Tiger Moth Crash [Archive]

eharding

16th May 2011, 14:24

Broomstick

If you can't stand the heat......

There is in every thread on a GA crash at least one post similar to yours, nothing new there.

This is a forum where we discuss what may have caused just such accidents including errors of judgement by the pilot. It's what this forum is for, it is part of how we learn, and the aviation industry learns better than most industries....

Best steer relatives away from this site, and let's continue with our thoughts on the matter.

Sadly, it isn't as simple as that VH.

The fact remains that this site is one that the press will reference directly following an aviation accident, and opinions, conjecture and snippets of 'information' posted here have a habit of appearing on national news sites shortly thereafter.

Hence, when posting here in circumstances such as these, it is a case of assuming that whatever you write may well appear in front of the relatives of those affected in short order, regardless of whether they ever actually visit this forum.

jxc

16th May 2011, 14:27

It does appear to me that when there is an accident abroad from U.K. everything is ok but when it happens in the U.K. you get a totally different comments on here. I may be wrong.

I do hope the other guy pulls through.

FleetFlyer

16th May 2011, 15:04

JXC, the comments on this forum are more likely to be more concialliatory towards UK accident victims as its a UK based forum and forumites are more likely to know the victims and even if they don't, the accident is 'closer to home' for them.

VanHork is absolutely right with his post. However, I have refrained from speculating on the cause of the accident as one family has just lost a member of the crew and the other is presumably in a pretty bad way. This circumstance is different from say a lone pilot who was known to be of a poor standard managing to destroy a perfectly good aeroplane and himself through bad airmanship.

A couple of days hence, when the press at large have lost interest in this tragic accident, I for one will be debating the cause of this accident on this forum with other pilots. The reason for this is not to upset anybody, rather it is to prevent my relatives from going through the same these Tiger pilots'. The more we discuss safety, the better we get at it.

Piltdown Man

16th May 2011, 15:57

Unfortunately, we have another "accident" and "aerobatics" being mentioned in the same story. There are too many of these wretched stories but I'm totally at a loss to suggest what we can do to break the link. I'll have to admit that I have in the past also pulled some rather stupid stunts and can fully understand the attraction of flying in an "interesting fashion." I was lucky as not only did I not hurt anybody else, I also lived. But there has to be something we can do to safely channel people's urge to "push it a bit."

PM

Hiska

16th May 2011, 16:08

Broomstick...Spot on.

Does seem that the thread has been tidyed up slightly since earlier though!

All my thoughts are with you guys and your families

maxred

16th May 2011, 16:18

I agree that there have been a number recently where it would appear that an 'aero' has gone sour. A few years ago, I was at the top of a loop in a Chipmunk, about 5000', thankfully, when it 'flicked'. I scared myself senseless, however, I came away from the incident realising that I required to be 'professionally' trained - I had been self taught up to that point. In other words I did not know the recovery procedures.

That was what I did - I went and re-trained, however, the incident stuck. i.e. I never wanted to get into that position ever again, where I was not prepared.

I do hope that the other individual involved survives this, and sorry about the person who sadly did not.

I have made no assumptions about the training standard, or experiences of those involved.

FleetFlyer

16th May 2011, 16:23

I think that when it comes to aerobatics, the arena of competition is the best place for it. It satisfies the urge to compete. When done at basic/beginner level you do it high enough up to get out of trouble. The main benefit though is the review of your flying by experts in the field.

Anybody flying dangerously in the box is told they are. Tuition to fix your bad habits is also easy to come by.

Its far safer than simply going off by yourself or worse taking someone with you to show off.

Aeros will always be less safe than cruising, just as hunting is less safe than buying your food from a shop, but we still do it because its what we live for.

vanHorck

16th May 2011, 17:21

OK, I will try to be gentle and still ask the questions I have in my head.

I do not do aerobatics.
Nor do I know if aerobatics were being performed on this flight

When we do our stall training as normal PPL's we have the full HASELL checks. We do not carry passengers. Then again, it may be wise to include passengers prior to their training (assuming they are pilots too intent on doing aerobatics). There is no other reason to carry passengers on aerobatic flights.

Do Aerobatic pilots do HASELL checks or are they "beyond" these?
What is the standing rule for carrying passengers when executing aerobatics?
What is the minimum acceptable height for aerobatics when having passengers on board?

NigelOnDraft

16th May 2011, 17:35

vH

Answering your questions, and having no regard for the unfortunate accident in which I suspect none of us know what happened.

There is no other reason to carry passengers on aerobatic flightsAerobatics, correctly and safely conducted as taught, are no more hazardous than normal flying. If the aircraft remains in W&B, then whether passengers are carried or not is irrelevant IMHO. Only concern I have is that the passenger is keen, briefed and is checked throughout to ensure they are happy to continue.

Do Aerobatic pilots do HASELL checks or are they "beyond" these?
Yes. As per stalling, adjusted (e.g. Min Hts) as required. 'Security' becomes particularly important.

What is the standing rule for carrying passengers when executing aerobatics?See above.

What is the minimum acceptable height for aerobatics when having passengers on board?Depends on type and pilot experience / training. In general, same height as without Passengers, except when getting into "display" aerobatics and practices, when heights drop and passengers are less suitable / prohibited. As a guide (but others will have different opinions) 3000' might be a good starting point as a "no go below". Adjust that as other factors see fit...

NoD

PS The USA has a strange rule about passengers requiring parachutes for aerobatics. In itself, it is meaningless without adding training, whether you can abandon that aircraft type, min heights for spin abandonment etc.

vanHorck

16th May 2011, 18:05

Thank you NoD, that makes a lot of sense.

Either way, no one plans to fly a plane into the ground so there is always something that will have happened, airframe, engine, medical, time will tell

mat777

16th May 2011, 18:16

im no expert here but 2 things have occurred to me

the lack of a a running engine suggests that either the aerobatics caused a fuel cutoff in the carb, or that the plane had simply run out of fuel

the fact there was no explosion suggests the latter.

however, something was clearly wrong as a moth should be more than capable of landing safely with no engine, rather than plummeting, unless it had been stalled really badly

vanHorck

16th May 2011, 18:54

Holes in a cheese lining up is usually the problem....

I don't know the stall characteristics of a TM, I expect they are not so very docile but should not pose a problem for an experienced aerobatics pilot, however engine failure during a deep stall could perhaps be a lethal combination?

Thud105

16th May 2011, 19:16

I have never heard the term 'deep stall' used in connection with a biplane. A deep stall (also known as a 'super-stall') is surely the province of T-tailed jet liners with rear-mounted engines ie 727/DC-9/BAC 1-11.

Intercepted

16th May 2011, 19:48

I really hope that most people currently speculating about the cause of the crash are NOT pilots themselves. If they are I will be extremely worried.

hatzflyer

16th May 2011, 20:02

Intercepted, Its obvious to me and I imagine others would back me up that the people speculating on this thread have no experience of losing an engine in a Tigermoth.
Those that have will know what I mean.

shortstripper

16th May 2011, 20:06

Very sad news. Tigermoths like any other aeroplanes can crash. They have a certain amount of "crunchability" that can obsorb some of the force, but when it comes down to it, your survival chances are down to luck!

Speculation is all very well, but who knows what happened as yet. They are pretty docile and usually pedictable .... but circumstances can conspire!

SS

IO540

16th May 2011, 20:17

What is the problem with losing an engine in a TM?

FleetFlyer

16th May 2011, 20:23

Come on chaps, please give the speculation on causes a rest at least until we're assured the second guy is in the clear.

With regard to the danger of aerobatics; it IS more dangerous than normal flight because of the extra care that needs to be taken. You need to be cognisant not only of your weight but of where in your balance range you are (Your spin recovery may require different technique at the rear of the range vs the front). Your G limit will be different for different weights. Your aircraft may be unfamiliar or may require different inputs for a manuever you already know well but in a different aircraft. Your passenger may or may not be fully briefed on evacuation and parachute use for your particular aircraft. Etc etc...

The point is that the extra stuff to consider becomes extra 'gotcha' factors that would otherwise not figure in a normal cross country flight. Done properly and taken seriously, you can minimise the risk. Even if you do though, there could always be that fatigue crack or manufacturing fault that gets you. A safety factor of adequate height will give you the best chance. We don't do these things because they are easy, but becuase they are hard.

FleetFlyer

16th May 2011, 21:01

This is not speculation on the cause of the accident, as the aircraft should have been revoverable with or without power.
The fuel pickup on a Tiger is fixed (the tank in the upper centre section is the only tank) and if the aircraft is in a sustained attitude that allows gravity to draw fuel to an area away from it then fuel starvation can result. It does not use a weighted flop tube or multiple pickups.
A fuel situation of less than around 1/3 of a tank can allow this to happen. 1/4 of a tank is critical.

To all you hacks out there: This will not have caused the accident, merely the enigine cut on the way down.

Conventional Gear

16th May 2011, 22:13

as the aircraft should have been revoverable with or without power

Isn't this what IO540 is asking though? Surely I'm not the only one following this thread now wondering what was alluded to earlier regarding moth engine failures? I would have thought with correct handling the aircraft would be safe with the engine out, I've certainly read of a number of forced landings after engine failure on the type.

I'm not relating this in any way to this accident, but am interested to know what hatzflyer meant, it seems to read as 'well you should know already an engine failure in a moth is a big deal', well I'm a pilot and I don't know that and I'm sure others are wondering along the same lines. OK it's a draggy bi-plane, I'm sure an engine out is an emergency situation and time would be short, but what is it we are supposed to know? As hatzflyer obviously has experienced the situation by inference, it must be recoverable no?

**please note this post is not discussing this particular accident, simply the handling of the TM and as far as I know there is no evidence to support the engine failed or a failed engine was responsible for this particular accident**

hoodie

16th May 2011, 22:17

How do we know that the engine had stopped?

Conventional Gear

16th May 2011, 22:33

We don't hence why I said I was not relating the post to the accident and I guess why Fleetflyer posted an explanation for why the engine appeared to be failing according to eyewitnesses. There doesn't appear to be any evidence at all that the engine stopped causing the accident.

Which is why I wanted clarification of hatzflyer's post:

Intercepted, Its obvious to me and I imagine others would back me up that the people speculating on this thread have no experience of losing an engine in a Tigermoth.
Those that have will know what I mean.

mat777

17th May 2011, 01:12

hoodie - eyewitness accounts in the newspaper report say the engine was out.

as for the fuel tank, i thought the centre section one was just the emergency gravity tank, and that there was a main, pumped, tank in the fuselage? correct me if im wrong

Pilot DAR

17th May 2011, 02:29

OK it's a draggy bi-plane, I'm sure an engine out is an emergency situation and time would be short, but what is it we are supposed to know?

