Again Perth would have been the obvious choice.

Maybe if you get a chance you can enlighten us?

Gertrude the Wombat

16th Aug 2009, 09:21

Do we know for how long Vince was flying at 9-10,000 ft asl? If he was not carrying and using a portable O2 supply, then the possible effect of hypoxia on his perceptions and decisions made while under those conditions need to be considered.
What I recall from my training is that oxygen should be used if flying above 10,000' for more than half an hour, with no suggestion that you can't fly around all day at FL95. (Assuming normal health with no respiratory issues.)

So I fly at FL95 when I can ... which so far has been exactly once, on all other occasions this has been impossible due to cloud or controlled airspace.

Pace

16th Aug 2009, 09:59

What I recall from my training is that oxygen should be used if flying above 10,000' for more than half an hour, with no suggestion that you can't fly around all day at FL95. (Assuming normal health with no respiratory issues.)

So I fly at FL95 when I can ... which so far has been exactly once, on all other occasions this has been impossible due to cloud or controlled airspace

Gertrude

And in the USA Americans are different to us and tolerate low oxygen better as their limits are different :rolleyes:

No Oxygen required up to 12500 feet, No Oxygen required by the pilots up to 14000 feet for up to a maximum of 30 minutes, Oxygen required at all time for pilots over 14000 feet.
Passengers do not need to be put on oxygen until 15000 feet.

Pace

Pace - further to your comment re arrogance. It is sometimes hard to differentiate between confidence and arrogance. Surely you need to be confident of yourself, your knowledge and your ability to be able to fly at all. If you are confident you know what you did and why, then let the Inspector decide. But is this arrogance? After all I am responding to a bunch of anonymous guys who for all I know may not have ever flown solo, nor even at all. Some are clearly experienced and making valuable points, but others just seem to me to be unkind. Vince

Vince totally agree with confidence and arrogance being close together, the point I was trying to make :)
for your info there is a large mix of characters in these forums. You tend to learn who the the very experienced ones are. Having said that everyone brings something to the table in different areas of speciality.
As for myself ATP business jet Captain 4500 plus hours loads of multi engine in variety of twins and some ferry work and yes have done loads of stupid things on the way but still here (just about) :D

Pace

Crash one

16th Aug 2009, 10:33

crash one. Be fair - I only chose the tree after all other options looked dangerous. Vince

Vince.
This area is my own stamping ground. I can assure you that none of these optional airfields are dangerous, had you made the decision earlier.
We were in the process of a barbeque at Kingsmuir (20nm south) at that time. Had you chosen to land there I personally could have given you 40 litre Mogas + a burger, free of charge. Please don't tell me to be fair.
Unfortunately there are no trees on the airfield, just 620metres well cut grass. Can you operate from grass or do you prefer trees?:ugh:

Pace

16th Aug 2009, 10:59

Crash One

Come on :ugh: had you made the decision earlier

Hindsight is a wonderful thing :) had I done this instead of that bla bla bla

I am sure we all wish we could turn the clocks back and avoid one thing or another we regret in our lives

Pace

Crash one

16th Aug 2009, 11:22

Pace
Well that takes the biscuit! I thought he was aware of the fuel problem south of Dundee, didn't like oilrigs/bridges etc.
I give up.
Vince, you are a hero, no dead puppies, Nuns or primary schools.
In fact you didn't even land on the ground, you landed with 40ft of altitude remaining!! Superman!

mad_jock

16th Aug 2009, 11:26

Crash and the others who think that vince should hang up his helmet.

Its all very well with hindsight going on about all these options which he should have thought about.

He proberly spent a couple of days off and on looking at the route picking out the one which he would enjoy the most. Its a big trip, exciting, proberly bored his wife with it endlessly. Pissed off every instructor he came contact with asking there opinion

Kingsmure (or any other parachuting site) to most low hour guys would be a no no because of parachuting there, instructors batter into students to stay away from these sites with dire warnings of meat bombs passing close to wings and MOR's being filed.

He made a plan went over it with an Instructor who had to pass comment on an area outside there own. I must admit I have been asked to do the same for a PPL flying down to Biggin. I helped him up to Cambridge then told him to ask on PPrune because I have no experence flying VFR in the London area.

There are numerous sub optimal planned flights by low houred pilots carried out in the UK every year (and a few by experence commercial pilots). If you ask in any radar room in the UK they will be able to list out many a grey hair provocking experence.

Vince's only major crime is the fact that his bag of luck ran out and it made the newspapers. There have been numerous cockups of a far more dubious nature in scotland which haven't provoked such a bitter hang the bastard responce.

As I said before I predict that there will be some technical factors to do with operating that engine/aircraft and some human factors which with hind sight could have been negated.

The Captancy and SA required to think about all the options mentioned in a unfamilar area is not there in a pilots first two hundred never mind one hundred hours. I suspect that the fife/tayside boys and girls would have just as much issues if they were taken out of there comfort zone up into the Highlands or south into Warton/Liverpool area.

Pace

16th Aug 2009, 11:36

Crash One

No offence intended to you but just an observation that what if is meaningless.
Any accident is rarely one mistake but a string of mistakes which leads to a crash.

