"Failed stunt causes crash" ...

[Hugh_Jarse]

... well, according to the BBC, here :

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Failed stunt 'caused air crash' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8296167.stm)

Ignoring the lack of licence, medical and maintenance (:eek:) referred to in the BBC's report of the AAIB report (which I haven't read), the report doesn't clarify exactly what kind of "stunt" is supposed to have caused this loss of control and nose-dive ... 3-up in a Cherokee ???

RIP, anyway ...

[Fake Sealion]

The AAIB report is comprehensive in its coverage of this sad incident.
It is sobering reading and alarming to realise that despite all the regulation involved in GA flying & licencing, anyone so inclined can simply bypass it and the layman passenger has no idea.

[Mariner9]

By my reading of the AAIB report, neither the lack of current licence/medical nor proper maintenance records were considered causitive.

The pilot apparently tried a manoever that either he or the aircraft (or both) were not capable of performing.

[Sallyann1234]

By my reading of the AAIB report, neither the lack of current licence/medical nor proper maintenance records were considered causitive.

No, but they are clearly indicative of the pilot's attitude towards flying an aircraft, with the sad inevitable result.

[wsmempson]

Gosh! Self taught aerobatics conducted by a pilot without a valid licence or medical, in an unmaintained aircraft running on mogas and over weight for aeros.

One for the Darwin awards?

[Pace]

The pilot was in current flying practice but neither his licence nor medical were valid. The aircraft maintenance records were incomplete and there is therefore a lack of evidence to show that the required maintenance was correctly performed on the aircraft. Despite this, the accident appears to have been as a result of a loss of control while the pilot was attempting an aerobatic manoeuvre, and not as a result of a mechanical failure in the aircraft. .

This was the final conclusion in the AAIB report. Not having a current licence, medical, maintenance is not in itself a cause of an accident although it can be, but doesnt appear to be relative to this accident.

I tend to go with SallyAnn that the lack of licences and maintenance is more indicative on the attitude of the pilot which resulted in a crash which took the lives of the two passengers and left their children without parents.
Those kids will be looking to an insurance claim which will not be forthcoming so I presume they will have to claim against his estate.

Interesting is the AAIB made no recommendations on checking licences, medicals etc citing the fact that you would not ask to see a car drivers licence before accepting a lift ??? :sad:

Pace

[Fly-by-Wife]

One for the Darwin awards?

You might want to reconsider that "joke", as two innocent people (the passengers) were killed, orphaning their children.

FBW

[cats_five]

I must be being dense, I can't find the AAIB report. Could someone kindly post the URL please?

[Michael Birbeck]

Surely this is a wake up call for the CAA to institute an online ability to check/update the license of a pilot as well as his currency etc.

The FAA allows a check on the license status of a pilot but even this doesn't really go far enough.

Such a facility would also make it far easier for would be passengers to confirm that the pilot they were going up was at least legal to fly.

[Sallyann1234]

I hope this thread isn't going to descend into flames.

On a more general point, this pilot seems to have broken the most basic rules that we all learn in our first few lessons. In my limited experience I have never knowingly personally met such a pilot. Please tell me he was a one-off?

[Justiciar]

Whilst isues of licence, ratings and medical may indeed not be causative of an accident there are a number of ramifications for the operators of the aircraft and of course the estate of the pilot and passengers who have died. The flight will be unlawful from the start which may well mean that the insurers will not pay out. This was was the case with Graham Hill, whose licence had expired and where the aircraft was actually de-registered. Colin McCray is another more recent instance where type ratings had expired, no doubt giving rise to similar problems. In the present case the owner of the aircraft could be at risk from claims where they allowed someone who seems to have been without a licence for some years to hire an aircraft. The organisation concerned might also face criminal liability. Whilst they may not have been aware of the positio they clearly should have been.

For groups, there is a clear need to keep on top of licence and medical validity to make certain that no one flys unless they are legal in every respect.

citing the fact that you would not ask to see a car drivers licence before accepting a lift ???

They have missed the point. If I lend my car to you without checking that you have a valid licence and are therefore insured I commit an offence under the Road Traffic Offenders Act!

[Pace]

This situation of mutual trust, however, is little different from accepting a lift in a person’s car or other private vehicle and is not a basis for a safety recommendation.

Michael

This is an extract from the AAIB The link to the report is here

Air Accidents Investigation: Piper PA-28-140 Cherokee, G-AWPS (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/october_2009/piper_pa_28_140_cherokee__g_awps.cfm)

Pace

[sketchy]

I think the insinuation is that the pilot owned the aircraft.

[Fly-by-Wife]

In the present case the owner of the aircraft could be at risk from claims where they allowed someone who seems to have been without a licence for some years to hire an aircraft. The organisation concerned might also face criminal liability. Whilst they may not have been aware of the positio they clearly should have been.

Justiciar, it appears that the pilot was also the owner, so this would not apply here - although you are undoubtedly correct should he have been hiring.

FBW

[robin]

Surely this is a wake up call for the CAA to institute an online ability to check/update the license of a pilot as well as his currency etc.

The FAA allows a check on the license status of a pilot but even this doesn't really go far enough.

Such a facility would also make it far easier for would be passengers to confirm that the pilot they were going up was, was at least legal to fly.

Oh no :ugh:

Are you suggesting an on-line log-book being made available to members of the public as well as our state of medical?

Don't give the CAA/EASA more 'good ideas'.

We can all remember some of the AAIB reports of pilots doing stupid things and taking innocent passengers with them. But (like the laws against possession of firearms or dangerous dogs) the criminal or thicko will ignore any rules.

I wonder what action is being taken over the behaviour of the LAME

[cats_five]

The AAIB report says he brought the plane in 1997.

[Michael Birbeck]

This situation of mutual trust, however, is little different from accepting a lift in a person’s car or other private vehicle and is not a basis for a safety recommendation.


Thanks for the link.

Who can argue with that assessment by the AAIB. As things stand that is exactly the position.

However it is not often that a passenger just accepts a ride in a plane. Generally these thing are prearranged and some sort of online facility to check the PPL holder's current status would at least give people a chance to backout or reconsider if they wanted to.

Perhaps the CAA could move further in pulling together a coherent online view of a plane's certified airworthiness and status of maintenance (whether it is club or privately owned) as well as some sort of public statement of the pilot's license and current C of E.


Are you suggesting an on-line log-book being made available to members of the public as well as our state of medical?



Short answer to this is no. This is private information but it would inform the C of E statement that I suggest would be useful on a public site.

[gasax]

I was rather waiting for the wailing and nashing to start.

The vast majority of legislation really just applies to the 'law abiding'. With cars - put a 'false' - but valid, number plate on and the world is your oyster. Inspite of all sorts of measures thousand of people have done/or doing this. speed camers - no longer apply, insurance etc no longer relevent.

Those of us who have been around a while remember the justification for the 'new LAMS'. The CAA decided that the engineering companies and engieers that they licenced were not carrying out the maintenance and inspection work correctly. The answer? Not enforcing the rules, but to produce a new LAMS schedule. Of course that was much easier than ensuring the standard they had set were being met.

The CAA have also fought several legal cases to establsih the precedent that it is the owner who is responsible for the maintenance of an aircraft - not just getting it done but also its quality. Inspite of the CAA licencing all involved.

At the end of the day this was an unfortunate incident, but if you look back they are very few like it.

For those arguing for more restrictions, further checks think about it! The more complex the rules, the more likely anyone of us will inadvertently break them. JAR introduced another level of omplexity - for no proveable safety benefit. But those changes have speeded up the 'churn rate' in PPLs dropping out.

Rules need to be proportionate and presently they lean very heavily on the majority of us. The more restrictive they become, the fewer people fly and those left are more likely to infringe them.

The 'administrative' aspects of the case are irrelevent, they might be inficative of the pilot's mindset, but they had no practical input. A botched 'wingover' at low altitude is the cause and probably 'impressing' people the motivation.

We have a hobby / livelihood which can be very unforgiving - is that why so many people here are so judgemental?

[dont overfil]

Sallyann1234,
I agree with you 100 per cent. This is a personality type, remember "Biggles" a couple of months ago.
A few more of this type of accident and psycological assessments will be part of the license requirements.
DO.

[jonburf]

Dosen't this remind you of Colin McRae crashing his helicopter??

No medical, No license, no type rating.

Stupid..

[Pace]

I have very mixed feelings on this. Firstly the fact that he had no medical licence etc had NO relevance to the crash.

IE Had he had all the documentation the accident would still have happened.

Whether his lack of licences indicated a personality type who is more prone to take risks and to do low level aerobatics to impress his passengers is another thing.

We have enough regulations as it is without further prying into our lives and habits. All these regulations do is to equal more expense to the pilot and more hassle and in the end less freedom in our already over stifled point a finger society.

If this accident had been put down to pilot incapaciation due to a heart attack and no medical for several years then yes this thread drift could be justified.

The fact is that it wasnt! The fact is that this accident was caused by someone larking about probably trying to impress his passengers and not within its weight or CofG limits.

The pilot could have had all his documentation in order and the accident would still have occured.

It would be better to stress the fact that aircraft do bite with tragic consequences when abused and that is the real lesson to be learnt from this.


Pace

[Torque Tonight]

Out of date paperwork does not, in itself, cause accidents but it does say a lot about a pilot's standard of airmanship. A significant lack of airmanship seems to be the root cause of this crash.