Yes, draggy biplane, and designed before the handling we're used to with today's planes, was established, and largely standardized. Though I have not flown a Moth in nearly 30 years, I recall that when you pull the power back in flight, they slow down fast. This is coupled with no stall warning system, and not the most "feel" in the flight controls I have ever experienced. Most of my Moth flying was on skis, on the ice of a frozen lake, so "making the runway" had a much wider margin for error!

Thus, when power is suddenly not there (no speculating here), the Moth will tend to maintain it's attitude, and just slow down, and stall. This tends to result in a wing drop. The "just let go to recover" technique is not really effective on a Moth, as a deliberate lowering of the nose is more necessary.

A power off arrival works just fine, but will more steep than today's pilots are typically expecting, and the time to flare, as the plane deccelerates, will be rather brief. As long as you're ready, it's fine. Just have your act together!

Back in the day, training was uniform, and very effective, as the students and instructors were military, and well regulated. Now, with that training regiment on type, a thing of the past, it's up to us to stay sharp, and expect different handling when flying very old aircraft.

There's an allure in the old types, Old types deserve some old training - not so easy to get in a new world....

Hiska

17th May 2011, 02:33

wsmempson

17th May 2011, 05:56

Yes, but this isn't the AAIB website is it? This is Pprune - "Professional Pilots Rumour Network" - and it is to be expected that it will do exactly what it says on the tin.

Conventional Gear

17th May 2011, 07:07

It's natural enough to want to ask questions when accidents happen and I thank Pilot DAR for the explanation which is what I suspected. In fact on a recent thread he posted a video of a moth accident which lead me to think, the only way out of it was nose down, land ahead.

robin

17th May 2011, 08:31

If you look on Youtube for the 'Tiger Moth hits cow' you can see the fairly long time the pilot had to deal with an engine failure on take-off.

hoodie

17th May 2011, 08:39

hoodie - eyewitness accounts in the newspaper report say the engine was out.

Eyewitness accounts of accidents are notoriously unreliable, and we should be very careful to not take them as fact when discussing this tragedy.

Katamarino

17th May 2011, 08:53

As much as it pains me to inform you...or not so much in this case...unless you are a member of the AAIB, you are not deemed eligible to determine the cause of this.

For the record this guy is by far the best, most experienced, not to mention the safest, pilot I have ever flown with. Need I remind you, you are all speculating using your alleged "intelligence" whereas maybe those who are generally worried will wait for the AAIB report before becoming Einstein.

I understand in the wake of an accident of this kind everyone becomes Sullenberger but seriously some suggestions are utterly ridiculous... We aren't talking about a new PPL with a few hours here.

Just remember all our fellow aviators, this is the chance we take when we step into and aircraft and line up. It isn't up to us to judge. And without becoming morbid, it could be anyone of us tomorrow.

Yet again someone trots out this old copy & paste reply to an accident thread. When will people get the point that they cannot tell this forum what they are and aren't allowed to discuss, and that discussion of the possible causes of accidents is beneficial to flight safety regardless of what turns out to have actually happened. It educates people about what can go wrong, possible intricacies of different aircraft, and helps keep safety at the front of everybody's minds.

"It" could happen to anyone of us tomorrow, as you say; and if that one of us had happened to read about said problem and how to deal with it on PPRuNe today, the outcome might be happier.

You say that those who are "generally" worried will wait for the AAIB. I assume those of us with more specific worries have your permission to keep talking?

MichaelJP59

17th May 2011, 10:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by mat777
hoodie - eyewitness accounts in the newspaper report say the engine was out.

Eyewitness accounts of accidents are notoriously unreliable, and we should be very careful to not take them as fact when discussing this tragedy.

Indeed - could have been the engine going from open to closed throttle reducing the noise substantially making witnesses think the engine had stopped. Amazing also how often eyewitnesses see smoke or fire.

Personally I don't mind speculation - I can't see why it would upset relatives any more than the terrible events themselves. Also it usually dies out when there is not much more that can be said without inspection of the wreckage and other factors.

Rod1

17th May 2011, 10:48

Hiska

Speculation helps make people think about what can go wrong and that makes us all safer. I think PP policy is to allow it provided it is done in a sensitive way. If you think this is not the case report it to the mods and if they agree the post or even the thread will be pulled. I have modified my operating procedures as a result of a thread similar to this and I fully support the idea that talking about accidents helps to prevent them even if the conversation drifts from the original accident. This is partly what PP is all about.

Rod1

vee-tail-1

17th May 2011, 11:16

Rod 1
Absolutely agree with your post. Learning from others misfortune has helped to keep me safe.

IO540

17th May 2011, 11:23

Accidents should definitely be discussed.

There are two problems with the AAIB reports (examples; not in any way related to this crash which I know nothing about):

1) They take for ever to come out and when they do almost everybody has forgotten about the accident

2) They tend to avoid discussing things which they consider are not relevant e.g. the pilot was a well known cowboy who got kicked out of five airfields for doing aerobatics with passengers 100ft above the runway, etc

These days, most flying knowledge is acquired from internet forums. Instructors just pass on the very basic stuff. Technical knowledge and operational knowledge is not really taught anywhere.

PPRuNe Towers

17th May 2011, 11:50

Posts 43 and 45 perfectly sum up our basic policy. Learning and behavioural modification happens in the direct aftermath. Very few people ever gave up smoking after reading a report.

Not your cup of tea? Reading our threads hasn't yet been made compulsary.

Regards
Rob

FleetFlyer

17th May 2011, 12:44

Thats 1-0 to common sense!

hatzflyer

17th May 2011, 14:55

The most competent experienced Tiger pilot I know spun one in. Luckily he was not too high and survived.
I do not want to add to speculation on here only to say that a lot of the comments are very wide of the mark .
The press read these posts and information not relevant to this accident will serve no purpose.
You will not learn anything from false information.

I am all for discussing the pros and cons of an accident report from the AAIB and in fact have found cases where they are saddly lacking and worthy of comment but that should not be on this thread IMHO.

mary meagher

17th May 2011, 15:48

Hiska no doubt knows personally the people involved in this event. He would prefer us to wait a year for the AAIB report.

Yet exchanging information, and even informed speculation on forums like these, vital safety points may indeed come promptly to our attention...and help us to be less likely to "take a chance when we step into an aircraft."

In particular, it helps to highlight particular aircraft or practices which lead to bad news.

mikehallam

17th May 2011, 16:23

Don't knock the media or their reports, you after all speculate from their immediate results. Without them few of you would have even known of the accident, let alone have some form of instant witnesses observations available to set you thinking.

And, yes, IMHO, any discussion helps reinforce one's own safety consciousness.

mikehallam.

FleetFlyer

17th May 2011, 16:27

I think its the accuracy and therefore the potential to unintentionally lay the blame on the blameless aspect of the media that the forumites are knocking rather than the whole of the media.

maxred

17th May 2011, 17:10

'These days, most flying knowledge is acquired from internet forums. Instructors just pass on the very basic stuff. Technical knowledge and operational knowledge is not really taught anywhere'.

To a point I agree, however, nothing, repeat nothing, can replace experience. From learning, from reading, from training, leads to us going it alone which gives us experience. The catch of course is no matter how well read, how well informed, and how experienced, there are times when things can catch us. The phrase, 'flying is not inherently dangerous, but is totally unforgiving', is so accurate. We read of the 20,000+ ATPL, who lands short, who forgets to lower the gear, who stalls on finals, the same errors that a newly qualified PPL can also make. Only by freely discussing, and learning some more, can we then perhaps go forward. I agree the AAIB reports are the ones we await, however, they would not tell us that the gust envelope was breached, that we entered an aerobatic manoeuvre too slow/fast, that we misjudged a freak tail wind etc. Transparency is key.

Katamarino

17th May 2011, 17:24

I do not want to add to speculation on here only to say that a lot of the comments are very wide of the mark .

You will not learn anything from false information.

So hatz, your contribution to flight safety in this thread is to act high and mighty because you know something you think others don't, and then say you're not going to help people learn by clarifying the mistakes.

Good job!

OpenCirrus619

17th May 2011, 17:41

The most competent experienced Tiger pilot I know spun one in.

...and how many Tiger pilots do you know? How many hours ON TIGERS did this pilot have when he broke his aeroplane?

OC619

Torque Tonight

17th May 2011, 18:44

I'm not referring to this specific accident here but... I've thought for some time now that the Tiger Moth has had a pretty poor accident record in the last few years and have wondered why. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the design - many years of RAF service are testament to that. The aircraft has some vices that can be mastered through training, a feature the RAF has always looked for in a primary trainer. So is there a trend of age related technical failures (I don't think so) or is there a human factors issue: dilution of experience and a new generation of pilots unfamiliar with some of the quirks of older aeroplanes (I wonder). I am aware of one UK accident that could be put down to gross mishandling and I wonder if some of the others may come from more insidious mishandling. Whatever the source of the trend, the Tiger seems to have racked up more than its fair share of AAIB reports in recent years.

It is only a few months since I wrote this:

One thing that I have been thinking for a while now is that the Tiger Moth has had a pretty bad run of luck over the last few years, or you could just say a downright bad accident rate given the number of airframes out there. I have pondered this and looked for any common factors or causes and although I do have some suspiscions, this is probably not the right place to voice them. One thing that is often said regarding the Tiger Moth, is that it is an easy aeroplane to fly but a difficult aeroplane to fly well - probably exactly the characteristic the RAF has always looked for in primary trainers.

Regarding the recent trend in the Tiger's accident rate, I'm at a bit of a loss. Of course there is the background static of random events - engine failures and suchlike, that may in part be related to the aging of the airframes, but I do also wonder if some of the accidents are perhaps related to a dilution of experience amongst the operators of the aircraft concerned. Are Tigers increasingly been flown by those with little or no experience of vintage tailwheel aircraft?

As I said I felt this 'trend' for a while now but have previously bitten my tongue. It's only about two months since the last write-off hence my mentioning it on this occasion. a quick google of 'AAIB Tiger Moth' provides a lot of reading material for a fairly uncommon aircraft type.

Anyone any thoughts?

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/426448-tiger-moth-loses-control-german-show-one-dead-38-injured.html#post5917141

hatzflyer

17th May 2011, 19:14

Kat, your last post is exactly the sort of thing that I was trying to avoid.You are making wild statements and attacking me now. The whole thread degenerates into a slanging match with people trying to score points.
I don't have to justify myself to you ( or anyone else for that matter).

IF you are about to embark on a flight in a Tigermoth and you want some help, feel free to send me a PM or an email or ask for my phone no and I'll happily share my experience with you.

Meanwhile, sqabbling on here is rich pickings for those that want to make us all look stupid and gives no comfort to anyone on here who knows the crew of this unfortunate accident.

My post was not meant to come across as " I know something that you don't " .