Pace

vanHorck

16th Aug 2009, 12:23

and it's the ability to admit to that string of mistakes which can give some measure of confidence to the flying community that the pilot concerned is on the way to improving himself

Crash one

16th Aug 2009, 13:15

Hindsight is easy, I agree with that, what I don't agree with is the denial thing "I did nothing wrong". Well I'm sorry, but if he did nothing wrong what the hell was he doing in a tree after overflying his diversion airfield "apparently" knowing he was short of fuel? That's not hindsight, that's unwise!

Mad Jock, I never said he should hang up his helmet. Nor did I initially suggest Kingsmuir, Just a list of possibles at the time he "apparently" knew he was short.

mad_jock

16th Aug 2009, 14:24

Give the guy a break,

he has just landed in a tree.
spent some time in Ninewells.
has an interview with the feds tomorrow.
has a proberly worried sick daughter nagging him.
Funeral to organise (which would tend to tell me it was a close family member)

I am just suprised he has been writing as coherently as he has been.

jgs43

16th Aug 2009, 17:17

Taken from a post on "the other forum".

Seems he did a lot more than just land in a tree!:ooh:

"perhaps the will put a bit more meat on the bones - an "e" mail I received re the incident in question slightly filleted. It came via a third party and I have no idea who the originator was.

Starts

Here's what the papers didn't say about the Dundee light aircraft crash.

An aircraft on a 7000 squawk had been watched climbing out of Barrow towards TLA steadily climbing to around 9,000ft but not in contact with Scottish Information or Scottish Control. It turned out to be G-VINH a Flight Design CTsw.

GVINH tried to call Edinburgh Approach reporting 10 miles south of Edinburgh but couldn't get two-way contact so called Scottish Control (Talla Sector 126.3) and reported 15 miles south of Edinburgh at 8,700ft. That position would be well inside class D airspace which requires an ATC clearance to enter but where no separation is required to be provided between VFR and IFR traffic. The controller allocated him a squawk and identified him, actually some 45 miles south of Edinburgh and just outside but about to enter controlled airspace. He reported that he was flying VFR from Barrow to Kinloss at 8,700ft. The Talla controller gave him a clearance to transit the Scottish TMA at FL90. Though not legally required to, she took the moral decision to separate this VFR flight from all her IFR inbounds to Edinburgh, all of which would pass close to him whilst descending into Edinburgh. His level drifted between FL80 and FL95 and he commented on the fact that he saw many big aeroplanes passing him by and would prefer if they stayed further away. Pilot's reports and the controller's say that he had a very chatty and laid back attitude and seemed to be completely unaware of the trouble he was causing.

I was being kept up-to-date on these developments as I was on the next sector that he would enter (Tay Sector). At the time I was working an AA-5 northwest of Newcastle inbound Kirknewton at FL70. He was IFR but VMC on top of an 8/8th layer of cloud. I suspect that G-NH was also VMC on top.

Nearer to Talla GVINH asked to climb to 10,000ft and was cleared to FL100. He did not understand Flight Levels and eventually the harassed and busy controller cleared him to fly at 10,000ft on 1013mb which he was happy with. Thankfully at this point I was sent off for my tea break so had no further need to worry about him. However before reaching Edinburgh he requested to descend to 5,000ft "due to clouds". The Talla controller coordinated with Edinburgh Approach who cleared him down to FL70 only (the Standard Instrument Departures from Edinburgh all climb to 6,000ft). G-NH was cleared to FL70 and transferred to Edinburgh Approach. He was seen to descend through the Edinburgh CTR down to 3,000ft. Later Edinburgh Approach phoned to complain that he had dropped below FL70 and they were still waiting for him to be transferred from Scottish. However Scottish had transferred him when he started his descent out of FL100, which G-NH acknowledged. He never did call Edinburgh. By now my supervisor was involved and as G-NH was approaching Glenrothes at around 3,000ft my supervisor phoned Glenrothes and Leuchars to see if he was in contact with them. He wasn't. Some time later Dundee called to say that G-NH was diverting into them for fuel. He had called them saying he was at 10,000ft but radar indicates that he was below 5,000ft.

This next bit is not confirmed yet but will make interesting reading in the AAIB report. Apparently (I don't know if this is true) he did a low approach and go-around at Dundee, complaining that he thought he must have a fuel leak. Why didn't he land? A few minutes later the engine stopped and he elected to make a forced landing in a golf course to the North-East of Dundee City. Rather than landing on one of the 18 fairways he chose to stall his aircraft into a crop of trees (a manoeuvre he read about in a Biggles book, he says). He managed to 'land' some 40ft up a tree and after an hour was successfully rescued by the fire service. Rather than phoning the AAIB or my watch supervisor he then gave interviews to TV crews telling of his Biggles landing technique and the need to avoid houses in the area.

1) Why did he run out of fuel after 140nm of a 216nm flight?
2) Why was he prepared to enter the Scottish TMA (Class D) without a clearance?
3) Why did he not know what a Flight Level was?
4) Why when he discovered he had a fuel problem did he not land at Glenrothes, Leuchars, Perth or Dundee?
5) Why did he elect to land in trees rather than the many fairways available?

This microlight pilot was certainly not a hero for saving lives in the houses near to the golf course or those few golfers on the fairways. He was a reckless fool who endangered the lives of hundreds by planning to fly through the Scottish TMA without talking to Scottish and getting a clearance first (thank goodness he had a transponder with Mode C on), flying through the Edinburgh CTR without a clearance or making contact with Edinburgh, doing a go around at Dundee when he thought he had a fuel leak rather than landing to check it out. Or if there was no fuel leak then his fuel planning was terribly out, as he only had fuel for about 55% of the trip.