Some pilots have always dug their own graves. The tragedy is taking innocent people with them. You cannot legislate against people who choose to ignore legislation, the only alternatives being 'taking it on risk' as the report suggests or greater enforcement through ramp checks etc - a PITA that no-one really wants.

[englishal]

I don't see why the CAA should write to everyone to "remind" them...It won't make one iota of difference to someone intent on flying without one anyway. We want to get away from this nannying culture.

I also think that it is up to the passengers to convince themselves that the flight will be conducted safely. I won't fly with just anyone, there are a few "pilots" I have met that I wouldn't step into the plane with.

[BabyBear]

I have met that I wouldn't step into the plane with

and I bet they are properly licenced!

[Pace]

I also think that it is up to the passengers to convince themselves that the flight will be conducted safely. I won't fly with just anyone, there are a few "pilots" I have met that I wouldn't step into the plane with.

Englishal has said it for me in this paragraph. There are some pilots I would not allow any of my friends or family to fly with and sadly they have their documentation in order.

I hold FAA licences and my licences and medical status can be checked online but would a prospective passenger ever know or go to the trouble of checking for a sunday afternoon hop? I doubt it.

No its the passengers who need to be targeted to ask to see a pilots licence and current medical and to be made aware of that need! How you do that I dont know?

Pilots need to be made aware of how helpless passengers are and what a massive responsibility we hold taking people flying with us.

Pace

[Michael Birbeck]

Obviously the lack of paperwork was in no way contributory to the accident, but that lack of legality will have added immensely to the ramifications of the accident for the surviving relatives and family in that (as has been mentioned) insurance companies may not pay out etc. This goes towards compounding what is already a tragic and traumatic time for these people.

Generally I am of the opinion, the less regulation and official interevention the better but do think that a simple electronic system of pulling the CAA records together in a useful rather than useless bureaucratic way might be of some value.


Pilots need to be made aware of how helpless passengers are and what a massive responsibility we hold taking people flying with us.


Amen to that!

[Pace]

Michael

the FAA and USA have a freedom of information that we dont have. Anyone who knows my name can check my FAA ATP and last medical.

The problem with that is that it is a database and as such it is just as easy for the UK passengers to ask to see your licence and to check that your medical is in order on the spot prior to the flight.

While they are at it they can also check the insurance as you may have a valid licence and medical but NO insurance.

That would be just as easy as a passenger checking an online database and would require the same passenger motivation.

As for on the spot checks! who is going to check farmer Giles unwrapping his Piper Cub from the depths of the farmyard barn and trundling down his 400 meter field ? That is the most likely sort of scenario for an unlicenced uninsured pilot?


Pace

[juliet india mike]

I hate to say this but, just as automatic number plate recognition has snared untaxed, uninsured cars (and I know they are not 100% perfect), then Mode S which, AIUI, encodes the individual aircraft's ID, would make it easy for ATC to spot transgressors if they could get one database to talk to another. Even if not used all the time, it might encourage compliance by its very presence.

[robin]

Number plate recognition tied to the DVLC databases has found some seriously nasty individuals. Usually these cameras alert Plod further down the road to pull the scroats over.

Of course that assumes that their data is up-to-date and correct. A friend was pulled over 2 days after he'd bought his car, as they believed that he was uninsured - the data had not gone through.

And you can forget about Mode S for the light end of GA (thank goodness) for a while.

But please don't volunteer ideas like this. Our surveillance state would just love them.

[gasax]

These suggestions are chasing a problem that does not exist. Posters can think of three incidents in the recent past - 2 fatal, one not.

Over that period almost 10,000 people have died on the roads - the vast majority of these deaths caused by plain incompetence and carelessness. And yet a significant proportion of drivers are on the road illegally - by some estimates well in excess of 10% of all vehicles on the road.

If you want to protect children and others your energy would be far far better employed looking there, rather than further burdening private flying and making our hobby near untenable.

Perhaps all inexperience pilots should be banned from flying solo until they have more than 300 hours? Why not have compulsory physometric testing, security clearances and a degree before you are allowed to train for a licence? None of these 'suggestions' are much more ludicrous............ or measured.

[Michael Birbeck]

flying and making our hobby near untenable.



In what sense does making electronic records, that the CAA already have captured, available to the public render UK GA nearly untenable?

In principle I agree that we should not encumber GA with pointless rules etc. but GA here in the UK should demand more utility from the CAA. If that gives the public more useful information that might aid their safety then why not?

The FAA can do it, why not the CAA?

Your stats argument is somewhat misleading but as that is probably the basis for another thread I'll leave it there.

[Pace]

Michael

The FAA can do it, why not the CAA?

The FAA do it because there are different laws in the USA regarding data in the public domain. To do so in the UK would breach existing UK laws.

The question you have to answer is what would it achieve? If the potentail pax are savvy enough to check you online surely they can ask to see the real thing ie your licence, medical, and insurance docs. I am nervous of allowing Gordon Brown to further chuck money away in creating more jobs to fill his quangos, to create more regulations which cost us more money then to have an Army of highly paid government jobs with more people checking up on us all.

Maybe make it legal to carry a placard viewable by the passengers stating

" It is in your own interest to ask to see your pilots medical, licence and insurance documents. If these are not available or in order do not fly with the said pilot as the insurance will be void ".

I stress again although shocking to the rest of us that this pilot had NO medical or licence that fact had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CRASH! It will have voided his insurance if he had any as it would be pointless without the licence or medical.

Pace

[Michael Birbeck]

Maybe make it legal to carry a placard viewable by the passengers staing

" It is in your own interest to ask to see your pilots medical, licence and insurance documents. If these are not available do not fly with the said pilot".


That would be a sensible start.

One psychological reason why people might want to check anonymously is that it is often difficult to question someone face to face just before a flight in the sense that it might be seen as provocative or distrustful (some people have notoriously thin skins).

As for the Data Protection Act etc. I will check what personal details (medicals certainly are) might be covered by this legislation that, of course, could be changed.

I am arguing that the CAA should be providing us all with a minumum of info online right now at no extra cost to the pilots (GA & Commerical) or passengers.

I share your utter distaste for quangos etc. and am all for making GA simpler and more accessible to all.

I wonder what the UK AOPA are doing or think about subjects like this.

Not a lot one way or the other I'd guess.:(

Anyway, whatever I may think, this accident appears to have occurred because of human hubris and I suppose no website is going to stop that!

MB

[Fitter2]

I am arguing that the CAA should be providing us all with a minumum of info online right now at no extra cost to the pilots (GA & Commerical) or passengers. (My italics).

Oh you sweet innocent. Have you slept through the last twelve years, and much of the half century before that?

[gasax]

Michael you are tilting at windmills - given significant amounts of the data on G-INFO is inaccurate, the CAa address database is near hopeless, what is your 'big brother state' going to achieve? More jobsworths and more surveillance. Improving safety? How?

As for the statistics being inaccurate - they come from official sources (4 years of road deaths - over 10,700 deaths - if you want to take issue with them best of luck.....

[Shunter]

Pilot-related information such as available in FAA-land would not have prevented an accident such as this. I sincerely doubt his passengers would have had the faintest idea what he should/shouldn't have in terms of approval and where to find it.

Perhaps if he'd kept legal, instructors would have detected any creeping complacency in his flying, but we'll never know.

This man was clearly an individual who took the rules with a pinch of salt and somehow thought they didn't apply to him. I'm sure he was probably a jolly nice chap in the workplace and at home, where his actions couldn be laughed off and not do excessive damage, but as a pilot he became an irresponsible twät. It's very sad that his incompetent showing-off led to the death of 2 people who thought they were going up for a bit of fun with a trusted colleague.

[Pace]

Shunter

This is nothing unique. There are careful pilots and those that take risks and like to chuck it around a bit. A case of old and bold pilots maybe?

The licencing thing is a Red Herring as I have known pilots who fit the Bold category and some who have sadly gone to their maker. These include fully licenced PPLs, CPLs and ATPLs and instructors even an examiner but lets not go there.

The fact is aircraft bite especially when an Ego is involved, type A personality call them what you want. that is OK when on your own but very sad when innocent people who dont understand aviation put their trust in you to keep them safe. But you will never change that it has always been that way and always will be.

Pace

[Phil Space]

Shunter..how right you are.

Looking back over the last couple of years I can think of several accidents where innocent people have been taken to their graves by cowboy pilots.
The Sandown accident..Colin McRae..etc etc.

Graham Hill did the same as this pilot. Who would have dared question his qualifications and skill.

Every time we have one of these tragedies in the national news it does damage to our pastime.

It was pure luck that in this case the aircraft crashed in the centre of the two lines. In another situation he could have taken out a train.

Whenever we have an incident we get the rubberneckers and mawkers with
crocodile tears and condolences to people they don't know. Then we are told to not jump to conclusions until the report comes out. And when it does
it usually confirms the speculation

I'm all for very big red signs at every airfield asking passengers to check
pilot and aircraft papers.

But we all have a duty to report cavalier operators.

[bjornhall]

Generally I am of the opinion, the less regulation and official interevention the better but do think that a simple electronic system of pulling the CAA records together in a useful rather than useless bureaucratic way might be of some value.

And that is how the nanny state is formed... Precisely through that "generally... but..." crap.

Just stop it! Please! There are control freak bureaucrats who take such nonsense seriously, and we all suffer for it. Those who are afraid of living, go hide under your beds, and stop bothering the rest of us.