If it came across as that then I apologies for not making it clearer.

What I was trying to say in the clearest way that I can put it is if you are not familiar with a given type and ( for instance) don't even know where the fuel tank is, or have never even sat in one let alone flown one then I don't think you are qualified to speculate.

Katamarino

17th May 2011, 19:47

Thanks hatz, that is a much clearer statement of what you were evidently trying to say. :ok:

Conventional Gear

17th May 2011, 20:51

What I was trying to say in the clearest way that I can put it is if you are not familiar with a given type and ( for instance) don't even know where the fuel tank is, or have never even sat in one let alone flown one then I don't think you are qualified to speculate.

So I take it those of us who have can continue to speculate?

Not that sitting in the front of one for what was a very memorable flight avails me of any great knowledge of the type but it was quite fun and I figured out the fuel tank position. No doubt as I continue to move backwards through aircraft evolution in my own flying PA-28 to PA-18 to DHC-1 ... it's only a matter of time before I get to fly a Tiger Moth as PIC too, so please speculate away guys for those of us who may benefit and are certainly not posting to win silly points, but because one day it really may be important information.

And hatzflyer, though you may be very knowledgeable you don't come across as particularly open. Fortunately the moth pilot who will no doubt teach me is far more down to earth about the realities of flying older aircraft.

stiknruda

17th May 2011, 21:21

One man dead another fighting for his life. It is v probable that I know one of them (the dH was CA based) ... and some cretins on here are posturing about the credentials to post.

I very rarely comment on threads like this unless it's one of my chums but I'd ask you to have a good look at what you are typing and ask yourselves, "Does this really add any value?"

I've owned a Tiger and have many hours in them. But guess what, I've no idea what happened and won't speculate.

The only hard thing about flying is the ground - how it ended up smiting it so hard, I know not , I'll wait until we have some real info rather than speculation.

Think before posting, please!

Noah Zark.

17th May 2011, 21:51

I second Stiknruda's post entirely. The whole thread is crumbling into another slanging match. Come on, folks, Get some focus. As has been said earlier, other eyes will be reading this, and drawing wrong conclusions.

RecursiveS

17th May 2011, 22:49

Not a flyer.

Just live very close to Compton. It may sound stupid to you guys but this loss feels like a loss of one of ours. That is all, you either get it or don't.

Vino Collapso

17th May 2011, 23:03

Post deleted as it had been modified by the Mods

vanHorck

18th May 2011, 08:08

Let's start again....... Everything is forgotten and forgiven.....

Some are here to learn and others are here to give advice or both. We are ALL saddened by the loss of life, injuries and loss of a beautiful plane, but this forum is not intended to be an in-memoriam register....

No one intends to crash, so I am sure the pilot was intending a diligent flight within the frame of his own perceived limitations as well as within the frame of what he understood to be his plane's limitations.

I am a pilot and a foreigner to the UK and I would like to know what may have caused this accident, and I do not want to wait for the investigation, this is why I come on this forum.

The debris field seems from the video and photo's to be so small that very little horizontal speed was there at the moment of impact combined with some substantial vertical speed.

Is there someone close to the airplane and/or occupants who can shed light on the background of either the plane or the pilot.

Are there TM pilots who are willing to shed some light on the possibly applicable idiosyncrasies of the TM which could have contributed to this crash?

NigelOnDraft

18th May 2011, 08:23

I am a pilot and a foreigner to the UK and I would like to know what may have caused this accident, and I do not want to wait for the investigation, this is why I come on this forum.I can assure you, it is very unlikely you will find what factors caused this accident from here, prior to the AAIB report. 90% of the posts are idiotic / misinfomed and people just using someone else's misfortune as a platform to broadcast their opinions.

If you genuinely want to "learn" then study the monthly AAIB (and other) bulletins for trends / specifics to your type of flying.

If there is something urgent that comes out of the AAIB investigation prior to the report, it will be disseminated.

If you really think that pPrune debates on accidents really enhance Flt Safety please provide an example - there are plenty of threads where a report was later published. It always amazes me how difficult it is to relate the report to the **** that was posted here :{

There can be value on debate on flying in general clearly removing the specifics of an accident not yet reported on (as we did above).

NoD

FleetFlyer

18th May 2011, 08:55

May I refer those looking to stifle debate and conjecture on this accident to posts 43,45 and 46.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Not discussing safety means we forego the opportunity to learn from others' experiences.

If you don't want to read other's posts regarding this thread then stop reading it. Nobody is forcing you.

NigelOnDraft

18th May 2011, 11:15

May I refer those looking to stifle debate Not sure anybody is looking to "stifle" debate, well, not intelligent debate ;)

and conjecture Conjecture covers a mutitude of sins, and in many cases is, IMHO inappropriate. As per the Mods' Disappointingly, some on this forum are displaying gross insensitvity and a lack of decency. [moderator note - the posts referred to have been deleted] so there have been inappropriate posts.

If you want pPrune "policy" look no further than the bottom of each page As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.It is fact that posts on this forum are in the press minutes later as "informed comment".

So my lines of thought would be:

Do not unnecessarily "speculate".
Caveat comments e.g. as above and having no regard for the unfortunate accident I'm not referring to this specific accident here
Bear in mind what you say may be in the press and seen by the relatives shortly thereafter. Decide if you really need to say what you are saying? And do you need to say it now? (The press factor will go away after a day or 2).

As Stiknruda says I'd ask you to have a good look at what you are typing and ask yourselves, "Does this really add any value?"

And NB re This is PPRuNe - "Professional Pilots Rumour Network" - and it is to be expected that it will do exactly what it says on the tin.yes - it is a "rumour" network, but also "Professional Pilots", and that is how it will be perceived :confused:

Bottom line to me is If you don't want to read other's posts regarding this thread then stop reading it. Nobody is forcing you. if only that were true... Unfortunately posting on here does have consequences and thus responsibilities by posters.

NoD

DX Wombat

18th May 2011, 11:41

Unfortunately posting on here does have consequences and thus responsibilities by posters.
Indeed it does which is why, some time ago, when someone known to a lot of people crashed, we were all pretty certain of the cause/reasons but restricted our posts to neutral comments. We also knew that family members might well have been reading this. The speculation was rife, some of it accurate, some not. Sadly we were proved to be correct in our conclusions which we had based on knowledge of the person concerned. These threads are always a good reminder that things can and will go wrong and that we all need to learn from what has happened and never stop learning.

Conventional Gear

18th May 2011, 11:55

The dead man has been named as Orlando Rogers:

Tiger Moth crash victim was former Royal Marine Orlando Rogers (From Bournemouth Echo) (http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/districts/eastdorset/9028489.Tiger_Moth_crash_victim_was____inspirational____Mari ne/?ref=mr)

Saab Dastard

18th May 2011, 12:07

Conjecture covers a mutitude of sins, and in many cases is, IMHO inappropriate. As per the Mods'
Quote:
Disappointingly, some on this forum are displaying gross insensitvity and a lack of decency. [moderator note - the posts referred to have been deleted]

so there have been inappropriate posts.

Nigel, "conjecture" certainly does not equate to "inappropriate".

The deleted posts were not conjecture, but were definitely inappropriate.

SD

Pilot DAR

18th May 2011, 15:20

It's sad that someone crashed. My empathy as appropriate....

However, that fact that someone crashed, and that event was the catalyst for a discussion about the characteristics of a particular type of aircraft, or the elements of decision making for a safe flight, does not necessarily make that discussion in isolation, worthy of criticism.

I agree that there can be a fine line of getting into "arm chair investigation" of the particular event, which I do not support. But, arm chair discussion about aircraft, and piloting in general, or by type, is what this forum is here for.

I do my darndest when I fly to conduct the flight so that there is as little chance as possible that all of you are talking about my accident one day. One element of this, is gleaning other's wise thoughts. If those thoughts pop up coincident to a crash, well, the crash was just the catalyst.

Several years ago, a helicopter I had previously test flown was crashed with four fatalities. I spoke with the operations manager the next day, and offered symapthy. He told me the cause right away. It was a absolutely a human factors situation. The following day, all of their helicopters, and several other aircraft with which I am associated were the subject of an operational change to prevent a reoccurance. Further to this, I was given immediate permission to discuss the known cause, and release photos I had, simply in the interest of disseminating safety information without delay, and while it was fresh in people's minds. This all occurred while I was being slagged on the Rotorheads forum for "thinking I had some special information", and while the TSB was still beginning their investigation. Though it is probably out, I have never seen the report - 'don't need to, I know what it would say. A small part of the wreck of that helicopter sits in front of me now, so I never forget....

Yes, we have to respect sensativities, and toward that end must avoid a personal attack on a pilot at a difficult time, but human factors remain a prime cause of accidents (I'm not saying this one - I have no idea). We need to recognize that, and do what we can to maximize a culture of safe aviation.

Perhaps most pilots reading here will not fly a Moth, but if one pilot remembers one wisdom here, applicable to a Moth, or similar type, and that wisdom becomes a part of a safey culture for that pilot, and is then passed on, safety happened, and that justifies such posts here in my mind...

vanHorck

19th May 2011, 12:26

Thank you pilot DAR.

I wonder how many pilots (after having been lost in a piloting accident) here would object to their demise being discussed here in detail and at length, irrespective if they had made a human error or if the cause of their crash was a different one.

I would suspect most would have no objection to this. I certainly would not, and you can keep a record of this post if ever you need the argument.

:ok:

Rod1

19th May 2011, 15:03

NoD

There are many cases of PP helping with flight safety as a result of a discussion regarding an accident. I gained a lot for the discussion following the 2007 fatal collision near Abbots Bromley. This thread inspired me to change my operating procedures and has undoubtedly reduced my chances of having a mid air. Other threads have rammed home the importance of “don’t stall” if you have engine failure, again following several engine failure accidents, which were debated, on this forum in some detail.

If you look up the case of the modified micro which crashed on an instructional flight (G-STYX) and killed two people. The forums disagreed so strongly with the AAIB that an alternative report was produced and eventually accepted buy the coroner, although the AAIB has still not formally apologised for its incompetence on that occasion.

G-STYX (http://sites.google.com/site/gstyxstory/Home)

Rod1

Captain-Random

18th Aug 2014, 22:44

Seems the pilot has pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and there will be a trial next year...

Witchampton biplane crash: Pilot denies manslaughter - BBC News (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-28707416)

OpenCirrus619

19th Aug 2014, 07:50

From AAIB Bulletin June 2012: DH82A Tiger Moth G-AOIL 2006-12.pdf (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/DH82A%20Tiger%20Moth%20G-AOIL%2006-12.pdf)

OC619

andyl999

2nd Mar 2015, 18:14

BBC News - Witchampton fatal biplane crash: Pilot 'attempted loop' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-31697870)

Sir George Cayley

2nd Mar 2015, 20:35

There's a criminal trial in progress. Are you sure your contribution will help justice be served?