Unlike some I don't think this (low time) pilot should be banned but I do think the book should be thrown at him, heavy fines imposed and a lot of retraining and examination carried out before he is allowed to fly again. He made some mistakes and has paid a heavy price for them already, with a written-off aeroplane. But if he had run out of fuel over the mountains he would possibly be dead now. So he is very lucky.

Maybe the investigation will find some mechanical fault that caused his problem but that will not excuse his poor planning and poor airmanship. But he was definitely not a hero, as reported in the press and by witnesses to the crash. Pilots like this give us all a bad name and can only harm the few remaining freedoms we have.""

mad_jock

16th Aug 2009, 17:49

:ouch: ouch your on your own now vince if even a quarter of that is true

Crash one

16th Aug 2009, 19:28

I was under the impression that we knew some of that from his own admissions to the illustrious meeja, though I did think he was talking to Edinburgh. Good luck Vince!!

frontlefthamster

16th Aug 2009, 19:31

Well, there's a resounding ring of truth to the style of that email. Either it's a very well put together hoax, or it's (very) well informed.

Regardless, it reinforces my impression that this pilot is a liability to himself and others, is definitely not fit to hold a licence, and in the hands of a trick cyclist with an agenda, could find himself sectioned.

How many of us would travel by train in pyjamas and a hi-viz vest?

Most dangerously of all, though, he appears completely in denial, and dangerously out of touch with the real world. Again, how would our in-built reasonableness checks view quoting a Biggles book in defence of our actions?

Maybe that cyclist is not so far off the mark?

Hyperborean

16th Aug 2009, 19:50

Anent the pyjamas and hi-vis vest, he was presumably admitted to hospital wearing the clothes in which he flew. Given that he apparently walked away from the the foot of the ladder, if not the scene of the crash, I doubt that his clothes were cut off by the paramedics. So what happened to his clothes?

VP959

16th Aug 2009, 20:19

If the content of that email is even half right, then I'm afraid that Vince has some very serious issues regarding his competence to fly that need to be admitted to and addressed before he flies again.

Unfortunately, I doubt that Vince will see that he's made any errors at all, he comes across as an individual who is completely oblivious to his own failings.
The AAIB report might make interesting reading when it comes out, although, because there were no serious injuries, I doubt that they will bother to look at causality in too much detail; they may even just rely on Vince's own account as the principal source of evidence.

It would be nice to think that his insurers might choose to look carefully at why this accident happened, but as third party damage was modest I doubt they'll bother, either.

The net result is that Vince will carry on as before, until the next accident.

VP

bjornhall

16th Aug 2009, 20:25

Even the most scandalous tabloids are a model of carefully considered analysis, adhering to proven facts and objectivity compared to what is going on in this thread.

"Rumour Network", indeed, but this goes beyond rumour... Are we now to understand that a pilot's flying abilities are somehow indicated by what clothes he wore when released from hospital? :suspect: Or that some email from an unknown "third party" (what is it now, five levels removed?) has any credibility whatsoever?

I don't see the point of any of this. The opinions expressed very vocally by a very few posters in this thread are of no relevance whatsoever when based on such entirely unreliable sources. And regarding what they think should be done (his insurers should do this, and his instructors should do that, and he shouldn't go on flying yada yada yada), frankly it's none of their business...

Cows getting bigger

16th Aug 2009, 20:39

Vince, you are a very lucky chap. There are numerous other aviators who have been equally adventurous who have not survived to recount there tales of daring do on Proone. Like many, I'm intrigued as to the actual events; fuel utilisation, "VFR" at 10000ft in the TMA (IMC rating?) etc. I'm sure it will all come out in the wash. In the interim, maybe it is worth assessing your true capabilities and operating accordingly, if only for the sake of your family.

VP959

16th Aug 2009, 20:43

Well, there is a certain amount of evidence that this chap displayed very poor airmanship, so perhaps that's reason enough to question his continued competence to fly?

Let's not forget that Vince is a microlight pilot, who was flying a microlight. He cannot legally go VMC on top, plus he has certain other restrictions on his flying as a consequence of the limitations of his licence and the Permit to Fly for his microlight.

Others heard the radio exchanges and have reported essentially the same story. Common factors in these relayed radio transcripts are the laid-back manner, the disregard for the hassle he was causing and the lack of understanding of basics, like flight levels.

Of course, we could all be making this stuff up, but Vince himself has contributed some snippets that support the case for his own incompetence. His insistence that he didn't have an accident, for example, or that he didn't run out of fuel, or even that his aircraft has been confirmed as being safe to fly down to 1/2 litre of fuel remaining in the tanks.

We must all make up our own minds as to where the truth lies, but I'm in no doubt that this accident was entirely the fault of the pilot and was absolutely avoidable.

The downside is that the rest of us will have to pay for Vince's arrogant refusal to accept that he is to blame, as the insurance companies will just get the money back from all our premiums. Given that there are only a couple of thousand microlights flying, his actions could add about a fiver to each and every microlight pilot's insurance premiums, more for some if there is more than one underwriter.

VP

10W

16th Aug 2009, 21:32

Or that some email from an unknown "third party" (what is it now, five levels removed?) has any credibility whatsoever?