[Justiciar]

I stress again although shocking to the rest of us that this pilot had NO medical or licence that fact had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CRASH! It will have voided his insurance if he had any as it would be pointless without the licence or medical.

I am not sure that you can say this. Maybe, just maybe, had he had a valid licence and therefore done his biennial flight with an instructor he may have been that little bit safer as a pilot. The fact that there are one or two legal nutcases does not mean the rules at the other end should just be torn up if they are a reasonable method of maintaining skill and currency.

[Shunter]

I think bjorn is on the right lines. You simply can't legislate for everything and you can never legislate against stupidity. If you cross the line between common sense and cotton wool you kill the sport for everyone and stray into the territory of persecuting the many for the idiocy of the few. The many will be good boys/girls, roll over, take one for England and obey the rules, whilst the few for whom said rules were intended will simply ignore them. This makes the rules pointless, negative and ineffective.

[gasax]

There is already a signifcant body of evidence that shows the biennial review has had NO effect on reducing the accident rate.

It might seem counter intutitive but those are the facts. More and more restrictions have generally reduced competency and currency, they have not reduced the accident rate or its severity.

Until people realise that rules and restrictions are in many cases counter productive nothing will improve. If you simply try and force people to obey 'rules' some will not (for a variety of sometimes valid reasons). If people have knowledge levels which means they understand how and why doing what the rules requires makes sense - then they obey.

Unfortunately we are beset with many laws and rules which bluntly are administive nonsense and jobsworthiness.

Pounding on that they all must be obeyed means the important ones have the same relevance as the nonesense.

[1800ed]

People's responses highlight the problems we have in this country today. The scenario as I see it is: The aircraft owner has a relaxed attitude to licensing and maintenance of his aircraft. He chooses to perform manoeuvres which aren't permitted in the aircraft's state at the time of the accident, which in my opinion is plain reckless.

It should always be the pilot's responsibility to fly safely. It should have been on this man's conscience that he two children's parents in his aircraft, and the last thing he should be doing is non-permitted manoeuvres.

I don't want to live in a world where I cannot be treated as an individual who is intelligent enough to make correct judgements, and instead have to abide to further legislation due to other's stupidity. I don't want my friends and family to think that they need to ask to see my documents before a flight because I'm so careless I don't bother to follow the rules; let alone have them 'vet' me on a website before we go for a Sunday afternoon 'bimble'.

[Sallyann1234]

Pounding on that they all must be obeyed means the important ones have the same relevance as the nonesense.

That sounds like you are suggesting we just pick and choose which rules/laws to obey.

[Michael Birbeck]

There is something quintessentially British about this thread. A long litany of complaints and an almost supine ability to accept things the way they are while whining all the while.

We get the laws and the organisations we deserve. I'd like to think UK GA was better than this.

I have drifted from the sad accident that prompted this thread so I'll desist and continue to tilt while paying my subscriptions to AOPA USA.

Oh well, happy flying to us all anyway! :ok:

[flybymike]

I am a jolly nice chap and an excellent pilot, and I think that I would take a rather dim view of a bunch of passengers who queued up outside my aircraft to examine my licence, medical, ratings and ARC documents before deeming me worthy of their company. Indeed, I think I might even be in danger of politely requesting them to take a long walk off a short pier and to find a pilot more amenable to their requirements. ;)

[gasax]

Well Sallyann that is exactly what does happen - have you never broken the speed limit? Never parked in a restricted area? Never pushed your expenses / taxes?

Every day the vast majority of people break laws. They (and I!) justify it because the law bluntly is in many cases and circumstances an ass. The intention is always good, the actuality more often than not has a huge number of unintended consequences.

As with some of the other posters there are pilots I would never fly with, equally if some one wants to fly with me and they start asking for all my paperwork - 'they can sling their hook' and hire someone (who may or may not be legal but that is another matter)

I try and fly anyone who is interested. I try and make flying with me enjoyable (needless to say if will be safe I actually want to live to a ripe old age!). If they want a bit more than straight and level, we'll do that.

Yes it could all go wrong - but I'm comfortable that it will not. doubtless that was the situation in this case - unfortuantely that judgement was very wrong - regulations are unlikely to change that.

[Pace]

There are two kids who woke up this morning whos lives have been changed completely. They no longer have their parents and will never see them again. Someone a relative or close friend will be burdened with rearing those kids.

Tragic accidents happen in cars and planes but in aircraft they get more media exposure.

I like most here am opposed to yet more regulations and the licencing is NOT an issue other than I hope this pilot has some solid assets for these kids to claim against.

For me the two issues are firstly flying aerobatics in an aircraft loaded in a way that aerobatics are not approved and secondly attempting manouvers which were risking his precious cargo.

Flying is very different as you cannot just hit the brakes and be parked up in seconds as in a car.
In flying passengers are totally reliant on the pilot up front if anything does go wrong.
This is where I have an issue as on the whole flying is easy. it is when things go wrong that the quality of the pilot is revealed.

Its his judgements and abilities which will determine the outcome.

There are fully licenced pilots who I wouldnt trust in the "when things go wrong scenario" and there are those who I know are good pilots. Their hours or ratings dont always indicate which group they lie in.

All we can learn from this is to be reminded what a huge responsibility we have to the people we carry and that when flying bites it bites hard with no mercy.

Pace

[yakker]

While there was no indication of any mechanical problems with the aircraft, I find it amazing the 'paper work' for the maintenance is not complete. According to the report' the maintenance people involved did not follow the BCAR A8-15 guidelines. No wonder we are being hit with the extra costs of Part M, and needing to go through the aircrafts full history. Will the CAA be taking the maintenance people to task for their transgressions?

[gasax]

No yakker they will not, see my earlier posting.

One of the major reasons for people not complying with regulations is the potential for them being detected not doing and the likely sanctions.

On both of those counts the CAA consistently fail - be it under Part M or the preceeding regime. Most regulators do, so the CAA are not necessarily particularly incompetent.

The 'learning' on that issue is that all the legal responsibility is upon the owner - not the engineer, his organisation or the CAA. That may not be particularly 'fair' but that is the situation.

[A and C]

The reason that this aircraft came to grief was not a maintenance or paperwork issue, it was pure "Human Factors".

For some reason the pilot took the aircraft outside of its limmits and as a result him and his passengers paid the price.

It is not paperwork, laws or regulations that prevent accidents, it is common sense and good practice had the latter been used then there would have been no accident.

[Captain Stable]

I agree with you - but only a certain amount.

Had this man obeyed the rules, regulations etc. he would not have been involved in this accident.

And THAT is why the rules are there. The rules themselves don't prevent accidents - of course they don't. But their observance can avoid accidents.

What's more, he hasn't paid the price - he's out of it.

The people who are now paying the price is two totally innocent children who are now orphans. And as I said on the other thread, I hope they sue this man's estate for everything that remains.

[BabyBear]

The people who are now paying the price is two totally innocent children who are now orphans. And as I said on the other thread, I hope they sue this man's estate for everything that remains.

I agree, it is 2 completely innocent kids that have paid the price, I also agree that, if the insurance does not pay out (assuming he had insurance to start with), then they should seek to be 'compensated' from his estate.

If that indeed is the case then the pilots own family/beneficiaries will also suffer with the on going legal action as well as financially.

There just aren't any winners, nor would there have been had he been successful with the wing over.

The whole sorry story makes you wonder what he was about.

All for nothing and so avoidable!

[Captain Stable]

BabyBear, it is a sad fact that there are no winners in a case like this. But perhaps, just perhaps, if people thought that fooling around in an aircraft, flying uninsured, "forgetting" to renew your medical might result in your dependants being left penniless, fewer people might do idiotic stunts like this.

[BabyBear]

But perhaps, just perhaps, if people thought that fooling around in an aircraft, flying uninsured, "forgetting" to renew your medical might result in your dependants being left penniless, fewer people might do idiotic stunts like this.

I did think the above, if considered, could act as a deterrent, but decided if the risk to his own life wasn't reason enough to have a medical, keep in currency and ensure the aircraft was maintained properly, then the likelihood is considering his family wasn't going to make any difference.

For me the saddest thing is that he had others in the aircraft.

Now, had he been alone it would have been a whole different set of circumstances, but then again, he probably wouldn't have been trying to show off!

[Andy_RR]

People have been and will continue to be killed by the recklessness of others.

These two newly orphaned children aren't the first orphans, nor with they be the last.

Bureacracy, regulations and legislation are easily created, but rarely destroyed.

Be careful what you wish for!

Caveat emptor - or let the flyer beware!

[BIGJ91]

I doubt very much whether more regulation would have protected the hapless victims of this "pilot" but I'm interested to know more about the body of evidence showing no benefit from the biennial instruction rule- I've wondered about that. I've had very useful coaching from the instructor I normally use but wonder if that's universal.

I know it goes against the grain but maybe we should be a bit more prepared to speak up when we're worried about other pilots in extreme cases even to the CAA. Apart from anything else the antics of an irresponsible few could screw things up completely for the rest of us very quickly and maybe we also have a common duty towards the non-pilots who enter our world

Passengers are incredibly vulnerable and all the online documentation in the world wouldn't protect them because they'd never read it. Nor would large notices telling them they ought to check the status of the pilot as they'll "know" he's a good pilot because they know him. They also tend to confuse confidence/arrogance with ability and probably also assume that we operate in an environment where someone like this perpetrator simply wouldn't be allowed to fly.