SGC

Tay Cough

2nd Mar 2015, 23:22

Back then, the Moth was "old", now they're virtually flying pieces of history - do we need to loop them at this stage in their vintage?

Why not? They're designed to do them.

If they are maintained and monitored to appropriate standards and the pilots who aerobat them are trained to a suitable level, there is no reason why they should not.

By way of example, there was a recent Emergency Airworthiness Directive issued regarding wing tie rods which prohibited aerobatics until the necessary inspections were carried out. Following satisfactory inspections, aerobatics could be resumed.

A sensible and logical approach and the Moths are far from the only aircraft to have been subject to Emergency ADs over the years - some of them being much more modern types. I regularly fly another type which was subject of a modification requirement and reduced G limitations as a result of an airworthiness directive. If the Moths needed more restrictive permanent limitations, I have absolutely no doubt the authorities would have insisted upon them.

Pilot DAR

3rd Mar 2015, 09:24

The discussion on this topic is welcomed. However, it is possible that this is not the right time. There will be a right time for discussion to continue, and, be it later today, or end of a trial, I, or another PPRuNe mod, will return here to state that.

I won't lock this thread, as PPRuNe would like it to continue, but would posters please hold their thoughts briefly...

Thanks, Pilot DAR

Pilot DAR

3rd Mar 2015, 12:37

After some discussion today, the decision has been made that posts which relate to this accident should not be made during the period of legal proceedings. It is PPRuNe's hope that an interesting discussion may resume when legal issues are settled.

In the mean time, the thread will be left unlocked, to encourage future participation. If a poster has been informed that legal proceedings are complete, would they please PM myself or Saab Dastard, and one of us will confirm that the time is right to continue the thread, and post a "go!" on the thread.

Thanks for your understanding, freedom of speech is important, but a person's rights exceed that importance, in this context.

Pilot DAR

pulse1

12th May 2015, 15:24

Following a 3-4 week trial, a Tiger Moth pilot has been cleared of manslaughter and endangering an aircraft (not to mention the first trial which had to be abandoned)

Tiger Moth pilot Scott Hoyle not guilty of manslaughter after fatal crash (From Bournemouth Echo) (http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/12945253.Tiger_Moth_pilot_Scott_Hoyle_not_guilty_of_manslaug hter_after_fatal_crash/)

The details of the trial have not been reported but I imagine the pilot put up a spirited defence (a total of 24 witnesses called and lots of legal submissions).

I wondered if any Ppruners might be able to provide more information or comment.

I hope that this result discourages the CPS from pursuing any other pilots who might find themselves in this unfortunate position. I hate to think what this trial cost.

Pilot DAR

13th May 2015, 00:11

Thank you for your patience,

I have been provided two links to news stories:

Tiger Moth pilot Scott Hoyle not guilty of manslaughter after fatal crash (From Bournemouth Echo) (http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/12945253.Tiger_Moth_pilot_Scott_Hoyle_not_guilty_of_manslaug hter_after_fatal_crash/)

and:

Tiger Moth biplane death crash pilot Scott Hoyle not guilty - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-32628700)

It appears that there may be more to this case than would appear on the surface. Commenters are asked to keep this in mind when they formulate their posts. Please choose your words as though a victim might be reading them - hotel lobby rules please. I would like to think that we could all shake hands following the discussion, as respected colleagues. But, in any case, the Mods are watching!

This was a sad event, which none of us would want to experience first hand. I would like to think we can demonstrate some compassion for the victim, and the pilot, in our discussions. But, this is a worthy topic for discussion and learning, that we all be reminded of the need to do our best to imagine what could happen, and apply ourselves toward the best outcome for every flight we fly.

We will see differing points of view posted, I hope we can all agree that we can learn something no matter what our perspective, and each do a little better when we fly.

Please note, I have moved one post from earlier today, which now resides at the end of the previous page of this thread (that's just where it landed, and I can't change the order). Please consider that post too...

The discussion is open....

Big Pistons Forever

13th May 2015, 01:29

From the AAIB report

Quote

The first recorded flight was a local flight from Compton
Abbas with a duration of 31 minutes. (Figure 1 depicts
the ground track and altitude trace). Indicated on the
altitude trace are significant points in the flight in terms
of minimum altitude, descent rates and manoeuvres, as
well as the height of the ground below the aircraft. Of
note was the minimum altitude of 850 ft agl close to the
town of Blandford Forum, some tight level turns, and
a loop at about 1,200 ft agl followed by a descending
turn to the right at 2,330 ft/min, from 1,000 ft agl down
to a height of 410 ft agl, near Witchampton. This loop
was performed on a north-westerly heading, into the
prevailing wind, and was started within 20 m of the
position of the subsequent accident site. Further on,
near Chettle House, there was a second loop at about
1,600 ft agl, followed by an immediate right descending
turn of 300 ft at 2,350 ft/min. The maximum recorded
altitude during the flight was 2,150 ft amsl.

Unquote.

For me this speaks volumes about the pilots decision making and his attitude. He was IMO wholly unqualified to fly the flight profile described above. He got away with it the first time but clearly not the second time. He may have won the court case but that does not change the general level of reckless and poor judgement displayed by this pilot.

He will spend the the rest of his life knowing he killed his friend, so I guess justice will have been served, but it is so sad that this tragic accident was so completely preventable by simply following the aerobatic minimum altiude rules.

BTW there are about 100 active airshow pilots in North America who fly low level aerobatic routines. These pilots hold display authorizations that are only given after a rigorous assessment process. They are all most all professional pilots and fly aircraft with high performance margins......yet two or three kill themselves flying low level aerobatics every year.

There can be only one lesson from this accident.

1) Do not fly low level aerobatics unless you are a professional aerobatic pilot and fully understand the risks and can mitigate them.

2) NEVER EVER fly a low level aerobatic maneuver with a passenger onboard.

India Four Two

13th May 2015, 04:28

I've followed the aftermath of this crash with interest, because I like Tiger Moths, I'm an aerobatic pilot and Compton Abbas was my local airfield when I used to visit my mother near Shaftesbury.

In the poorly written Bournemouth Echo article, there is a reference to Mr. Hoyle being 6' 2" tall and weighing 18 stone. For non-Brits, that's 252 lb / 115 Kg in the back seat! It caused me to re-read the accident report, paying attention to the weight and balance.

According to the AAIB, the gross weight was 815 Kg, which was 13 Kg less than the maximum gross weight, but 13 Kg MORE than the maximum gross weight for aerobatics. The CG was 0.1" forward of the aft aerobatic limit. As an aside, the report points out that the CG location should not have had a significant effect on the spin recovery characteristics.

In the report, the following statements were made about Mr. Hoyle:

1) he had not had the aerobatic training offered by the syndicate's instructor;

2) he had not spun the Tiger;

3) he did not know the correct spin recovery technique;

4) he admitted knowing about HASELL checks and the 3000' AGL recovery floor, but didn't offer any reason as to why he performed aerobatics below this height;

5) he admitted to looping but claimed it wasn't an aerobatic maneuver;

6) on the first flight, he looped the aircraft at a height of 1200' AGL;

7) on the second flight, several witnesses (including a retired commercial pilot) saw the aircraft enter a loop (at 1400' AGL or less) at exactly the same place as on the first flight and then spin out of the top of the loop;

8) however, Mr. Hoyle claimed that he didn't perform a loop - he claimed that the rudder had jammed and in his attempt to recover, had pulled the stick back.

I was very surprised by the not-guilty verdict, given the details in the report. I would be very interested to read a transcript and see what instructions the judge gave to the jury.

I wasn't aware that this was the second trial. What happened in the first one?

I completely disagree with pulse1's post. This is exactly the sort of case that should be pursued by the CPS.

There is an interesting article pertaining to this trial, concerning whether the AAIB report was admissable in evidence:
Rogers v Hoyle: legal victory for claimants in UK aviation claims (http://www.stewartslaw.com/rogers-v-hoyle-legal-victory-for-claimants-in-uk-aviation-claims.aspx)

Legalapproach

13th May 2015, 06:24

What happened in the first trial is straightforward. After the trial had been running for a week it was decided that it was necessary for some of the experts to carry out further investigation of the wreckage. This would take time and the delay could have caused difficulties for the jury. The trial judge very sensibly decided that it was better to discharge the jury and start afresh once the work had been carried out.

As for the other comments you assume that the AAIB got it right. The Jury heard from an AAIB inspector. The AAIB don't always get it right and, for example, had miscalculated the weight and balance for the aircraft believing it was overweight and out of CofG when it wasn't. I'm not going to criticise the AAIB inspector involved; he had only looked at part of the evidence and there was other conflicting evidence. In addition I don't believe that he was the one who had dealt with W and B.

India Two Four -

A number of those statements made in the AAIB report were incorrect and had not been thoroughly examined. As an example the retired airline pilot who it was claimed had seen the fatal 'loop' had clearly seen the first loop and not the fatal manoeuvre as the timings simply did not fit. She had seen the aircraft perform 3/4 of a loop before trees obscured her view without it having departed from controlled flight. This could not have been the failed loop claimed by the AAIB and the prosecution. Great reliance was placed upon her evidence as she was a "highly experienced and credible witness" however no one had ever properly investigated her evidence until she was cross-examined.

The jury also heard from a number of other highly qualified experts and rejected the suggestion that the pilot had been flying a loop. This contention was not born out by a close analysis of the available GPS evidence nor reconstruction flights carried out by a number of different experts.

The prosecution case was largely brought on the strength of a prosecution flying expert who conceded during the course of the trial that he had made a number of errors. The prosecution largely ended up abandoning him as a witness which left them with not very much of a case. Had it not been for this "expert's" original opinion this case would probably not have been brought.

Big Pistons Forever

13th May 2015, 06:36

Legal

Are you claiming that India 24's points 1 through 6 above, taken from the AAIB report, are not factually correct ?

Legalapproach

13th May 2015, 07:31

They are not quite as black and white as it may appear:
1) He had been taught to loop in a Chipmunk. He had been shown a loop in the Tiger and had demonstrated one himself to the instructor. He had not had further aerobatic training but did not fly other aeros - only the loop.
2) He had spin training (not on the Tiger) but had been shown a spin on the Tiger during his 5hrs + of check out.
3) He had received spin training and was checked out for spinning. His description to the AAIB was given at a time when he was still suffering the effects of life threatening injuries and was heavily medicated (the prosecution expert himself did not get it perfect when he gave the jury a description of spin recovery).
4) correct - but he gave the 3500 as "for example" referring to his spin training. When he had a loop demonstrated and then flew one himself in the Tiger it was done at about 2000' (the instructor's evidence).
5) During the interview he did state that a loop was not an aerobatic maneuver but then corrected himself.
6) I don't have the figure to hand - the height came from the GPS data and was subject to lag, averaging and margin of error. It was acknowledged that it was below 2000' but the passenger (a parachutist with military flying experience and currently training for a commercial pilots licence) gave evidence and said that he was not uncomfortable with the height.