Rest assured, the CAA Enforcement Branch will have access to the relevant RT and radar recordings to support any action they need to take. Let's start with 'infringement' of Edinburgh airspace (the pilot did not have a clearance to enter it, he only had a clearance in the TMA above) and a failure to comply with ATC instructions (non compliance with level instructions which could stretch to 'endangerment') and see where we go from there.

The airmanship and accident pieces of this incident should be kept separate.

On airmanship grounds alone, it seems that our hero should not be let loose on other airspace users until he has been educated to an appropriate standard which allows him to use UK airspace without endangering other fliers and the broader public.

On the accident, he walked away so that is a plus point. How he ended up having to land in the tree in the first place is the important question for the AAIB to answer.

Munnyspinner

16th Aug 2009, 22:17

Vince's alleged meander reminds me of some rt chatter that I heard some years ago whilst approaching Edinburgh. Similar circumstances, low hour pilot making an epic X country in unfamiliar territory. I think e had been given a zone transit on a SVFR clearance but seemed to be having some difficulty in identifying VRPs around Edinburgh and was bumbling further into the controlled airspace without much apparent idea as to where he was actually going. I think the controllers had rightly decided that it was safer to shepherd him through than risk him trying to sneak around the edges.

Anyway, During one exchange I heard this wayward individual give his position "height at 2000ft over head ..... em.... I think it's ...well, I can see the river." On being asked to route via the Airfield and report overhead he was also given traffic information, a Gill Air SD360 from memory, two seconds later came the reply " I'm visual with traffic" and from the SD360 - that's amazing, we're still in cloud! Which they had been from their descent inbound from LBA.

He was still bumbling around when we arrived and I wonder if he ever made his destinantion. It was marginal VFR weather with lots of broken clouds but very poor horizontal visibility. Flying VFR in unfamiliar airspace must have been like trying piece together a jigsaw of the chart. Talk about making it difficult.

Poor Vince, looks like everyone is out to prove that his accident was avoidable - they usually are. Hopefully, the lessons have been learned by all. Don't drive past a filling station when you've got 100 miles to go and only enough fuel for 70 - you'll not make it!

I am sorry too, if the above e-mail has any foundation in fact as this is a very public forum and I think we all know that landing in the tree was only the culmination of a very bad day for Mr. H. We all make mistakes and next time I do I will remember to take responsibility early in the process. Humility is a great thing -more so for a hero, even when he is inVincible.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

16th Aug 2009, 22:21

How he ended up having to land in the tree in the first place is the important question for the AAIB to answer.

Had a golf course to my left (west) so called attempting golf course but when I got closer the fairways were crammed with people and full of bunkers anyway. It was competition day I learned later. That left the tree as that way no-one would get hurt.

Please, do pay attention. :ok:

Crash one

16th Aug 2009, 23:18

Originally Posted by 10W

How he ended up having to land in the tree in the first place is the important question for the AAIB to answer.

he did a low approach and go-around at Dundee, complaining that he thought he must have a fuel leak. Why didn't he land? A few minutes later the engine stopped and he elected to make a forced landing in a golf course to the North-East

Please, do pay attention. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Oh dear me:D

yakker

17th Aug 2009, 08:49

Hero to Zero

The 'evidence' such as it is on a rumour network does seem to add up, whereas the story Vince gives does not. It is my belief that Vince ran out of fuel, and failed to do a forced landing as he was taught. He found himself landing on a golf course, with a few feet to go and still travelling at 70kts and a tree looming fast. Rather than hit the tree he pulled back on the stick, the CT obliged and ballooned up to the stall. The aircraft rather than crash back to earth was caught in the branches of the tree. He then spent the next hour, while waiting to be rescued, dreaming up the Biggles story. To add some colour to the story he was telling the press, we had crashing into house, avoiding children, golfers etc..

When I have made a mistake I have laid awake at night beating myself up about it, wondering if I should be flying at all. Then speaking to my old CFI and telling him what I have done, being told I wasn't the first to do it and wont be the last does not help. However some good pointers and advise on how to avoid the error in future helps.

Vince while on the train home has plenty of time to reflect on just how very very lucky he was to survive. Not Vince, he travels home in his pajamas to draw attention from the public, and so he could tell them he was the hero pilot on the news. So rather than think about departing his home base with insufficient fuel and planning, flying above 8/8 cloud, busting airspace, failing to land at Dundee, running out of fuel, failing to carry out a forced landing as taught (not bad for one flight) he chooses to ask the CAA to ground all CT's until the fuel problem is sorted. I'm sure CT owners would be very grateful if the CAA grounded their aircraft to save them all from certain death.

PS Oliver please dont sell him another CT the profit will not be worth the hassle.

PPS It would be good to hear from the experts at Barrow, that advised him he was okay, to hear their side. I suspect it was not as Vince reported.

Unknown Target

17th Aug 2009, 08:51

I dunno about you guys, but I was always taught never to second guess the PIC from an armchair when I don't have all the facts. And even when I DID have all the facts, I was taught to give the PIC the benefit of the doubt; I wasn't there, he might have seen something I wouldn't have, or visa versa.

Some of the comments here are downright ridiculous and rude; and you guys are the professionals?

Yea he was dumb. Yea he made mistakes. And yea, he probably should just graciously bow out of the lime light. But some of the posts are too far. He lived, he didn't hurt anyone - so why the vitriol? I don't mean to be disrespectful of the senior pilots here, I'm just saying...it's a bit much. And a bit antagonistic.