Reading this report I did wonder how he managed to get a CofE signed off without a current medical and though it's probably not causal in this accident there did seem to be a lot of general casualness in the whole environment.

[flybymike]

I'm interested to know more about the body of evidence showing no benefit from the biennial instruction rule-

The CAA did a flight safety review a couple of years ago which showed that the new JAR/EASA regs including the BFR, 90 day rules, annual MEP tests , 12 hours in 12 months etc produced no discernible improvement in safety statistics since ( and I once thought I would never say this) the "good old CAA days"

All this sea of unnecessary regulation has brought us, is more expense , inconvenience, and hassle guaranteed to strangle what is left of GA to death, deter new entrants, and further increase the 75% of pilots who let their (new 5 yearly taxed ) licenses lapse at the first renewal. All of this just to create and maintain jobs and income for the boys and bureaucrats who invent it.

[englishal]

He chooses to perform manoeuvres which aren't permitted in the aircraft's state at the time of the accident,
Anyone know what "stunt" he did?

Regarding paperwork - it is relatively easy to get in a mix and end up being illegal accidentally (though not unsafe). A few years ago this happened to us, one group member did the 50hr but didn't sign the logbooks to do whatever he was meant to do. The 50 hr had been done, but paperwork wise we were illegal for a while and effectively flying with no CofA - but that doesn't mean the aircraft was unsafe.

With this new maintenance regime it is very easy to find youself in a pickle unless you let your maintenance organisation take care of ALL maintenance....then make sure you don't choose one that falisfies logbooks.....

The FAA reduced requirements for the IR specifically to encourage people to do it. The results were an improvement in safety.

[bjornhall]

Anyone know what "stunt" he did?

Appears to have been either lazy eights in the aerobatic sense (allowed in the Utility category, which this wasn't) or stall turns (never allowed in a PA28).

[B.U.D.G.I.E]

Again a very sad loss of life that like most of these incidents is completely avoidable. I think that is shows massive disrespect by pilots who continually ignore rules and regulations set out for one reason only. Safety.....:ugh:

I think the important point in the report pointing out the likely lapse of certs by leaving the flying school and a proper licensed airfield. My view is that these little flying sites need to be properly regulated or closed. There are to many of you out there willing to take risks and show off well beyond your skill level or the ability of the aircraft.

I remember a while back an airfield not far from the location of this crash. A plane took off with no transponder switched on and crashed into a plane minding its own.

Like drivers of cars with no insurance that take risks and drivers who show off and crash. Please please fly within your limits or not at all. :=

[Unusual Attitude]

"I think the important point in the report pointing out the likely lapse of certs by leaving the flying school and a proper licensed airfield. My view is that these little flying sites need to be properly regulated or closed."

Utter balls, I own my own aircraft and keep it at a licensed airfield and no-one has ever asked to see either my aircrafts certs or mine, makes no difference where it is located.

"I remember a while back an airfield not far from the location of this crash. A plane took off with no transponder switched on and crashed into a plane minding its own."

So what about non-transponder equipped aircraft? Are you suggesting they be banned from the skies also? Under a basic service, transponder or not you still have a responsability to SEE and AVOID other aircraft.

Never heard such rubbish in my life.

[englishal]

B.U.D.G.I.E's post is surely a wind up?

I fly my own aeroplane from an unlicenced airfield and are not a member of any flying club....

[Crash one]

I think the important point in the report pointing out the likely lapse of certs by leaving the flying school and a proper licensed airfield. My view is that these little flying sites need to be properly regulated or closed. There are to many of you out there willing to take risks and show off well beyond your skill level or the ability of the aircraft.

I remember a while back an airfield not far from the location of this crash. A plane took off with no transponder switched on and crashed into a plane minding its own.


I beg your pardon?
I left the "sanctuary" of the flying school, bought my own a/c & operate from a grass strip, neg transponder.
I did this in an attempt to become more aware of my own responsibilities as to Go / No go, less reliant on the views of others etc.
The strip is unregulated by jobsworths, w*nkers, plonkers, morons & the like. We who are based there operate responsibly, speak to Scottish / Military as required.
So kindly get off our backs & think of some way of instilling a sense of self discipline, responsibility, common sense, etc into the pilot who may need it! Or is it easier to write another set of rules?
As has been said, you cannot legislate against those that will not listen.
They tried it with the gun laws. How many armed assaults, robberies etc are carried out using properly licenced weapons legally owned by the perpetrator?
There seems to be a number of posters who think some form of regulation is necessary here.
The regulation is already in force!!!!!
Licence Revalidation. Medical. A/C Maintenance requirements. A/C POH.
What the hell else do you need??
The only thing that may work would be total policing of airfields, licence/paperwork checks before access to your a/c. Escorted to the a/c, supervised as you pre-flight, pax checked, passports etc. Is that what you want? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[eharding]

Again a very sad loss of life that like most of these incidents is completely avoidable. I think that is shows massive disrespect by pilots who continually ignore rules and regulations set out for one reason only. Safety.....:ugh:

I think the important point in the report pointing out the likely lapse of certs by leaving the flying school and a proper licensed airfield. My view is that these little flying sites need to be properly regulated or closed. There are to many of you out there willing to take risks and show off well beyond your skill level or the ability of the aircraft.

I remember a while back an airfield not far from the location of this crash. A plane took off with no transponder switched on and crashed into a plane minding its own.

Like drivers of cars with no insurance that take risks and drivers who show off and crash. Please please fly within your limits or not at all. :=

http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/files/images/obvious_troll.preview.jpg

[Lister Noble]

Has it eaten half the women,seems a very male dominated gathering to me.;)

[Justiciar]

I remember a while back an airfield not far from the location of this crash. A plane took off with no transponder switched on and crashed into a plane minding its own.

Do you get the feeling he doesn't know what a transponder is, how it functions and what its limitations are :ugh:

[Vino Collapso]

Do you get the feeling he doesn't know what a transponder is, how it functions and what its limitations are

Yeah but all his aeroplanes on MS Flight Sim have a transponder and he uses it religiously. :suspect::suspect:

[proplover]

My simple view on the factors contributing to this accident are:

1) No licence = No flight = No accident = everyone lives = no orphans
2) No medical = No flight = No accident = everyone lives = no orphans
3) Aircraft paperwork not in order = No flight = No accident = everyone lives = no orphans
4) Aircraft in incorrect configuartion = no aerobatics\"spirited" flying = No accident = everyone lives = no orphans

The guy was out of order, knowingly breaking the rules and selfish. Whilst no one goes out to crash you must make sure that your own personel paperwork is in order, your aircraft is in good order and you fly within yours and the aircrafts limits. His neglect cost trusting two people their lives in terrible circumstances and orphaned two children.

It will be intresting to see the Insurance companies take on this, if it was indeed even insured.

Lets be realistic, any additional involvment by the CAA or worse still JAR/EASA eg some form of database, will allow them to pass on their incurred costs (plus margin) straight onto GA owners & pilots. In fact there's probably someone in a dusty office already looking at the potential revenue.

As a GA pilots we all have an enormous onus on us to ensure that any passengers we take are given a SAFE and LEGAL flight - their lives are in YOUR hands.

[Sir George Cayley]

This has made me stop and reflect on some "one offs" I've been acquainted with over the years many of whom are no longer with us.

Some went alone, some took innocent lives with them. There's an AAIB report in preparation which will (I predict) reveal another one off who thought they could fly in xxxx without xxxx.

Just reflect for a minute. Do you come across someone at your field who wears the title "Most likely to be the Next"?

You do don't you. Would you the next time you see them tell them your concerns? Would you dob them into to the Air Police?

I've only ever said to one fellow club member that I didn't think they were safe and he took it quite well, although I was ready to run away. It's very difficult to confront the issue within yourself let alone with a fellow pilot.

Can peer 'regulation' play a part in safety?

Sir George Cayley

[BabyBear]

Proplover, in some ways it's a shame he has caused so much devastation and has had an easy out. It would have been much more fitting had he survived, been severely punished and had to live with the consequences of his actions.

With so many reasons he should not have been flying it's hard to believe there are not several people knew he should not have taken to the air.

If that is the case I wonder how they feel!

[B.U.D.G.I.E]

Proplover you have a very good point........

I see that my post has sparked some interest. Not sure what this troll thing is all about as I am neither large or green. The simple fact of the matter is that lives are being lost for no other reason than stupidity. Now I love flying as much as the next but done properly, safely and within the rules please.
Unless you have witnessed some of the stupid things that some pilots do then you may not understand where i'm coming from.
Not so long ago a pilot at an airfield in the middle of the country came back into land with twiggs stuck in the wheels of his aircraft having made an approach to a main road he mistook for the runway. Those people need removing from aviation. Maybe if you guys who think your so good should police it from the inside and report these cowboys yourself rather than thinking some one else will do it or for them to come unstuck. Something no one wants to happen.:=

[worrab]

Those people need removing from aviation.

- You mean remove everyone from GA who's ever made a mistake? - DANG that's me grounded.

[Malcom]

It all comes down to self discipline - some can't and some won't entertain it.

[flybymike]

Roads can indeed look like runways, as can taxiways . That is because they are all tarmac strips. I deserve to be banned for this possible confusion which I am unable to overcome, and next time I pick up a few "twiggs" in the spats after getting airborne , I will jolly well get out and remove them before I land gain.