As I say, they do not necessarily paint the full picture and the eye witness evidence was not thoroughly investigated. In fact a number of the witnesses did not describe it spinning from the top of the loop and certainly one of the eye witnesses said it pulled up and entered a spin (consistent with the pilot's account) and it did not look like a loop. In any event flight reconstruction showed that a replication of the pilot's reported control inputs cause the aircraft to flick into a spin and viewed from the ground this had the appearance (to an untrained observer) of a looping movement.

Midlifec

13th May 2015, 07:33

Re the weight of Mr Hoyle as mentioned above, you seem to have mixed up Hoyle and Rogers, the passenger was 18 stone 7lbs, not the pilot, the aircraft was agreed to be within limits with both the prosecution expert and the AAIB having erred in their calculations.

The Old Fat One

13th May 2015, 08:19

For background only...

Courts of Law and accident investigations have very different functions and entirely different standards of allowable evidence. It is entirely normal, and has happened thousands of times, that an outcome in a Court of Law will be different to any sort of non-judicial investigation.

In aviation there is a very well known UK military case from about a decade or more ago, when a RAF pilot killed an individual through a flagrant act of flying indiscipline and clear breach of regulations.

He got off scot-free in a civilian law court and was then immune from military process under double jeopardy laws.

It was ever thus.

Ironically (and painfully for all) once a law case has failed it often proves difficult to apply non-judicial findings, because the regulatory body is then open to legal action itself.

Not saying any of that applies here....just saying that is how the world works.

pulse1

13th May 2015, 08:58

India Four Two,

Having read Legalapproach's post I wonder if your "complete" disagreement with my view might be a little less complete.

It seems to me that the CPS and even the CAA have a poor track record for prosecuting pilots. A lot of this has been thanks to the efforts of Flying Lawyer before he became a judge. As far as I recall, most of the cases I know about have revealed a readiness by the CPS or CAA to prosecute on unreliable evidence, causing immense distress to the unfortunate pilots. In at least two of these cases, the unreliable evidence came from professional pilots, as in this case.

Until I learned more of the real situation, now revealed by Legalapproach, I too assumed that this pilot had been stupid and should have been prosecuted. Although he may have demonstrated poor airmanship, I do not now believe that he should have been prosecuted.

flying-saint

13th May 2015, 11:15

Anyone reading the AAIB Report alone on this unfortunate accident is left with a clear view on fault on the part of the pilot. This is a potentially dangerous and in the main, uncharacteristic starting point for such reports in any event.

The point is materially accelerated further in the wrong direction if you accept that the AAIB Report is materially wrong in a number of areas.

The evidence at the Trial was clear.

The pilot (and only actual available witness of what happened in the aircraft) had from the very outset said that he sustained a left rudder jam following a left turn, which he could not free.

As the aircraft attempted to depart to the left, he held it off with, (the only control available to him) - opposite stick. It did not solve the problem for long and as he relaxed the controls to see if that would free the jam the aircraft attempted to aggressively depart to the left; he snatched the stick back and the aircraft flicked over and into a violent left spin, which he could not recover from.

A word to the wise, the pilot is clear that he was not attempting any form of aerobatics, loop or otherwise as part of the accident sequence and/or the subject flight. The conclusion of 'loop' was seemingly speculative (and a premature conclusion) based upon having flown loops in the subject area on a previous flight, (and the error by those investigating with for example, ground witnesses) - see Legalapproach. The investigators investigation was admitted as limited.

The actual evidence at Trial was clear to all. There had been detailed investigation of the evidence by the defence team and experts. This included the GPS, wreckage, accident scene photographs, witnesses and expert analyses - including flight physics / mathematical modelling and flight testing. Independently but complimentary to each other, the only version of events that remained possible was as the pilot had described it from the outset, (including to the paramedic as he was being cut out from the aircraft with serious injuries).

Accordingly, there are a number of questions (not specific to this pilot and not confined to this accident) that need to be asked…

The Old Fat One

13th May 2015, 11:42

^^

In many countries (especially the UK) the outcome of a court case has just as much to do with the quality of legal representation that can be afforded as it is a matter of evidence.

Sorry for the cynical view, but just providing balance here. The aforementioned RAF jock did not "get off" because he did not carry out the act, or because the evidence was insufficient.

He got off because his costly brief found a legal loophole and applied it.

Again...it was ever thus.

This pilots actions would best be assessed above all else by his peers, given all the available clues.

What a Court of Law says about his flying ability and decision-making is a pretty much irrelevant outwith the legal context.

Legalapproach

13th May 2015, 11:57

The Old Fat One

How do you know the RAF pilot had a "costly brief"?

FYI The Tiger Moth pilot was represented on Legal Aid.

Jetblu

13th May 2015, 12:59

Legalapproach, very well done Sir! :D ...and you were up against a "costly brief" of a QC no less. ;)

IMHO the case should have never gone ahead. It was an unintentional accident.

I now hope that all the affected parties can now move on and try not to remiss too much over that dreadful day.

The Old Fat One

13th May 2015, 13:53

^^

Please read before commenting...

What I said...

For background only...

I don't like using bold, capitals etc in a forum, but really sometimes it cannot be avoided....

FOR CONTEXT ONLY!

I make no judgement on this case which I know nothing about. My point was purely to provide a very general point.

Being found not guilty in a Court of Law does not mean a pilot has not committed an error (large or small) and vice versa.

Being found in error in a Board of Enquiry does not mean a pilot has committed a criminal act and vice versa.

If that is not clear enough...anyway, I've (hopefully made my point) I'm done.

9 lives

13th May 2015, 14:25

Prior to this comment, I have read the preceding posts, and the most part of the AAIB report again. I do not have access to the legal arguments. The facts are something else again....

What I think I see is that different professions involved in the aftermath of this event applied their best effort. The accident investigators recreated with their best effort, a detailed summary of the circumstances, with supporting evidence. Then, the legal system applied their best effort to call it all into question. I suppose that a non aviation familiar court were persuaded by the legal arguments.

Something reasonably clear was made muddy, and then found to not be transparent any more. In my personal opinion this does not equate to innocence, just muddy.

Could that pilot tell himself that that flight was conducted by him so as to create the most safe flying experience for his passenger? Were that pilot's reported aerobatics on the previous flight conducted with due regard for safety and regulatory compliance (entry altitude & his competence)? Did he intend that his second flight be more safe than his first? Do we aviation people disbelieve the product of the AAIB investigation?

Jetblu

13th May 2015, 15:01

Step turn - did you not read what Legal approach said?

I suggest something very muddy was made clear. From the transparency of that the Judge summed up the evidence.....from that the jury came back and found the pilot not guilty. End of.

maxred

13th May 2015, 15:06

In my original post, #52, I ended by stating transparency was key to this event.

From the transparency of that the Judge summed up the evidence.....from that the jury came back and found the pilot not guilty. End of.

I concur. What I am now struggling with is why a number on here wish the pilot prosecuted....

flying-saint

13th May 2015, 15:52

Quite right Jetblu. Something muddy was made clear. Everything that could was thrown at the pilot (including evidence from the AAIB). It was then the consideration of the full evidence (factual and expert) that trumped the defective allegations and unambiguously resulted in the verdict - it was not the 'legal arguments' Step Turn. The AAIB do not always get it right...

9 lives

13th May 2015, 16:03

did you not read what Legal approach said?

I suggest something very muddy was made clear.Yes, I read what Legal approach said. Unfortunately the statements have not found good footing with me.

I read a lot of conflict between reported court "information", and the AAIB report. Honestly, I don't find accident investigation authority reports to be glaringly wrong in my experience. Small errors, or interpretations, yes, but not huge errors.

I have no information about this event, other than that which I have read from PPRuNe. My interest in the event goes no deeper than a wish that pilots learn from accidents, so they are not repeated.

I read conflicts - even from the pilot himself, as to a loop being intended or not during the accident flight. I simply do not accept that a pilot intended to fly two separate flights with two passengers, looped the first, and had an accident doing what some people report as being a loop, in the same place, while asserting that he was not attempting a loop during the second flight. It does not ring true with me....

By all accounts, the pilot's experience to loop any aircraft was very limited (and by Canadian regulations would not even be close to meeting the minimums for experience - but I know it was the UK, perhaps it's different there). By all accounts, whatever incipient aerobatic maneuvering occurred, it was not entered at a minimum required entry altitude for aerobatics.

The AAIB report is clear, the proceedings seem to make it un clear/call it into question, without in my mind, presenting credible alternative information.

If I were the custodian of the aircraft, and "dealing with" the aftermath of this accident, the information presented thus far, outside the AAIB report, would be inadequate for my to absolve the pilot of responsibility. I am open to there being more that I do not know, which might - but I have not seen it yet....

I continue to feel that the pilot bears responsibility for at least poor airmanship, though more likely for flying an aircraft outside the specified requirements for aerobatics.

flying-saint

13th May 2015, 16:18

Step turn, you appear to be falling into the very trap others before you have - equating the circumstantial with the actual. Without having sat through the evidence, do you not think it inappropriate to be conclusive and make comments such as:-
I continue to feel that the pilot bears responsibility for at least poor airmanship, though more likely for flying an aircraft outside the specified requirements for aerobatics.

What do you recommend as better airmanship for a stuck left rudder, which has resulted in a violent fully developed spin (other than what the pilot did, which was to look himself and ask the passenger whether he could see the cause / obstruction)?

Jetblu

13th May 2015, 16:37

Step turn

Like it or not, we are all human. I know you would like to programme us all to fly 'your way' but it is just not going to happen.

Welcome to earth, where some-things don't always go to plan.

Don't tell me, the last rocket launch wasn't as per the Flight Manual. :ugh:

Anyway, as flying-saint has asked, what's your bright suggestion for a jammed left rudder?

9 lives

13th May 2015, 16:48

What do you recommend as better airmanship for a stuck left rudder, which has resulted in a violent fully developed spin

Well, as you have asked...

Allowing for the moment that the rudder was obstructed (of which I remain skeptical), as the pilot, I would avoid the slow flight which would result in a spin. I struggle to believe that there would be an obstruction to full rudder deflection, and a partial rudder obstruction might be manageable to an unhappy, but injury free landing. With some rudder, a Tiger Moth can be slipped right on to the ground, inevitably to ground loop, but who cares about that compared to a worse outcome.

Yes, a Tiger Moth is among the many types I have flown.