Molesworth 1

17th Aug 2009, 08:54

eventually the harassed and busy controller cleared him to fly at 10,000ft on 1013mb

A bit OTT? How much effort for the controller to snap back "that's 10,000 feet at 1013 QNH" when Vince said he couldn't understand FL100?

Without commenting on the validity of some of the "evidence" presented here this thread is a refreshing and entertaining addition to a forum this was rather dull of late.

BabyBear

17th Aug 2009, 09:16

I am firmly in the camp of not making judgment from an armchair without the necessary information. However in this case there is a wealth of information that is not hearsay, but actually comes from the horses mouth. Whilst some posts are based on assumptions dear Vince has given quite enough on here and through the media for people to pass judgment.

It is not the accident itself that has brought about the criticism, but more the manner in which Vince has handled the aftermath. There are those who have argued that his initial interaction with the media may have been as a result of 'shock' and that, at the time, was a valid argument. Not so now I fear as the bold Vince has come on here with the same bravado after having time to reflect on his incident AND consider the comments posted.

What are we to do, reinforce his delusion and condone his actions by not being critical?

The difference between this accident and others is that Vince set himself up for the flack following the accident.

In my view the man's a nutter that needs saving from himself and I base that solely on comments from him, rather than conjecture posted here.

mad_jock

17th Aug 2009, 10:15

I want to know how he managed to hassel a Talla sector controller into giving him the clearance he wanted.

Be trying for years to get TLA-GRICE-INV as per flight planned route (saving 250 quid for the company) but the buggers always send me to Foyle. :p

cockney steve

17th Aug 2009, 10:57

:O:OSlightly off-topic,- I am quite astounded by the apparent disparity between assigned and reported altitudes, V those purported to be returned by radar.

It is a well-documented fact that radar speed-traps return a wildly inaccurate return from fibreglass and Composite motor-bodies...I think Alloy also reflects differently......many motorists have successfully defended themselves from speeding-charges due to this.

So, (I know, apples and oranges) Do Composite aircraft show an erroneous height return?

As the pilot apparently confirmed his pressure-setting and would seem to have , at some points, have flown the assigned alt. this begs the question,- did the pilot deliberately lie to ATC, in the erroneous belief they "couldn't see" him, or did he have "selective" instrument -failure ( Thales Pitot iced? :} )

under the circumstances, sounds like PPP due to lack of PP P :}

(for other non-pilots (and Journo's)...the acronym = Prior Planning Precludes..Piss-Poor Performance.)

Edit....OK, The Altimeter relies on Static...back yo the Trevor Thom's. :O )

pilotmike

17th Aug 2009, 11:00

Be trying for years to get TLA-GRICE-INV as per flight planned route (saving 250 quid for the company) but the buggers always send me to Foyle.
Maybe they are your guardian angels - saving you from idiots who blast through between cloud layers 'at 10,000 on 1013mb'??!!

I am sure that a lot of points will come out in the AAIB report, much of it airmanship related, and almost certainly not the positive spin that Mr H has been trying to generate since his crash.

Few people are more annoying than A list celebrities who will court the media at every occasion for all the publicity and spin they can, and then winge like babies once something less flattering (and usually brutally accurate) is exposed.

But one group even more annoying are the Z list celebs who will do anything in a desperate attempt to keep their name in trashy rags, fighting to make sure the next gasp of the oxygen of publicity and 'fame' is not their last.

The only people more annoying than these Z listers are idiot attention seekers who live their lives trying to be the centre of attention and who desperately wish to be famous. They will do virtually anything to get their 5 minutes of fame. Then they get upset when the spin doesn't work, and their stupidity is exposed publicly, so they winge about how badly the press have treated them. Sadly, they seem genetically incapable of keeping a low profile, showing some humility, and keeping schtumm, compelled as they are to open their big mouths and stick their foot in it.

This roughly where Mr H enters the scene.

Given the circumstances, a brief and rather more humble statement to the media along the lines of:-

"I have had a lucky escape. Apologies and very grateful thanks to the air traffic controllers, police, fire, ambulance and over-worked and under-staffed NHS for taking up their valuable resources."

... would have come over a whole lot better, and would have won Mr H a few more friends and supporters than he has achieved with his choice of gunning for maximum publicity posing as some kind of hero.

And still I haven't seen even the first hints of him accepting any responsibility for any of his actions, not one hint of humility, not one hint of any attempt to learn from this situation of his own making.

But then we all know the difficulty of changing habits of a lifetime, and the saying about old dogs and new tricks!

I'm just off to EDI, via TALLA. It is a massive relief to know for certain that Mr H is presently grounded so there is one less risk to my passengers, crew and me on this occasion. I simply cannot tell you just how scary the though of Mr H at 10,000' in controlled airspace is.

To answer another question:
Do Composite aircraft show an erroneous height return?
Altitude returns are sent Mode C (or S) by transponders and are usually very accurate, sent as flight levels ref 1013mb.

They are not influenced by aircraft construction material in any way.

mad_jock

17th Aug 2009, 11:36

Nah its a tay sector workload thing which is fair enough.

Hats off to scottish for the cracking service we all enjoy day in day out be it from FISbangwallop and collegues to the area controllers, they give a safe friendly service with very few grump's on the mic.