[BabyBear]

It all comes down to self discipline - some can't and some won't entertain it.


Then maybe we should all consider our responsibilities where some demonstrate a lack of self discilpline.........if there is a chance it could save kids being orphaned?

[Crash one]

Not so long ago a pilot at an airfield in the middle of the country came back into land with twiggs stuck in the wheels of his aircraft having made an approach to a main road he mistook for the runway.

I find that hard to believe, what have twigs, correction twiggs got to do with main roads?
I suggest, Sunshine, that you get back to your Flight Sim & leave the educated judgment to some of us who know something about flying.
If you want my opinion of that pilot's reason for the twigs it is probably because he muffed a bit of low flying & refused to admit it! Do you really believe that we are so bloody stupid that we can mistake a road for a runway? Get a grip! grow up & stop talking bull****!
& I DO NOT LIKE THE:= THANK YOU!

[englishal]

It is not our job to police other pilots....else we'll end up with a load of busy bodies poking their noses in where it is not required.

[Crash one]

I agree with that, we already have quite enough.

[BabyBear]

It is not our job to police other pilots....else we'll end up with a load of busy bodies poking their noses in where it is not required.


Absolutely agree, however given the extreme disregard for the law in this case it's a shame someone had not stood up for the innocent.

How would you feel now if you had known this individual and were aware he had such an irresponsible attitude? Would you be asking yourself if you could have prevented the tragic accident?

How many times has this fellow got away with it, and had it not happened when it did, when would it have happened? It seems to me it was only a matter of time.

Do we all not have a duty to protect the unwary and to protect GA from additional red tape?

There is a big difference between 'policing' and taking positive action in cases like this.

[Phil Space]

There will be another similar accident involving an irresponsible pilot along here soon!

[Malcom]

Do we all not have a duty to protect the unwary and to protect GA from additional red tape?


Dont we all have a duty just to play the game anyway? In whatever walk of life, the rules are there to protect the unwary already.

[BabyBear]

Dont we all have a duty just to play the game anyway? In whatever walk of life, the rules are there to protect the unwary already.

Clearly the rules don't always work and the danger is they will be expanded.

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Few rules are as poorly policed as those concerning general aviation.

[englishal]

however given the extreme disregard for the law in this case it's a Shame someone had not stood up for the innocent.
Easy to say in hindsight though. Apparently he was not uncurrent and was seen flying (not nescessarily badly either) often.

How does one police something like this? He was clearly current, if not licensed - how are we to know if he is licensed or not?

How do I know his aeroplane can't run on MoGas (nb: many low compression lycomings can, just maybe not under the CAA rules - a paperwork exercise probably)?

How do I know that that aeroplane I see joe bloggs flying every week is not certified for aerobatics (my Rallye is, but most aren't).

How do we know that the pax were not egging him on to do something "outside of his envelope"?

Very tricky one.....I would not step into the aeroplane of someone I didn't know, and I'd probably not step into the aeroplane of someone I did know but was a "jack the lad" type.

[BabyBear]

englishal, all valid points, however to identify all you suggest as a total outsider, not knowing the pilot, would be 'policing'. My thinking is more along the lines of those of us who have suspicions. It's all too easy to hide behind the, 'it's not my job' attitude. Luckily I have never had cause to consider taking action (other than checking out an admin. error on G-INFO re an aircraft that did carry public). This incident has made me question how I would deal with a situation where I did have reasonable suspicion. Hopefully I will never be tested as I have no wish to be put in the position and would find it extremely difficult. Equally if I chose not to take action and a similar event had to occur I would struggle to explain it away with the points you make.

Another way to think of it would be to consider how you would feel if it was someone close to you that was the passenger and you discovered that others had doubts about the legality of the pilot, deciding it wasn't their responsibility.

That said there are always going to be some who slip through the net.

[Crash one]

There will be another similar accident involving an irresponsible pilot along here soon!


This is either an educated guess or an informed warning. Care to advise which? & is there anything that can be done to prevent it?

[Phil Space]

I'll be banned again if I tell you.

Wait and see:ok:

[bjornhall]

This incident has made me question how I would deal with a situation where I did have reasonable suspicion. Hopefully I will never be tested as I have no wish to be put in the position and would find it extremely difficult. Equally if I chose not to take action and a similar event had to occur I would struggle to explain it away with the points you make.

You are not responsible for any other pilot's actions. Simple as that. And it is quite unlikely that any action you would take if you did have what you consider 'reasonable suspicion' would actually improve anything. Far more likely that people cause trouble when their 'reasonable suspicion' turned out to be not very reasonable at all.

This accident need not have been caused by anything that was even illegal. The report, if one reads it with an open mind, is filled with nothing but speculation. Nowhere is it established that the "stunts" the pilot had been previously observed to be flying was anything other than aerobatic lazy eights, which the PA28 is approved for when flown in the utility category. Nowhere is it established that the accident was preceded by a non-approved maneuver, until we have a witness who can tell a 58 degree bank from a 62 degree bank from the ground.

Ill-advised, probably, but not necessarily illegal.

The only two sensible conclusions in the accident report: That the accident was not caused by the irregularities with the pilot's certificate, and that the accident is not cause for any safety recommendations.

[BabyBear]

You are not responsible for any other pilot's actions. Simple as that.

That rather states the obvious and is irrelevant. What it doesn't change is our 'moral' duty to other fellow humans and GA.

And it is quite unlikely that any action you would take if you did have what you consider 'reasonable suspicion' would actually improve anything. Far more likely that people cause trouble when their 'reasonable suspicion' turned out to be not very reasonable at all.


Total speculation about a hypothetical situation without any knowledge of me or foundation.

Ill-advised, probably, but not necessarily illegal.


It leaves me almost speechless.

Given the numerous laws he broke just being in the air and here on PPRuNe you actually defend him!

Are you really the kind of guy who would walk past a burning house and not dial 999 because it's not your business and you wouldn't want to interfere just in case Hollywood was in the area shooting a movie? Or is the more to your 'reasoning'?

[englishal]

I think that if one KNOWS that someone is clearly dangerous or illegal then Yes by all means they should warn prospective passengers if given the chance.

However there are so many busy bodies in GA who would just love to become "Air Police" that it makes me shudder to think of twitching clubhouse curtains.

Regarding paperwork issues, lets say I let my JAA license and medical laps yet still carried on flying, would I be illegal?......(the answer is No by the way).

Our aircraft logbooks are now with our maintenance organistation, they take care of all the entries in them, I don't get to see them unless I ask. Now there was a case not so long ago where one maintenance organistaion was falsifying logbooks....so now what?

Just pointing out how difficult it is to dob people in.

[bjornhall]

Given the numerous laws he broke just being in the air and here on PPRuNe you actually defend him!

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. No, I think you need to work on your comprehension, period.

Try to understand that accidents can happen without anyone braking any laws. Try to understand that just because someone broke a law preceding the accident, that may not be what caused the accident. That's what I said, nothing else.

As for the rest of your pathetic drivel... :rolleyes::mad:

[Flying Lawyer]

A and C

The reason that this aircraft came to grief was not a maintenance or paperwork issue, it was pure "Human Factors".

For some reason the pilot took the aircraft outside of its limits and as a result him and his passengers paid the price.

It is not paperwork, laws or regulations that prevent accidents, it is common sense and good practice had the latter been used then there would have been no accident.

I agree.

The AAIB concluded: The pilot was in current flying practice but neither his licence nor medical were valid. The aircraft maintenance records were incomplete and there is therefore a lack of evidence to show that the required maintenance was correctly performed on the aircraft.
Despite this, the accident appears to have been as a result of a loss of control while the pilot was attempting an aerobatic manoeuvre, and not as a result of a mechanical failure in the aircraft. .

Having considered all the circumstances, the AAIB did not consider it necessary to make any safety recommendations.
IMHO they were right. I have seen no evidence, either in this thread or in many years of dealing with the aftermath of aviation accidents, that there is a need to change the existing regulations.



.

[Malcom]

Originally Posted by bjornhall
You are not responsible for any other pilot's actions. Simple as that.

That rather states the obvious and is irrelevant. What it doesn't change is our 'moral' duty to other fellow humans and GA.




Plenty of reasons in the real world for not poking your snout in other peoples business, unfortunately. Personal Responsibility needs to be revived.

[gyrotyro]

Englishal

"Our aircraft logbooks are now with our maintenance organistation, they take care of all the entries in them, I don't get to see them unless I ask. Now there was a case not so long ago where one maintenance organistaion was falsifying logbooks....so now what?"

A thread drift question. Should the pilot/owner have a duty of care to ensure that the a/c documentation is correct ? By leaving them with the engineers you risk losing them should they go bankrupt etc. I know many people do leave them at the hangar but it seems risky to me.

[englishal]

Isn't it part of this new Part M or whateveritiscalled "controlled environment" ARC regime which means that they should have control of the logbooks? That is the way I understand it...

[Malcom]

Isn't it part of this new Part M or whateveritiscalled "controlled environment" ARC regime which means that they should have control of the logbooks? That is the way I understand it...


Apparantly that depends on your definition of controlling the log books. Well, on this forum anyway.

Anyway, if medicals,etc,etc are by-the-by, whos going to give a s**t about that anyway!

[IO540]

Just read the AAIB report. What a total cowboy.