Legal Approach has told us:

As an example the retired airline pilot who it was claimed had seen the fatal 'loop' had clearly seen the first loop and not the fatal manoeuvre as the timings simply did not fit. She had seen the aircraft perform 3/4 of a loop before trees obscured her view without it having departed from controlled flight. This could not have been the failed loop claimed by the AAIB and the prosecution.

Honestly, if a retired airline pilot saw 3/4 of a loop - it was a loop, you don't have to see the last 1/4 to know it was entered!

From the AAIB report:

The pilot discussed plans for the first flight with his passenger, which included the possibility of the pilot flying a couple of loops.

I continue to assert that the pilot did not have the experience nor planned the flight with good airmanship to consider executing a loop under the conditions he chose.

Loops are in this discussion. The pilot is not described as having near the minimum experience to fly loops (at least by specific Canadian standards). If the pilot flew a loop, with inadequate experience, and not meeting the minimum requirements, that pilot is guilty of at least very poor airmanship for that, regardless of the outcome. A pilot who summons legal assistance to later evade prosecution where flying a loop under these conditions has been authoritatively asserted, does not rate well with me.

Also from the AAIB report:

The passenger took with him a camera which he wore around his neck on a strap

Of course, I can't say if the passenger took the camera strap off his neck, but I do know that getting a camera moving from place to place in a cockpit is even more easy during aerobatics, particularly poorly executed aerobatics.

I'm reading and considering, but remain unconvinced. The outcome is what it is, and will not change. In my opinion, the best that can come of it is learning and refreshing our minds that responsible pilots fly so as to not be caught in these situations.

I do not fly however I like, thinking I can hire a crack legal team to get me out of it later. I fly the best I can to avoid/prevent occurrences which could ever result in the need for that crack legal team.

9 lives

13th May 2015, 16:52

Jetblu,

I agree with one of your observations, and have edited my post to remove an unfair remark I made.

Big Pistons Forever

13th May 2015, 16:54

What do you recommend as better airmanship for a stuck left rudder, which has resulted in a violent fully developed spin (other than what the pilot did, which was to look himself and ask the passenger whether he could see the cause / obstruction)?

I recommend a minimum of 3000 feet of altitude before attempting aggressive maneuvering. The lawyers can obfuscate all they want but I see no way to change the fact that a lot of very aggressive maneuvering was occurring at very low altitudes.

In the end it doesn't matter if the actual mode of failure, whether it was a deficit of pilot skill, or the alleged rudder jam, or a combination of the two, what matters is that there was insufficient altitude for the pilot to recover from an aircraft upset. This was a direct result of the altitudes the pilot chose to fly at.

I find it very hard to make the mental leap from a "not guilty" verdict to "this pilot bares no responsibility for the accident"

It appears positions on this issue have already hardened so I will finish with a some general comments as applicable to somebody with the experience level of the accident pilot.

1) It is human nature that taking a friend flying will lead to a temptation to spice up the flight a little. This is in itself not bad but should lead to the mental double check of "would I be doing this if no one was watching". Sadly many accidents have been preceded by the words "hey watch this"

2) It is human nature to want to fly low. All of the visual pleasures of flying are magnified at low altitudes. However, obviously the risks are magnified as well. I am not saying never fly low, but I will say that those risks must be proactively mitigated before you drop down and in general low altitude aggressive maneuvering should never be attempted

3) There is no such a thing as "starter" aerobatics. That is maneuvers that you can teach yourself. All introductory aerobatics courses will have a significant portion devoted to recovering from botched maneuvers and dealing with aircraft malfunctions during aerobatics as even simple maneuvers like loops and rolls can go badly wrong. Students will not be allowed to solo, let alone carry passengers, without mastering this aspect of aerobatic flying

flying-saint

13th May 2015, 17:22

So, let's get this straight, you're suggesting a problem with a simple steep turn in a Tiger Moth at c.2,000ft - really?

And yes, we are talking about a fully deflected immoveable stuck rudder, (not that it needs to travel far in a Tiger Moth to be in that condition). There are a number of possible causes for the stuck rudder.

We are also talking about a PPL doing the best he can in an unfamiliar situation in the matter of seconds before the inversion and high rate spin to the left.

Again, I invite the expected recovery action from the spin for anything less than the Test Pilot, (under the assumption the obstruction / jam cannot be cleared)...

Jetblu

13th May 2015, 17:23

Step turn - Thank you for the correction and edit.

Leading on.....you are just clearly manipulating the factual evidence as you see fit to suit your own ends. Perhaps that is why you favour the AAIB and why we normal pilots are very fortunate to have highly skilled barristers like legalapproach to clear the muddy waters that people like you churn up.

Read the evidence......The airline pilot did NOT see a fatal loop. The times did not tie up - remember?

Big Pistons Forever - I concur. 3000ft is good. 6000ft may have been better, but at the end of the day even aerobatic display pilots get it wrong, unfortunately. Whatever, no criminal offence would have taken place whatever the height, unless deliberate. This was not deliberate, it was an unfortunate accident.

Big Pistons Forever

13th May 2015, 17:32

Big Pistons Forever - I concur. 3000ft is good. 6000ft may have been better, but at the end of the day even aerobatic display pilots get it wrong, unfortunately.

I disagree. Even if you describe the sequence of events, including the alleged rudder jam, in a way most favorable to the accident pilot, you still in my professional opinion, have situation where any fully qualified display pilot would have been able to effect a recovery.

The difference, of course, is that the accident pilot did not have the training, skills, or experience to deal with a low level aircraft upset. The fact that the aircraft was at a low level was as I emphasized earlier, wholly his choice.

flying-saint

13th May 2015, 17:39

I invite the response to my last post...

Jetblu

13th May 2015, 17:51

Big Pistons Forever - we'll have to agree to disagree as we're just going around in circles. Please tell me where any pilot gets the training skills for a jammed control surface. What happened in the preceding minutes before the dreadful event is neither here nor there. The pilot clearly knew how to perform a loop as evidence was heard thereof.

Come on, we've got ATPL's here who can't even find the right airfield and you are having a pop at a ppl for not being able to cope with a jammed rudder.

Big Pistons Forever

13th May 2015, 17:58

OK

Assuming a fully deflected jammed rudder, something that was as far as I can see, never conclusively proven; requires the aircraft to be in a maneuver that needs full rudder to be applied. I see no way this does not therefore imply aggressive maneuvering which given the pilots skill level and low altitude represents poor judgement.

A stuck rudder is obviously a significant in flight malfunction but occurring at altitude and during maneuvers that are "appropriate to the pilots training and skill level" should not automatically lead to an accident.

It would automatically lead to an accident if it occurred during aggressive low level maneuvering. Or more simply a situation where the accident pilot deliberately put the aircraft into a position where in the event anything went wrong, he did not have the skill or training to recover. Again my point is nor so much the actual accident sequence, but the bad choices the pilot made prior to the accident and the lessons that can be learned from those choices.

Midlifec

13th May 2015, 18:10

Seems to me that the very well respected fully qualified fixed wing test and display pilot that flew the pilots version of events and subsequently explained all this to the jury for the defence after a shameful performance by the prosecution 'expert' must have got it wrong then? The jury returned the correct verdict here. The departure from controlled flight took seconds, the pilot has maintained his story since hour one, despite opportunity to provide a different tale- if looking for an out then why not have said that the pax had his foot stuck and told me so, so many easy outs but being an honourable man he has told the truth and even agreed to a police interview against legal advice whilst medicated. I was a cynic at the outset but having reviewed all of the data and thought long and hard about things soon realised that huge and important portions of the AAIB report are unsupportable- ask them where the camera battery pack was found, where was the camera lens found, which way and by how much were the forward two engine cylinders and engine bearer displaced ............ There is so much more

Big Pistons Forever

13th May 2015, 18:10

Big Pistons Forever - we'll have to agree to disagree as we're just going around in circles. Please tell me where any pilot gets the training skills for a jammed control surface.

I explicitly deal with this exact event in my introductory aerobatics course. I discuss options available which are mostly contingent on which control surface is jammed the extent of the jam and the attitude of the aircraft when the jam occurs. Admittedly most scenarios where a jam occurs during an aerobatic maneuver are addressed by bailing out. Of course this requires parachutes, bail out training and sufficient altitude to effect a successful parachute decent, all of which I make a prerequisite for the commencement of aerobatic maneuvering.

I also emphasize the dangers of low altitude maneuvers and insist that all maneuvers be planned so that the aircraft will never be lower than 3000 feet AGL.

I truly believe that none of my students would ever place themselves in the position that the accident pilot did because they have the training, experience and knowledge to appropriately manage the risks of aerobatic flying, something the accident pilot in my professional opinion as a Transport Canada licensed aerobatic instructor; did not .

Jetblu

13th May 2015, 18:11

The jammed rudder does not need to be proven. It's not a criminal offence.
The pilot said it was jammed. The end.

Next...... this pilot could clearly not control the aircraft with the jammed rudder. That does not mean to say that either you or I couldn't with our experiance, but again, at the end of the day an unfortunate 'accident' took place and 30 years from now the same types of accidents will be happening. We were even talking about these events in the 1980's.

Midelifec - I have read what you have said. You need not convince me. I agree with you.

Big Pistons Forever

13th May 2015, 18:17

The jammed rudder does not need to be proven. It's not a criminal offence.
The pilot said it was jammed. The end.

.

How convenient :hmm:

Yup no lessons to be learned here, could have happened to anybody, I mean who could have predicted a low hour pilot with no aerobatic training aggressively maneuvering close to the ground could have come to grief........

This was no "accident" :ugh:

9 lives

13th May 2015, 18:25

you are just clearly manipulating the factual evidence as you see fit to suit your own ends. Perhaps that is why you favour the AAIB and why we normal pilots are very fortunate to have highly skilled barristers like legalapproach to clear the muddy waters that people like you churn up

Happily, I have no "ends" here, just the transparent light of day, as it might be seen to promote flying safely. I gain nor loose nothing, no matter what the outcome of this event or discussion. Our industry and pastime can loose something - public credibility and economical insurance if accidents continue. As a pilot, I gain a tiny amount, if the public, and the insurers have more faith in pilots in general.

I'm not manipulating anything - evidence is evidence, I have no access to it. I am asking questions though... I'm very inclined to trust the AAIB or other authoritative investigation group. They have no self interest in the outcome, they just report what they can determine. Their report may not be fact, but is what the pilot reported any more a fact?

The AAIB quotes the pilot (perhaps more close to fact about the pilot's knowledge):

When the pilot was asked what the spin recovery
technique should be, he commented that he had only
previously spun in a Cessna 172 and stated that you
should centralise the rudder, to stop the spin, and then
apply back pressure gently, due to the high speed.

Cessna says to "Apply and hold full rudder opposite to the direction of the spin". I don't have access to a Tiger Moth "manual", but I bet it is not far from that.