I hope any fallout from this event doesn't cause the "can do if its safe" attituded which we have enjoyed in the past to change.

And to the lady who no doudt has had to fill out a pile of paper work over this affair, keep your chin up. Some of us pillocks are thinking about you.:ok:

Crash one

17th Aug 2009, 13:29

I hope you are reading this Vince, It's not the mistakes you made that is annoying, it is the fact that you think you can fool hundreds of other pilots into believing that you didn't make them.
Various cliche's are valid. Don't bul**** a bul****ter, Sailing down the Clyde on a water biscuit. Piss down my back & tell me it's raining etc.
You are 63 yrs old ,enough to know better. You put lives a risk, disrupted air traffic, caused emergency services unnecessary work. You then try to justify your actions with mentions of Biggles!
If you expect sympathy or admiration I suggest you join the cross stitch forum. You are a big boy now, grow up & act like one.

By the way if anyone is interested, Kingsmuir is no longer a drop zone.
Fully operational, make yr own coffee etc.

Pace

17th Aug 2009, 13:30

On airmanship grounds alone, it seems that our hero should not be let loose on other airspace users until he has been educated to an appropriate standard which allows him to use UK airspace without endangering other fliers and the broader public.

Reading the transcripts of the airspace blunders I would totally agree with that satement.
But I would also like to ask where his lack of training has contributed to the catalogue of events which lead to his crash.
The fact that he seems to be unaware of airspace restrictions and unaware of basic facts like flight level settings and RT procedures shows a massive gap in his knowledge.

Who ever trained him has also got some answering to do. I am not sure what is required to gain lower level licences for aircraft like microlights? Did he hold a PPL? I am sure the buck doesn not stop with him but goes further back.

I would also caution against making assertions. I know my own feelings about the accident have changed from sympathetic to less sympathetic to annoyed as further details emerge. Somehow I dont feel this saga has come to its end and could herald changes and stiffening up in training standards.

Pace

Munnyspinner

17th Aug 2009, 14:00

He's reported as an NPPL but that shouldn't make any difference.

You can't get a PPL ( NPPL) without going through the whole syllabus which includes flight planning and navigation. The training provides the skills necessary to conduct a safe flight and the tools to assist in decision making.

What training can't do is ensure that qualified pilots their acquired knowledge properly!

I feel a lecture coming on!

Crash one

17th Aug 2009, 14:33

Somehow I dont feel this saga has come to its end and could herald changes and stiffening up in training standards.

Pace
I got my NPPL(A) in 2007, Flight levels, airspace categories, RT, zone transit stuff , navigation, flight planning etc. Just like a real PPL but a bit less instrument flying.
The training syllabus is not at fault.
How it is applied at a local level may be worth investigation. How much of it sinks in & remains beyond the appropriate exam paper is down to the pilot.
Most microlight pilots I've seen tend to head for a lot of height in case the donkey dies mid Forth river. But they all seem to know what they are doing regarding talking to Edinburgh etc. So I don't think the NPPL(M) is any worse.

vanHorck

17th Aug 2009, 15:15

Unknown Target identify yourself please. I guess you re a friend of Mr Biggles?

Small plane flyers do not have less rights than large plane flyers.
Both are required to adhere to the rules of aviation.

As to Mr Biggles I agree his most stupid mistake to date was how he decided to handle the aftermath. This does not imply it also was his biggest mistake, thats for the AAIB to decide.

Unknown Target

17th Aug 2009, 15:17

What, because I defend the rights of private pilots to fly, I'm automatically lumped in with an egotistical loudmouth? I'm not even in the same country as him, the only similarity we share is that we are both similarly low time (I'm 78.6 hours) - I'm based in the US.

Mariner9

17th Aug 2009, 15:26

Unknown Target, Flight level setting is really basic altimetry, and should be absolutely standard knowledge for any pilot whose past his 1st solo, let alone 50-odd hours post qualification.

They're nowt to do with 10,000 feet by the way, so it appears you dont know them either. If you're a pilot, I suggest you urgently go away and read the altimetry sections of both your met and air law books before you fly again:ugh:

M9 (not a driver of heavy metal)

PS Did you not spot the Freudian slip in :
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that a Pilots Airmanship is inversely proportional to the aircrafts Max All Up Weight and/or HP of his engine

(Just in case you dont understand proportionality either :hmm:, the above quotation suggests the heavier the aircraft you fly, the poorer the standard of airmanship :ok:)

A_Pommie

17th Aug 2009, 15:29

unknown target.

Why wouldn't a PPL/NPPL pilot know about flight levels. Isn't the transition at around 3500'? so well within his flight envelope.
My golden rule is, if you don't know the what the words mean you are in the wrong job.

Crash one

17th Aug 2009, 15:33

It would appear that another thing this inconsiderate asshole has done is have the rest of us bugsmasher drivers defending ourselves as if we were all of the same ilk but for a stroke of good fortune.
I am certainly not ashamed of the training I took both during & since NPPL, & no I have'nt finished learning yet before some smart ass points that out.

Unknown Target

17th Aug 2009, 15:39

I'm sorry Pace, but you seriously expect a PPL/Ultralight pilot to know about flight level settings? Especially such a low hour pilot? If I recall correctly, he can't even go above 10,000 feet!