How about this bit:

In October 1997, some six months and 30 hours of flying since he bought the aircraft, the entries in his personal logbook ended, totalling 330 hours.
In September 1999 the pilot started a second personal logbook in which he recorded 800 hours as the starting value.

Somebody like this had to keep a low profile, including not having check flights etc, because there would always be a risk of bumping into somebody who spotted the huge amounts of forged time. At best, he would have to be careful in his choice of companion pilots / examiners, and kept them well spread geographically. It's a bit like I claimed that my engine (grey) is red - the first such person to see my engine will realise I am a stupid liar, and will probably tell a load of others.

One wonders how many of these types are about. I wonder how many at his airfield knew about him? I guess Sittles Airfield (wherever that is) is not a very busy place. But those close to him must have known what he was up to.

Clearly the only tools available to control the number of cowboys flying are

1) Ramp checks (the CAA doesn't do any, but the FAA sure as hell does them in the USA **)

2) Incidental peer group surveillance (for want of a better phrase). The FAA pilot database makes it easy to spot the "paperwork cowboys" who in all probability have cowboy attitudes to everything else they do, but over here the data protection policy means that anybody who knows the ATC protocols, or who flies non-radio from a strip, and never flies abroad, can be illegal indefinitely. And this pilot probably fitted these categories perfectly.

The AAIB is right that the lack of paperwork was not causal but obviously it ties in with attitude to risk. The only possible reason one might fly totally illegally (but safely) is if they have a medical condition which prevents them flying legally; I've never heard of that and with the NPPL a lot of things are feasible.

But there is nothing one can do about a totally unsupecting member of the public taking a flight with some pl0nker and them all getting killed. These days, most parents are rightly wary of letting their kid go in a car driven by a teenage driver who they don't know, but it is going to take a lot more awareness, and a lot more bad publicity for GA, before this spreads to GA passengers.

** The CAA has been doing some thorough GA ramp checks very recently, under a DfT program not apparently previously applied to GA, though the indications were that these were aimed mainly at foreign reg types.

The Graham Hill case is a bit odd. I have read the report on it, do not believe he was a cowboy, and cannot believe that he knew the plane was totally illegal (not registered, so no CofA etc). I suspect he, being both wealthy and very busy, delegated that stuff to some "private secretary" type who didn't do it. A lot has been published on this accident, some of which can't be repeated here without getting jumped on, but that was a different era (pre GPS etc) where things were routinely done which most responsible pilots would not do today.

[S-Works]

Sidetracking slightly.... IO what exactly is your interest in the Grahame Hill story, you raise the subject of it with monotonous regularity. I count more than 30 threads that you have referred back to the subject and a number of spats that you have gotten into over the years over it.

Could you share why you have such a fixation on it?

[gasax]

What a nest of busybodies!

An accident which is pretty uncommon, and yet a whole variety of poster want more restrictions, more legislation, more interference.

What will that achieve? The vast majority of ppls simply do not have the knowledge to understand the regulations - you only have to look at many of the near gormless questions postered here (and the incorrect answers!).

And these people are going to 'police my or your activities? Not bl**dy likely!

Yes this was unfortunate - but almost any club pilot could have done the same thing - would that make it any better? Yes his bits of paper may be in better order - but the outcome of hitting the ground at 173mph has nothing to do with paper and much more to do with kinetic energy.

The vast majority of flying regulations have much more to do with regulating commerical activity than real safety. To all those suggesting that other pilots ensure wwe stay legal - how keen are you on my calling the police if I find you exceeding the speed limit, parking on a yellow line or not having water in your windscreen washers (all are of course illegal)??

Makes the work of the Stasi look very laudable...............

[BabyBear]

Try to understand that accidents can happen without anyone braking any laws. Try to understand that just because someone broke a law preceding the accident, that may not be what caused the accident.

There you go stating the obvious again, followed by personal insults. You are a real bright spark aren't you!

You appear so self righteous I am beginning to wonder if maybe your whole point about defending the pilot is possibly because you are like minded and therefore identify with him?

The fact that accidents happen without anyone breaking the law is not justification for not trying to reduce accidents!

Let's just agree to disagree as you are clearly incapable of reasoned debate without resorting to personal insults. Happy flying bjornhall.

[B.U.D.G.I.E]

Well although some of you did not like what I had to say it has sparked some debate between you and some seem to have the same opinion. Some of you put it better than me but i think the hymn sheet is the same. Not sure the personal insults from crash one were needed. But if it makes you happy.:{

Kind of expected that of the over 4000 people who have read this thread the most are the type of pilots who do take pride in their flying and the ones that bit. Well I did'nt expect anything else.

I don't have a flight sim and know quite a lot about flying. Just seem to have a different point of view than the others. But if we were all the same this would be a boring place. All I know is that as I get older I won't be making the kind of stupid mistakes that end up on the AAIB website.

[gasax]

Well budgie - great intention, but it actually needs a great deal more than easy comments.

A lazy eight at low altitude actually needs to be flown very conservatively to ensure room to recover. The vast majority of posters have banged on about the illegality of the flight. Very few have commented on what actually caused it (could that be because very few of them actually know how to fly a 'lazy eight'?).

It is generally a very safe manoeurve - but it needs control and understanding (and space if not caried out well).

So make sure your performance is as good as your stated intentions!

[englishal]

could that be because very few of them actually know how to fly a 'lazy eight'
I do and "8's on pylons" and "chandelles" and I have done them all in 172's, PA28's and Rallye's ;)

[bjornhall]

Let's just agree to disagree as you are clearly incapable of reasoned debate without resorting to personal insults. Happy flying bjornhall.

If you want reasoned debate, go back to before you took off on that "defending the pilot", "not going to call 999 if you pass a house on fire" bull****. If you make no effort to even understand what I'm saying, what's the point of debating with you?

If you want to discuss, pay some attention.

[Captain Stable]

It's a while since I've done any aerobatics, but I think I could still remember how. In my case, it was a Christen Eagle and a Stearman. Cuban 8's were the only thing to get my stomach going... :yuk:

[cats_five]

<snip>
All I know is that as I get older I won't be making the kind of stupid mistakes that end up on the AAIB website.

Guess you plan giving up before you get older then. None of us can be sure we won't make a mistake that means we end up on the AAIB website.

With regard to how he managed to fly so long without a valid medical and (I believe) check flights. I fly gliders, at our club they keep our medicals, and also records of when each of us is due our annual or bi-annual check flights. (Bronze badge folks get check flights every year, Silver & higher folks every 2 years assuming we don't get out of currency, defined as 90 days). Since we have very on-the-ball people doing the administration (both in the office and on the airfield) I doubt very much that anyone slips through the cracks.

I have also had to produce a copy of my medical at all other clubs I've flown at, though they are not to know if I produce the one from 2006 that I had to get another one last year following major surgery!

[Maoraigh1]

Is it possible this guy had a computer based log system, which accounted for the extra hours when he started the second log book, and which he went back to again, and stopped filling in the paper record? The report just says the no record could be found.

[IO540]

could that be because very few of them actually know how to fly a 'lazy eight'?I strongly doubt he was flying lazy eights, of the standard sort done in the FAA CPL for example. That is a very gentle maneuver which should be within the ability of any even half competent pilot to do safely (if not to the FAA checkride standards, which takes a lot more practice).

A chandelle is a lot harder to do correctly...

The report suggested a wingover which to me suggests a bank angle approaching 90 degrees.

Is it possible this guy had a computer based log system, which accounted for the extra hours when he started the second log bookNot given the time gap. To go from 330 to 800hrs in 2 years is well within Walter Mitty territory, in GA. We all know of some well known "forum pilots" who made such claims..... Anyway, just work out the cost of that amount of airborne time, and ask yourself how much after tax pay would be needed to support that level of flying. It's not impossible but exceedingly unlikely given the aircraft type. It would be in the short haul commercial pilot territory. Anyway, you can see the Annual hours for the aircraft tail number on G-INFO.

[Crash one]

Not sure the personal insults from crash one were needed. But if it makes you happy.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

They are when you suggest that my type of flying be closed down or unnecessarily regulated.
You suggest that too many of us show off.
Where do get these facts from?
What justification can you produce for closing these "little flying sites" as you call them?
In my opinion you do not know enough about the aviation world to be entitled to make such comments, even though you think you do.
It looks to me that you have never seen an "unregulated" grass strip, so I stand by my insults, though they do not make me happy! I would rather you knew what you were talking about, before winding people up.:=

[bjornhall]

I strongly doubt he was flying lazy eights, of the standard sort done in the FAA CPL for example. That is a very gentle maneuver which should be within the ability of any even half competent pilot to do safely (if not to the FAA checkride standards, which takes a lot more practice).

A chandelle is a lot harder to do correctly...

The report suggested a wingover which to me suggests a bank angle approaching 90 degrees.

When it says in the POH that the aircraft is approved for "the following acrobatic maneuvers: lazy eight, chandelle and steep turns" while flown in the utility category, I've always taken that to mean aerobatic lazy eights, i.e., bank angle exceeding 60 degrees and/or pitch exceeding 30 degrees up or 20 degrees down. If it's the FAA CPL type of lazy eight, why would it only be approved in the utility category?

That's what I have in mind when suggesting the reported maneuvers appear consistent with the pilot attempting a lazy eight. A wingover to me is one half of an aerobatic lazy eight. :)

But, of course, they also appear consistent with a stall turn.