The pilot was unfamiliar with spins, so should have kept his flying a long way away from spinning, until competent. Did the pilot conduct the flight so as to avoid regimes of flight in which there was an increased risk of a spin? Was the previous flight, with the stated loop a flight avoiding an approach to spin risk?

AAIB says:

but reported later that he had encountered a problem with a restriction of the left rudder pedal
during the left turn to the north. He recalled the aircraft
being in a spin to the left and stated that although he
had pushed hard on the right rudder pedal, it would not
move and he could not recover from the spin.

And:

A detailed check on the continuity and integrity of the
controls to the ailerons, rudder, elevator and autoslots
was made from each point of control input to each
control surface, including checks for any restrictions;
nothing significant was found.

These two statements are not in harmony. Is one more "factual" than the other? If so, Why?

Jetblu

13th May 2015, 18:26

Fly-by-Wife

13th May 2015, 18:40

Step Turn, if you are going to quote from the AAIB, you should quote the complete segment, which goes on to say:

Witness marks from any restriction would have been difficult to detect, even without the significant damage from the ground impact. Thus it was not possible to determine if there was any damage or witness mark that might have arisen from a control restriction in the cockpit.

In the summary at the end, the AAIB then states:

The pilot stated that he had a rudder control restriction. The inspection of the wreckage, and in particular the flying controls, revealed nothing conclusive to suggest that there was a control restriction. However, given the level of damage sustained by the aircraft, the possibility of a control restriction could not be eliminated.

FBW

9 lives

13th May 2015, 18:50

if you are going to quote from the AAIB, you should quote the complete segment

Yes, I agree, my quoting the full passage would be more objective. My error in "searching" for the term, rather than reading the entire document through again. My assertions hold less vigour, but are not entirely withdrawn either...

Big Pistons Forever

13th May 2015, 19:11

Big Pistons Forever

So on that note, you agree that the next low time inexperienced pilot that wanders out and accidentally flies into IMC and wipes out his/her passengers should be criminally prosecuted? Get real.

You raise a very good point. As a general rule I would suggest that involving the legal system in the determination of the cause of an accident is not a good path to follow. The pitfalls of this approach are all too evident in what has happened in various French and Asian accident reports.

If the only question is "was it appropriate to pursue a criminal proceeding against the accident pilot" then I admit you have forced me to closely examine my motivations.

At what level does such reckless disregard for generally accepted standards or airmanship and aeronautical decision making rise to the criminal ? On further reflection I am now leaning towards the opinion that while the acts of this pilot where egregious and deliberate violations of good piloting practices they are close to but not above the bar meriting criminal prosecution.

However I remain adamant that this accident was directly caused by the numerous poor decisions made by the pilot that fateful day.

The only good that can come from this accident is if someone else out there that is perhaps contemplating having some fun with a bit of low level whoop de do's to impress the admiring passenger, remembers what could happen and thinks better of it.......

booke23

13th May 2015, 19:41

However I remain adamant that this accident was directly caused by the numerous poor decisions made by the pilot that fateful day.

I agree.

Maybe the rudder was jammed, maybe it wasn't. If it was, it didn't get to full deflection by itself.

Maybe being charged with manslaughter was harsh, maybe it wasn't. But being found not guilty doesn't change the fact that his airmanship prior to the accident was poor to say the least.

flying-saint

13th May 2015, 20:31

Can one of you critics advise me how use of rudder in a steep turn on a Tiger Moth aircraft (where distance travelled for full deflection is probably less than you think) in any way displays poor airmanship or more pertinently, how that would present a pilot with a foreseeable risk? If it's not that, what else is being criticised during this flight? I must say I'm struggling to understand the valid logic / basis for any criticism...

Incidentally, if I'm not mistaken, the AAIB conceded at Trial that the rudder was found deflected to the left...

India Four Two

13th May 2015, 20:42

There are clearly two differing points of view about this accident and new information about the trial is appearing in some of the posts. As I said before, I would like to read the transcript of the trial.

At least one poster has cast aspersions on the veracity or completeness of the AAIB report. My view is that the report is quite reasonable and that I find it very credible.

Concerning the assertion by the pilot that the rudder was jammed, I find it remarkably coincidental that it happened in exactly the same location as a low-level loop on the first flight. A friend of the pilot and passenger was watching during the accident flight - the report does not make it clear if the friend observed the first flight.

... and a loop at about 1,200 ft agl followed by a descending turn to the right at 2,330 ft/min, from 1,000 ft agl down to a height of 410 ft agl, near Witchampton. This loop was performed on a north-westerly heading, into the prevailing wind, and was started within 20 m of the position of the subsequent accident site

flying-saint

13th May 2015, 21:09

If you want to get to the truth, you need to step away from the seemingly 'coincidental'. While those unswayed by the pilot's version of events rely solely on the AAIB Report, that won't be achieved. By all means look into the evidence considered in depth during the 4 week trial - then we can continue with a reasoned discussion.

Legalapproach

13th May 2015, 21:14

It takes about 10-15 minutes to read the AAIB report.

The jury heard the best part of 4 weeks worth of evidence from a variety of experts. The case was prosecuted by a very able Queen's Counsel for whom I have a high regard who did a very thorough job. The case was summed up by a very meticulous High Court Judge whose summing up took two days. The summing up was clear and balanced.

I love the ability of PPruners to read the AAIB report and know what really happened better than the jury who heard all of the evidence and competing arguments. Oh and anyone who was present in court will know that the jury asked some extremely pertinent and clever questions. There were clearly jurors with engineering and other relevant experience.

People may find the AAIB report quite reasonable and highly credible but then, the criticism of the AAIB was they did not take all of the facts into account. Not a mistake made by posters on Pprune who clearly know what all of the relevant evidence was.

booke23

13th May 2015, 21:22

flying-saint, I get the distinct impression you have some kind of agenda or axe to grind in relation to this incident and verdict.

You seem to refute even the slightest suggestion that this pilot is anything other than whiter than white in regard to this incident. Further discussion seems futile.

flying-saint

13th May 2015, 21:33

No axe. Agenda is to ensure that one of our pilot brethren does not continue to be sold short by misinformation. Of course, I appreciate that I do have the advantage of having seen significant parts of the evidence at the recent trial. And yes, you're right, during the subject flight, I am struggling to see where the pilot fell short of what was required...

Penny Washers

13th May 2015, 21:34

Jetblu

13th May 2015, 21:41

booke23

To the contrary, flying-saint is one of the few who posts in an unbiased fashion and with no axe to grind.

Whatever this former marine (pilot) may have got up to in Afghanistan was probably not whiter than white, but hey, they wasn't criminal was it, because, the Crown said that was ok.

Big Pistons Forever

13th May 2015, 22:08

As a matter of interest, do you, Big Pistons, teach side slip approaches? And does not that involve full rudder, held almost to ground level?

You would need to know how to do these in order to fly a Tiger Moth properly and safely.

Absolutely, however if the rudder did jam hard over when one went to straighten up you would be on a very short final. The result would be a touchdown with the aircraft crooked and a ground loop. Chance of a fatal outcome, pretty much nil.

A lot different from the full rudder required to perform the tight low level turns shown in the GPS data. Rudder jams up on one of those and you are in a whole different situation.....

A slide slip to land is a required maneuver in many conditions. A tight low level turn is a choice........

Big Pistons Forever

13th May 2015, 22:12

And yes, you're right, during the subject flight, I am struggling to see where the pilot fell short of what was required...

Ummm..... how about choosing to perform aerobatic maneuvers with a passenger as low time pilot with no formal aerobatic training, in a gross weight, aft C of G under powered high drag bi plane at a height thousands of feet below what is universally considered prudent.........

flying-saint

13th May 2015, 22:38

Big Pistons Forever, is it fair to agree that a left turn doesn't tick any of your boxes. There is no evidence of anything else done earlier during the subject flight. Presumably the subject flight is what we're interested in - the cause of the crash - right?

We could talk at length about weight and CofG for this aircraft and how the AAIB computations were corrected by the Defence expert (together with his correction of the aircraft handling characteristics to that presented by the prosecution expert, which was then conceded by the prosecution expert). However, I'm not sure we need to go there as with a steep left turn at 2,000ft, where is the relevant criticism?

Big Pistons Forever

13th May 2015, 22:53

Saint

Are you seriously arguing that the flight profiles of the pilots earlier flights have no relevance to this accident ? That he did low level aerobatics despite his lack of training and experience as well as aggressive low level maneuvering on his first flight but on the second flight he was just bumbling along at normal altitudes with normal bank and pitch attitudes when the rudder suddenly jammed hard over and caused him to crash ?

Do you really feel the accident pilot did nothing that day that contributed to the likelihood and severity of a crash, that he bares no responsibility for what happened ?

27/09

13th May 2015, 23:14

It appears that many on here have read the AAIB report and taken it as gospel. As has been posted on here there are some parts of the report that need further clarification.

We have seen posts like The pilot was unfamiliar with spins, so should have kept his flying a long way away from spinning, until competent. Did the pilot conduct the flight so as to avoid regimes of flight in which there was an increased risk of a spin? and how about choosing to perform aerobatic maneuvers with a passenger as low time pilot with no formal aerobatic training

Then, quoting Legalapproach, we find out1) He had been taught to loop in a Chipmunk. He had been shown a loop in the Tiger and had demonstrated one himself to the instructor. He had not had further aerobatic training but did not fly other aeros - only the loop.
2) He had spin training (not on the Tiger) but had been shown a spin on the Tiger during his 5hrs + of check out.
3) He had received spin training and was checked out for spinning.

I think there is also confusion with some of the evidence both on here and in the report.

While I have used one quote here to illustrate my point there are several others examples. I must admit it takes a bit of unraveling to figure some things out.

Legal Approach has told us:

:
As an example the retired airline pilot who it was claimed had seen the fatal 'loop' had clearly seen the first loop and not the fatal manoeuvre as the timings simply did not fit. She had seen the aircraft perform 3/4 of a loop before trees obscured her view without it having departed from controlled flight. This could not have been the failed loop claimed by the AAIB and the prosecution.
Honestly, if a retired airline pilot saw 3/4 of a loop - it was a loop, you don't have to see the last 1/4 to know it was entered!

There are two things that tend to show that the retired airline pilot wasn't observing the accident manoeuvre when she spoke about the loop in the quote above.

Firstly as mentioned the time of day was wrong. Secondly the spin in the fatal flight had been entered prior to the top of the loop (assuming it was actually a loop that was being attempted). The retired airline pilot sees a loop completed past the top of the loop, so she wasn't observing the accident flight. I think AAIB report even shows some confusion over this point.

While I have my concerns about the quality of airmanship in doing low level aerobatic manoeuvres with passengers I don't think some of the comments being made about the pilot are fair.