I think a big part of this discussion is the discrepancy between the big guys (i.e. you high hour heavy metal drivers) and the little guys here (i.e. us private sardine can pushers). When a 172 hits an Airbus, they both go down; so they both have as much right to be in the air as anybody and are as important on ATC's radar as each other. The problem I'm having with this whole discussion isn't so much the negative comments directed at Mr. H (whether he deserves it or not), it's the comments directed at light aviation pilots - comments like;

"I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that a Pilots Airmanship is inversely proportional to the aircrafts Max All Up Weight and/or HP of his engine...."

...that really get my blood flowing. Are you guys serious? You're telling a low time pilot that he should be kicked out of the sky (a sky that you seem to act like you own) because he's rusty (giving him a very large benefit of the doubt here) on procedures, or doesn't know procedures that are outright IFR only? You guys sure are the cream of the crop, yea, you made it all the way to the top and slugged your way through the private sector, but guess what - private flying didn't go away when you left it behind, and it's got just as much right to be in the air as you do. Maybe if we had less of this snotty nose in the air attitude towards light plane pilots, the current pilot retention rate wouldn't be below 50% and new pilot numbers falling like Mr. Biggles here.

EDIT: People are replying to my post and I can't reply back, as I am waiting for moderator approval. Please view my latest reply here, sorry if this is uncouth but I hate being muzzled in a good debate :)

I would very much like a chance to defend myself, but alas I must wait for a moderator to approve my posts? So I write this in an attempt to calm the fire of argument that is currently burning within me :p

vanHorck: I do not know Mr. H nor have ever been in the country of Britain to begin with. It seems that you have misinterpreted my remarks, as you seem to think the main thrust of my point is to defend Biggle-boy. No, my main remark is that the attitude expressed by many of the people in this thread is quite derogatory to private pilots.

I also am offended and slightly perturbed by the idea that since I present a different argument, I am lumped in with Mr. H here; I'm a safe pilot. I passed my check ride with flying colors; I always do a run up before take off, I always do a double walkaround and double check my fuel and oil before I go up. I always practice proper radio calls and try to sound as professional as possible. Hell, I want to learn so much and be so perfect at flying that I kick myself when there's even the slightest bump in my landings - and there generally isn't, even with the 20 knot crosswind across the beach where I typically land with the under 3,000 lb DA-20 that I usually fly. And I'm teaching myself aeronautics to boot, with a $200+ library slowly being built on my shelf.

Mariner9: I know what a flight level is, my point is that you hardly ever hear it as a private pilot, at least in my (admittedly) small experience range. I usually stay below 3,000 feet, so I have a different experience than Mr. H here. I would have probably made his ill-fated flight at 2,500 feet as well, because that's where I'm most comfortable. And I'm sorry, but I was also taught that if I didn't understand a tower's instructions, I would simply ask for clarification; not become a danger to life and limb because I didn't know the definition of one of the commands.

Also, you got me on the proportionality - nice way to toss in a casual insult though. No, I mixed up what I read and managed to get it quite wrong. My mistake.

A Pommie: I'm sorry, I haven't heard the word "flight level" in over two years, and I've never heard it spoken on the radio. I guess I should stop flying because I forgot that bit of minutia, instead of asking the tower to clarify their instruction when the need arose?

EDIT2: Honestly Pace, I wouldn't shift the blame from him to the training. That just gets the flight instructors in trouble for a dumb student; if he didn't know how to do something, he should have asked someone (again, me being the safe pilot, that's what I do - I just did that last week actually, asking a senior pilot at the FBO for some procedure clarifications on a trip I was making), he should have checked his fuel, etc etc. I don't know the layout of the area he was in, so I can't comment on his landing choice. Pancaking into a tree surely was not the best option though, isn't England quite famous for it's large flat fields?

Pace

17th Aug 2009, 15:39

Unknown Target

I am not a heavy metal pilot either maybe faster metal as in corporate citation sized jets but not heavy :) also have flown numerous twins and singles too and still do for what its worth.

If you go through my posts you will see that most have defended "Mr Biggles" and no where have I been rude to him. I have tried to be understanding realising we can all do stupid things me included.

There have been some serious errors in knowledge and judgement with this accident. Even in my last post I have tried to swing the blame to the training as I am now really having a hard job getting my head aound this chain of events and the attitude following it.

Pace

nb I would also be suspicious of someone who calls himself unknown target, joins today and has never made a post before.

Crash one

17th Aug 2009, 15:58

The fact that anyone can make mistakes, & that certainly includes me also, is fine. Denying they were made when they are serious, is not. And is nothing to do with training, airmanship or whatever, it is to do with integrity as a person.
And yes I would be rude to him.

Munnyspinner

17th Aug 2009, 16:11

I think the over sensitive NPPLs and others are over reacting. The slurs as far as I can see are not aimed at all pilots of anything that doesn't have an on board toilet but, specifically at Mr. H.

A simple analysis of the information provided by the pilot in question would suggest that he ended outside his own comfort zone and made a string of poor decisions. Unfortunately for him, his errors conspired to leave him 40ft up a tree - where you can't hide, well not for long.

OK , bad news for light aviation generally as events such as this do tend to colour public opinion. All the more reason that VH shoulder full responsibility. Not ATC who he claims may have given him a duff piece of guidance ( incidentally, I dug out an old VFR guide which clearly states for Dundee that "A/C movements to the North of the aerodrome are not permitted due to poor vis from TWR" ( words to that effect) . Not the folks at Barrow that OK'd his flight plan, not the aircraft manufacturer whose wings tanks mean that it is difficult to gauge contents, not the golf course that was busy, not the kids playing footie on the playing fields or the houses at the end of the open space, not the the tree, and not F**ing Biggles.