[S-Works]

Not given the time gap. To go from 330 to 800hrs in 2 years is well within Walter Mitty territory, in GA. We all know of some well known "forum pilots" who made such claims..... Anyway, just work out the cost of that amount of airborne time, and ask yourself how much after tax pay would be needed to support that level of flying. It's not impossible but exceedingly unlikely given the aircraft type. It would be in the short haul commercial pilot territory. Anyway, you can see the Annual hours for the aircraft tail number on G-INFO.

470 hours in 2 years is only 235 hours a year. Perfectly possible for an active owner pilot. Not everyone sits and pontificates about how anyone who fly's more than them (say 150 hours) must be a 'walter mitty', some just get on and do it..... Get over it Peter - Some people just fly more than you.

Not to mention something like an old Cherokee is a pretty cheap aircraft to run at around £50 an hour compared to something like a TBM or Cirrus so not really expensive for someone who ran a successful business to operate.

***** I am not defending the pilot in this case, the lack of licence and medical were not acceptable behaviour. I knew the pilot in passing and he never struck me as that sort of person.

[Malcom]

why would it only be approved in the utility category?

Because thats the limitation of the approval?

[englishal]

I knew the pilot in passing and he never struck me as that sort of person.
That is the problem with pilots policing other pilots. If someone of your experience didn't spot this guy as being a cowboy then perhaps they are more difficult to spot after all?

why would it only be approved in the utility category?
Because the utility cat is more restrictive. In our aeroplane we can do loops, rolls, stall turns etc... while in the utility catagory but not in the normal catagory. To be in the utility catagory, max weight is reduced and the back seat must be removed. In the utility catagory recovery is guaranteed if correct pilot inputs are made, in the normal catagory there is nosuch guarantee.

[mm_flynn]

470 hours in 2 years is only 235 hours a year. Perfectly possible for an active owner pilot.
but very unusual for a '20 hour a year guy'.

All of the periods of time with either airframe of pilot logs correspond to an annual flying rate of 20 hours. In addition, the airframe log over a period of 8 years, which covers the period in question, shows only 170 hours - total. So even if ALL of this was flown in the two year log book gap, it still implies flying another aircraft for 300 hours in 2 years with no evidence left.

For someone who flew 20 hours a year for all but two years of their career, you would have thought that would be a notable event and the AAIB would quickly have noticed.

Unfortunately, 430 ish hours of the pilots logged time have a very high probability of not having been flown.



PS - I too am interested in the Graham Hill case - primarily because it appears to be one of the few documented cases of an insurer not paying out to third parties as a result of 'technical irregularities'. This will be another case of interest (assuming there actually was insurance purchased) as the level of 'irregularity' is alarmingly high.

[S-Works]

For someone who flew 20 hours a year for all but two years of their career, you would have thought that would be a notable event and the AAIB would quickly have noticed.

Indeed, I was making a general observation rather than one specifically about this case.

That is the problem with pilots policing other pilots. If someone of your experience didn't spot this guy as being a cowboy then perhaps they are more difficult to spot after all?

I think, thats a very valid point. I think if we try and rely on our feelings of others to police things, we would have everyone that IO540 does not like slapped in irons for being a 'walter mitty' based on his perspective of how things 'should' be!!!

We then move onto being a police state and doing 'comrade' inspections of 'papers' in order that we are all protecting the state.

Where does it stop?

[bjornhall]

Because the utility cat is more restrictive. In our aeroplane we can do loops, rolls, stall turns etc... while in the utility catagory but not in the normal catagory. To be in the utility catagory, max weight is reduced and the back seat must be removed. In the utility catagory recovery is guaranteed if correct pilot inputs are made, in the normal catagory there is nosuch guarantee.

I know! ;) What I meant was, that since the FAA CPL type of lazy eight is such a straightforward, non-aerobatic maneuver, I see no obvious reason why it must only be executed in the utility category. Therefore, my understanding is that when they say in the POH that lazy eights are approved in the utility category, they mean an aerobatic lazy eight.

[englishal]

What I meant was, that since the FAA CPL type of lazy eight is such a straightforward, non-aerobatic maneuver, I see no obvious reason why it must only be executed in the utility category.
Ah I see. Perhaps this is a CAA POH supplement? If it is then really this is meaningless in the interests of flight safety. AFAIK all "light" SEP aeroplanes in the US should be capable of a lazy-8 or chandelle, as indeed it is a normal manoeuvre, just like steep turns, and aerobatics doesn't come into it.

[B.U.D.G.I.E]

You suggest that too many of us show off.
Where do get these facts from?

Ermmmmm the amount of crashes caused by pilots showing off is a good starter for 10. Not sure your in a position to talk about my experience in aviation. Time in age does not all ways = time in experience. For all we know you have a lapsed med and licence hence your so up tight.

Chill:rolleyes:

[dont overfil]

Heh! crash one. I thought we were right wing with our opinions but B.U.D.G.I.E. is in a different class. Why don't we stop private flying altogether.
DO.

[IO540]

I really don't know what % of pilots would be regarded as "showing off" but it does feature a lot in fatal crashes, both fixed wing and rotary.

However, I would think somebody doing large scale logbook forgery, flying without the papers, etc, is going to have to restrict his showing off to when he is in the air, and keep a very low profile on the ground, in terms of his exposure to people who might suss him out.

The Walter Mitty types who make the mistake of posting silly stuff on a forum get sussed fast, and I think the same would happen to somebody in a crowd of pilots. Earlier this year I was at a big pilot meeting abroad, and one chap made an amazing claim about hundreds of flights between certain two countries. The group went very quiet, a few seconds later looked at each other, smiled, and that was it. No more was said, since it isn't really anybody's business to take it further. But this chap's credibility went to zero.

Anybody forging perhaps 90% of his logged time, while flying illegally, must have a weird motive. Perhaps he was doing it to impress non-flying friends / prospective passengers?

I must admit the trick of starting a fresh logbook is a good one as it avoids having to invent a lot of flights and I would have never thought of that myself :)

Some might ask why should anybody care. I personally would not care if somebody was doing this in a G-reg and without passengers. The CAA doesn't normally do ramp checks so presumably they aren't bothered. I would definitely care if somebody was doing it in an N-reg, because the repercussions to the whole FAA licensed community here could be significant if something really nasty happened.

I too am interested in the Graham Hill case - primarily because it appears to be one of the few documented cases of an insurer not paying out to third parties as a result of 'technical irregularities'. This will be another case of interest (assuming there actually was insurance purchased) as the level of 'irregularity' is alarmingly high.

The report is here (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/14_1976__n6645y.cfm). It doesn't deal with the post-crash litigation and neither do the few aviation accident publications in which the topic came up. My guess is that since passenger liability (Civil Aviation Act) depends on the pilot being found negligent, this is what happened, resulting in his estate being stripped by the passengers' estates. But I never came across anybody who knew any details for sure. It is always interesting and educational to see what kinds of stuff causes insurers to not pay out, but I think this one is not only very old but also exceptional in the extent of the missing paperwork.

[Justiciar]

an old Cherokee is a pretty cheap aircraft to run at around £50 an hour

Wonderful. Bose-X: do you know where I can buy one? There I was thinking that C of A aviation was so much more expensive. I woul be very interested to see how £50 per hour breaks down :E

[IO540]

Well, one way would be to fly hundreds of hours a year but only log 20 of them, and maintain as per the logbooks :) :) :)

Or not maintain at all. Deals with all this Part M nonsense nicely!!

Mogas (as reported) also helps. I gather the stuff at Sainsburys gives a good operating ceiling - at least FL180. If you get bubbles, just turn on the electric fuel pump. And you get the Nectar points which you can use off your next shopping bill. Flying over 200hrs/year, gosh, that's a lot of Nectar points. I reckon you would get free food for the whole family off that.

[S-Works]

Quote:
an old Cherokee is a pretty cheap aircraft to run at around £50 an hour
Wonderful. Bose-X: do you know where I can buy one? There I was thinking that C of A aviation was so much more expensive. I woul be very interested to see how £50 per hour breaks down

There is a syndicate that operates from our place that charge £50 and hour and about £150pm. That was the example I was using. They seem to make it work OK. I have no idea how it breaks down, not my business.

[Pace]

Bose

It always amuses me how we only see the charges we want to see. Maybe its for the wives benefit :)

There is a syndicate that operates from our place that charge £50 and hour and about £150pm. That was the example I was using. They seem to make it work OK. I have no idea how it breaks down, not my business

The above is £1800 per year standing charges 20 hrs a year adding up to £140 per hr and at 40 hrs £95 per hour not quite the £50 indicated :rolleyes:

Pace

[S-Works]

Pace, I have absolutely no idea of the inner dynamics of the group so can't agree or debunk your figures.

But at 200hrs a year the standing charges are £9 an hour. You can manipulate the figures to whatever number you want. But as I said it works for this group.

[smarthawke]

No doubt an old Cherokee could be run for £50/hr if it was 'maintained' in a similar fashion to the incident machine...

[Crash one]

Ermmmmm the amount of crashes caused by pilots showing off is a good starter for 10. Not sure your in a position to talk about my experience in aviation. Time in age does not all ways = time in experience. For all we know you have a lapsed med and licence hence your so up tight.