I'm with PACE on this. It is perhaps the only conclusion that either this guy wilfully ignored all the training and advice he was given or, that he didn't understand enough of it in the first place and/or, that after 4 years he has forgotten it all. Is it the system or the pilot?

Zamfire

17th Aug 2009, 16:15

"I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that a Pilots Airmanship is inversely proportional to the aircrafts Max All Up Weight and/or HP of his engine....:ugh:"

What an ignorant and arrogant thing to say. Devoid of all logic. Snobbish. "I fly a big airplane, therefore I am a better pilot than you.." Let's ban all airplanes under 12,500 lbs and keep the riff-raff out?

Where do I even begin to direct such an idiotic comment; just how much "airmanship" is required to drive a human mailing tube through the sky by pushing buttons for example?

airborne_artist

17th Aug 2009, 16:20

Unknown Target I'm sorry Pace, but you seriously expect a PPL/Ultralight pilot to know about flight level settings? Especially such a low hour pilot?NPPL(M) and JAR PPL both have to take the JAR PPL Navigation paper, in which QFE, QNH, transition altitude, flight levels and quadrantal rule are tested. VH had no excuse for his confusion as he was taught this, and tested on his knowledge prior to his NPPL(M) licence issue.

He also took the Aviation Law paper and Human Performance and Limitations, though I guess he didn't remember much of the latter :E

vanHorck

17th Aug 2009, 16:23

The misunderstanding on the flight levels comes from being on different continents.

contrary to the USA where flight levels only start above 18.000 ft (by recollection), here in Europe they can start as low as FL 35, so any VFR pilot is required to know about them before he even goes solo.

Either way it was only one of several apparantly blatent mistakes, which are all perfectly acceptable, after all we're human. What is not acceptable is an inability of a pilot to learn from his mistakes and try to change wrongs into hero like acts.

Cows getting bigger

17th Aug 2009, 16:23

Gents, let's try and remember that the TA in America is rather more than 10000ft .

Munnyspinner

17th Aug 2009, 16:29

One for unknown Target.

UT - perhaps you might reflect on the fact you are in another country, trained to a different regime where open FIR is the norm and controlled airspace can be easily avoided.

As the whole of Scottyland would fit into one of your bigger states you might appreciate that we are a bit precious about the relatively limited amounts of sky available here over our built up areas ( most of the central belt) Whilst there is plenty to go around if everyone follows the rules, the potential mess on the ground when they do not does tend to focus the mind. North of Dundee there is lots of open space to get lost in and crash but it would be desireable to avoid any incidents over a heavily populated world heritage site ( Edinburgh) and large parts of the rest of the country.

I'm a safe pilot. I passed my check ride with flying colors; I always do a run up before take off, I always do a double walkaround and double check my fuel and oil before I go up. I always practice proper radio calls and try to sound as professional as possible. Hell, I want to learn so much and be so perfect at flying that I kick myself when there's even the slightest bump in my landings - and there generally isn't, even with the 20 knot crosswind across the beach where I typically land with the under 3,000 lb DA-20 that I usually fly. And I'm teaching myself aeronautics to boot, with a $200+ library slowly being built on my shelf. Well, we're all really impressed - And your point is?

Re-Heat

17th Aug 2009, 16:30

VH,

My posts are uncharitable in the sense that you should not talk to the media, let alone recall stories of boyhood heroes in describing your unfortunate situation. A modicum of contrition is always more suitable. I would also add a not inconsiderable proportion of those flying heroes of yesteryear also came to an untimely end at their own hands in training accidents, operating to standards that have come to be known to be woefully inadequate following decades of accumulated knowledge. Knowledge that you benefit from in taking the PPL course.

My posts are also uncharitable following the clearly informed observer from the r/t, whose observations of your movements leave many of us highly concerned, both for your safety and that of commercial and private aircraft operating around you. Anyone could end up a tree in a very unfortunate case, but to meander in the manner you seem to have done requires you to swallow your tongue and get out your flight planning books to refresh your knowledge from scratch.

I would encourage you to sit as P2, or have a high-houred pilot sit as your P2 for a number of flights yet, so as to allow you to test the extent of your knowledge of TMA penetration, altitude holding, RT phraseology, flight planning, and fuel planning. We can all do with training from time to time, and you are in the (un/)enviable position of having received many active offers of assistance from those willing to help you be a safe and active member of the flying community.

I also ask you a direct question: do you presently rely on the sat-nav, or use it in conjunction with the map as a secondary nav-aid? I suspect the former, as your comments in your earlier post state that you avoided Dundee by reference to the "built-up area on the sat-nav", or words to those effect. That is dangerous, as the sat-nav should never be your primary nav source, and does not give you the same extent of situational awareness as a map, used in conjunction with a sat-nav.

We all wish you well, but our highest priority is (bluntly) not your feelings, but flight safety.

I'm sorry Pace, but you seriously expect a PPL/Ultralight pilot to know about flight level settings? Especially such a low hour pilot? If I recall correctly, he can't even go above 10,000 feet!
The UK airspace is quite different. FLs are referred to specifically in the Air Law exam, the Nav exam, the RT exam and in numerous other areas of the syllabus.