Not sure what experience or age has to do with anything here.
You refer to what seems to be "us" as "You" ** Show off too much.
This would indicate that you are not we. Am I clear?
Lapsed med/licence? why would that make me up tight, it's been done before?
Chill? yes I did, today was a nice day for it.
Why I am replying to this crap beats me.

DO
I think we should stop all flying not just GA, in fact let's stop everything & see just how much it would take to keep the nay sayers quiet.

[Vino Collapso]

A maintenance organisation (not saying who) once told me an aeroplane ages directly as a result of the hours you write in the log book.

For a machine with a 500 hour TBO such as we operated the temptation to 'lose' one in every four flights was quite forcefull.

Your figures will never get checked unless someone visits all the aerodromes possible and scours their movement logs for visits by the target aircraft. If you operate solely from a private strip there is virtually no check possible.

[englishal]

We diddled ourselves out of hours. For years we were writing hobbs on the tech log sheet, which then the group admin transcribed to the logbooks....the result is that for a short flight, about 1hr flight time = 1.2 hobbs....

Although realistically this only amounted to 20 or so hours as on logn flights the difference in time is much less.

[IO540]

A maintenance organisation (not saying who) once told me an aeroplane ages directly as a result of the hours you write in the log book.

For a machine with a 500 hour TBO such as we operated the temptation to 'lose' one in every four flights was quite forcefull.

Your figures will never get checked unless someone visits all the aerodromes possible and scours their movement logs for visits by the target aircraft. If you operate solely from a private strip there is virtually no check possible.Very true.

With one addition: a plane ages in proportion to the "maintenance" done to it, by monkey-handed screwdriver men chewing things off it. A plane that's been hangared from new, and never maintained, will look brand new after 10 or 20 years (if washed). A plane that's been subjected to average maintenance practices will have cracks in all plastic parts, scratches everywhere, paint chipped off, etc, all within a year or two.

Anyway, small airfields don't keep movement logs, and a lot of the GA scene flies between strips that keep none. Anything is possible.

The issue is that many people will quite rightly say that a lot of required maintenance is pointless e.g. the EASA regime for mandatory replacement of "recommended-lifed" parts which are actually in perfect condition. Such regs merely play into the hands of those who want to skip on doing some stuff, which is entirely predictable.

OTOH, it amazes me why most owners maintain by hobbs time, when doing it by strict airborne time saves about 10-20% (on the average flight time). I think most of the time it is due to lack of mutual trust between renter/owner or shareholders, whereas the hobbs reading can't be tampered with.

[Saab Dastard]

I've split off the discussion about insurance to a new thread here:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/392366-ga-insurance.html

SD

[madlandrover]

Not so long ago a pilot at an airfield in the middle of the country came back into land with twiggs stuck in the wheels of his aircraft having made an approach to a main road he mistook for the runway.

If that's the one that happened about 10-11 months ago... Not quite telling the full story. Night approach to a road with 2 white, 2 red all the way down - shame they were moving. The twigs and dented left wing leading edge came from the next approach though, going through the top of a hedge on v v short final.

This particular case concerns a pilot who is known to have certain safety issues, but with no major incidents there is no room for enforcement action - innocent until proven guilty! He does however limit his flying hours by employing the local maintenance outfit on a fairly continuous basis...

[oscarisapc]

I don't want to minimise the plight of the two children left orphaned by this incident but there is now also a major problem for the pilot's wife who will find her husband's estate (and joint assets etc.) liable for the considerable damges payable. Quite apart from the fact that we don't even know whether the plane was insured since a pilot who had neglected his legal obligations may also have neglected other matters but it is likely that insurance is going to be invalid in any case as the flight was not lawful. Under UK law my understanding is that fault does not have to be proved for the owner of an airplane to be held liable for any damage caused by the plane - a fact which can cause anxiety in group ownership since all the members of the group are liable for the consequences of their aeroplane even if they were nowhere near it at the time.

The other point is that it may not be wise to carry both parents of dependent children as passengers at the same time. I don't know if this is still the case but the Queen always used to avoid flying in the same plane as Prince Charles so the monarch and the heir were not both at risk together. I certainly make a point of only carrying one parent as a passenger. The only time I broke my own rule was when I took my wife as a passenger. It was a beautiful day, our children were safely at school and we crossed from Bristol to Swansea for the usual £100 sandwich. On the preflight inspection before return I noticed a large pool of oil under the engine which came from a cracked cylinder head. Apart from the ignominy of a slow return by coach there was a lot of pondering on the way back about what would have happened to our children if the cylinder head had given out over the Severn estuary (not known for its benign wind and tides) rather than safely on the ground at an airfield.

[Lister Noble]

Every day tens of millions of people take their wives,families etc on a road trip.
Most with a very basic understanding of speed and dynamics.
Vehicles approaching each other at speeds up to 140 mph plus,seperated by a few feet of tarmac.
Do you use two cars,send half the family by rail,or air?
Do we all stop doing anything and everything with any risk?

[XX621]

The argument about cars vs. light aircraft doesn't hold up IMHO. If every driver in the UK swapped their license for a PPL and headed off to work in a spamcan I would be amazed if the fatality rate dropped.

I don't fly my wife (she has little interest in flying anyway), but since we have two young kids I long decided it's not simply worth the risk - it's not as if we'd miss the collective experience. Nearly every flight of mine has unavoidable periods (allbeit short periods) of flight over areas where if the engine popped I would be in serious trouble.

[robin]

I take the same view. I know I sometimes take the passengers by car to the airfield together, and that, statistically, is more risky than the flight.

But in the air is my unbreakable rule. Once upon a time a friend asked if I could treat his wife to a flight to celebrate her birthday and the birth of their daughter 3 weeks earlier. Then he asked if he could come along as well - the answer was no.

Being a good friend he understood my concern and I flew them separately, but the worry of leaving the wee bairn behind in case of incident would have caused me a lot of worry.

[IO540]

However, you could manage the risk to a large degree.

There is a lot of difference between flying to Norway across the N Sea, and going for a bimble from Goodwood over Kent.

The latter is over land; 99.9% of which is fields.

Short of a structural failure, one isn't going to get killed. And if SF was a possibility I would not be flying in it myself as I have 2 kids, a girlfriend, and I value my life too much.

I must admit however I would not be writing this is I was renting the stuff I did the PPL in...

[XX621]

And if SF was a possibility I would not be flying in it myself as I have 2 kids, a girlfriend, and I value my life too much.


How do you know SF isn't going to happen though? Although it really is risk hardly worth discussing...

However, people do get killed in light aircraft, as we well know, flying over areas which are 99.9% fields.....and if reading the reports are anything to go by, the actual surface below is of little consequence because, typically, and for whatever reason the aircraft was not in control when it became re-united with the ground (or it was, but pilot was unable to see the ground)...

The biggest single risk I have identified is my handling of an engine out at low level. I simply can't be 110% sure I would deliver a textbook performance and/or find a suitable piece of land in time, simply because I had never proven my ability to do so (or had to, to be exact, touch wood)...

[IO540]

How do you know SF isn't going to happen though?

I think it is safe to assume that if flying on a nice day (the kind of day one might be taking people sightseeing) and not showing off doing barrel rolls or whatever, and if flying a plane one has had since new, or at least since its last major belly inspection, so one knows nobody has done anything nasty in it and nearly broke it, that the wing spar isn't going to break.

I have never read an accident report suggesting otherwise.

But as you say the risk is miniscule anyway.

[englishal]

Planes are pretty tough and as IO says one that has not suffered damage will likely not suffer SF in normal flight.

I'm a little more dubious about wooden spars though - there have been a number of incidents involving pilots who have clipped a wingtip but as there is no obvious damage assumed the wing is ok. Happened to someone I know, the co-owner dinged the wing on something, but it looked ok apart from a black smudge on the end of the wing, so they were going to leave it.

Luckily in talking with the local maintenance man said "no way should you fly" and lo and behold the inspection revealed a cracked spar. I seem to remember a similar case which resulted in a fatality.

[IO540]

A Robin in which a previous pilot hit a bale of hay, I recall?

[englishal]

That's the one....

[IO540]

I doubt driving slowly into the doors would have broken the spar, but as you say you never know.

There are cowboys in this game.

Where I am based, a renter took out a PA28 (he had keys to the hangar, and went out in the evening). Started with the towbar attached, taking a big chunk out of the prop (about 1" x 1" - I saw the damage myself). Chucked the towbar into some tall grass. Went for a flight. Came back, said nothing. AFAIK he was never seen again.

Probably a fair few of them around. But looking at it differently, I can understand an idiot doing this non-maliciously, because in the PPL one is not taught about prop strikes, shock load inspections, etc. If it is OK to hit a rock with a lawn mower, why is it unsafe to do it with a prop?

[flybymike]

I am not sure I can get my head around how that particular scenario might have occurred?

[Final 3 Greens]

Here is one explanantion, who knows if it is true.....

http://www.tinfeathers.com/Murphy/Donut/Donut.htm

[ExSp33db1rd]

The doors were then opened another few feet each side and the a/c made it out ok.


A lot of our club pilots only open the hangar doors sufficiently to get the aircraft out, but push it back in with a bit of a run to keep the momentum, and don't push it back in on exactly the same centreline that they pulled it out on. As the club Grouch I insist that they always open the doors to their fullest extent, which for the aircraft that we are currently flying is considerably more than is really needed - but why not ? Another 5 seconds push give them an extra couple of metres opening. Murphy is always with us.