I don't think it has been proven the pilot was attempting to carry out a loop when the accident occurred. There is reasonable evidence to show the accident occurred exactly as he said. Yes, he may have been intending to carry out a loop or loops during that flight, but was he actually doing so when the accident occurred?

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the possibility of the passenger accidentally interfering with the rudder pedals. There was a fatal accident over here a few years ago involving a Pitt Special with a very very experienced aeros pilot. The conclusion was the passenger had accidentally interfered with the controls.

flying-saint

13th May 2015, 23:24

Big Pistons Forever,

I think Legalapproach has already dealt with the pilot's training and I think that with a like for like scaled graphical analysis of the raw GPS data for the first flight of the day or other flights where loops were successfully undertaken (with prior clearing turns and dives to pick up speed from the height demonstrated to the pilot by his instructor) with lighter passengers vs. the GPS profile plot for the accident flight, you could for yourself determine the totally different flight profiles and absence of loop on the accident flight.

In fact he was heading to a specific point to take photographs of a building on the accident flight until turned away from a busy controlled zone and then heading back home.

And yes, based upon the totality of evidence I have seen, I believe the pilot did not fall short of what could be reasonably expected of him or any other competent qualified pilot of that experience during the accident flight and particularly the accident sequence.

flying-saint

13th May 2015, 23:41

27/09

The cause of the rudder jam remains uncertain. The pilot vividly described the onset of the jam feeling like he went over a tennis ball (not in the literal sense).

The possibility of a jam via the passenger's foot was a potential possibility. Regrettably the footwear he wore was destroyed before inspection was possible.

Another possibility was the passenger's SLR camera, on which the last image was a rear facing selfie of passenger and pilot taken by the passenger while taxiing - note, no photos once airborne.

Notably, despite no mention of this in the AAIB report. The broken camera lens and battery pack were spotted by the Defence team in the accident scene photos in the immediate vicinity of the rudder pedals within the wreckage.

Big Pistons Forever

13th May 2015, 23:50

And yes, based upon the totality of evidence I have seen, I believe the pilot did not fall short of what could be reasonably expected of him or any other competent qualified pilot of that experience during the accident flight and particularly the accident sequence.

I think we are so far apart that further discussion is futile. As I admitted earlier I do now agree that a criminal prosecution of the pilot was not correct given the facts presented.

However as an aerobatic instructor I feel very strongly about the requirement for a proper course of instruction before flying any aerobatic maneuver. This instruction will deal with all the bad things that can happen when flying aerobatics even for the simple maneuvers. All credible aerobatic training will also emphasize the importance of conducting aerobatic maneuvers at a safe height.

I find the flight profile of the first flight frightening in its recklessness and simply do not find it credible that the same style of flying was not carried out on the second flight and that it contributed to the accident.

Given the level of training and experience of the pilot and the fact that the aircraft passenger was a large and very heavy man, a local slight seeing flight at a sensible altitude and with moderate turns with no aggressive maneuvering would have been appropriate and would have greatly reduced the probability of an accident.

I know that sounds judgmental but respecting the limits of ones abilities as bounded by the pilots experience, training, the aircraft flown and other relevant factors is the essence of responsible pilot decision making. The pilots first flight represents the antithesis of that decision making and thus will inevitable colour my view on what happened on the second.

27/09

14th May 2015, 04:35

BPFHowever as an aerobatic instructor I feel very strongly about the requirement for a proper course of instruction before flying any aerobatic maneuver. This instruction will deal with all the bad things that can happen when flying aerobatics even for the simple maneuvers. All credible aerobatic training will also emphasize the importance of conducting aerobatic maneuvers at a safe height.

This pilot had received training in loops and spinning.

I find the flight profile of the first flight frightening in its recklessness I agree, yet the previous passenger who wasn't a novice to flying didn't think there was an issue.

and simply do not find it credible that the same style of flying was not carried out on the second flight and that it contributed to the accident.

Given the level of training and experience of the pilot and the fact that the aircraft passenger was a large and very heavy man, a local slight seeing flight at a sensible altitude and with moderate turns with no aggressive maneuvering would have been appropriate and would have greatly reduced the probability of an accident.

Apparently the second flight was planned to be "a local slight seeing flight " to photograph a building, no aeros.
In fact he was heading to a specific point to take photographs of a building on the accident flight until turned away from a busy controlled zone and then heading back home.

In general terms most of what you say is correct, however the specifics of this accident make some of what you say less relevant.

booke23

14th May 2015, 11:53

This pilot had received training in loops and spinning.

Really?......discounting the 13 hour dual military flying grading evaluation course 20 years previously, he had 1 hour of stall spin awareness training in a Cessna 172 and a few loops shown to him when he joined the tiger moth group.

Not even close to any aerobatic rating syllabus I have ever seen.

flying-saint

14th May 2015, 13:56

Amongst the critics, there appears to be a continuing tendency to confuse the issues. On the subject / accident flight, I am yet to see the legitimate criticism.

If you wish to talk about other flights, where there were successful loops (at or about the height demonstrated by the instructor for this simple manoeuvre) allowing for differences amongst aircraft, we can probably all agree that the more height the better for the inexperienced. Other than that, what else?

booke23:-

Really?......discounting the 13 hour dual military flying grading evaluation
course 20 years previously, he had 1 hour of stall spin awareness training in a
Cessna 172 and a few loops shown to him when he joined the tiger moth
group.

Not even close to any aerobatic rating syllabus I have ever seen.

So not that it is relevant to the accident beyond the speculation which was dismantled at trial, but regarding loops, you appear to take it upon yourself to discount the grading course as relevant experience. Where there is no requisite aerobatic rating for aircraft type, (and indeed some of the best aerobatic pilots are self-taught) would you say that experience of 50+ loops, many of which were with an instructor in the demonstrate, follow through, perform environment has probably resulted in the pilot being able to perform a loop (this number not including all those he did subsequently in the TM)? Or have you just made your mind up...

Freefly170

14th May 2015, 14:14

The number of loops flown with or without an instructor isn't confirmation of an individual pilots ability to safely conduct aerobatics. A more meaningful criteria would be the ability to recover from a manoeuvre that has gone wrong. Does he/she know how to recover safely if the aircraft gets slow and flicks out of the top of a loop or tailslides out of a stall turn. That's what most aeros checks are about, ensuring that a pilot can fly the manouevre safely and take the corrective action if something goes wrong or they make a mistake. Good spin training( including accelerated spins) and recovery from unusual attitudes is standard in most basic aerobatic courses.

flying-saint

14th May 2015, 15:02

Freefly170, I don't disagree. Of course, the characteristics of the subject aircraft are also relevant. A Tiger Moth will behave differently to an Extra...

Freefly170

14th May 2015, 15:22

Exactly ! which is why type specific aerobatic training is so relevant. I think even experienced aerobatic pilots who were planning to convert to a different type say T67 to a Pitts for instance would spend some time in their differences training exploring the unique characteristics of their new type related to spinning and recovery from unusual attitudes. I'm no expert on the TM but I'd consider the transition from a C172 to Tiger Moth to be quite significant in terms of handling, especially for aerobatics given the high drag and relatively low power of a TM.

flying-saint

14th May 2015, 15:38

My understanding was that from the numerous tests undertaken recently, the nature of the low inertia TM was to flop out of a failed loop and not to depart.

Jetblu

14th May 2015, 15:43

Thank the Lord that the Judge, Jury and experts were not as argumentative and ignorant of the Air Navigation Order and Criminal Law as a few on here.

Whether we think the pilot should have completed an approved EASA aerobatic course is irrelevant. No ANO or law says that he has to. Furthermore, the Tiger Moth is a permit aircraft and not C of A type.

Do we think looping an aircraft without any experience is sensible? Of course we don't. Did this pilot have any experience of looping? Yes he did. Enough? Well what is enough 20 hours, 50 hours, 100 hours?
The best display pilots with 1000's of hours have put them into the deck.

Driving a car is no different. How many drivers caught doing over 100mph have an advanced driving license? Less than 1% I'd say. Pity, because if they had completed the course they would be disciplined enough to use the rear view mirror more and move out of the outside lane to let me pass.

josher

14th May 2015, 18:16

has anyone posting attended the trail or heard/read the judges summing up? Is the latter available in the public record anywhere? As a regular tiger moth pilot I would be interested to read it not least to separate the 'facts' from the speculation

India Four Two

14th May 2015, 19:35

I second josher's request. I want to read the experts' evidence and the judge's summing up and instructions to the jury.

Several posters appear to be implying that they attended the trial. Can anyone confirm that?

Concerning the outcome, let's not forget the requirement for the jury to decide guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" versus the less onerous "balance of probabilities" which would pertain in a civil trial.

Having said that, I will repeat that I find it an amazing coincidence that the crash location was within 20 m of the start of a low-level loop on the first flight.

Jetblu

14th May 2015, 20:19

I also find it amazing having to repeat evidence when it's already printed here. Take another look at post #135

Legalapproach

14th May 2015, 21:46

I attended the trial.

In so far as the expert's reports and the Judge's summing up are concerned, there will be no transcript unless you are prepared to apply to the court for one and, sadly, pay for it.

If you are implying that the Judge might have summed the case up incorrectly you should be aware that on a number of occasions he asked both prosecuting counsel and defence counsel whether there was anything he had got wrong or whether there was anything he should add or correct. There were a couple of minor amendments requested and made. Both were satisfied that the summing up was fair and accurate.

India Four Two
Whilst you might be amazed at the co-incidence do you always fly aeros over the same place and only over that place. Whilst the location may have been the same (and within a relatively small local area) the flight profiles from the GPS data were very different. It was possible to identify a loop from the GPS data on previous flights yet the fatal manoeuvre bore no similarity at all to those previous loops.

flying-saint

15th May 2015, 00:35

I also attended several parts of the trial and am familiar with the evidence. I fully concur with Legalapproach.

I would add that one of the stark lessons in this case is that the cause of accidents is not always as a result of what initially on its face appears most probable. Jumping to the conclusion of it is what it first looks like is unfortunately the mistake that others have already made in this case.

India Four Two

15th May 2015, 00:52

If you are implying that the Judge might have summed the case up incorrectly

No, I was not implying that. I just wanted to have an overview of the prosecution and defence cases, without having to wade through a complete transcript. It's a shame that trial transcripts are not public documents. I wasn't aware of that.

Big Pistons Forever

15th May 2015, 01:12

I would add that one of the stark lessons in this case is that the cause of accidents is not always as a result of what initially on its face appears most probable. .

If there is an aircraft accident there is almost never one cause. You will almost always find there is a sequence of related events prior to the actual accident that in some way large or small, helped contribute to the accident.

A few posters seem bound and determined to convince everyone that the accident pilot was totally blameless and that he was smote out of the sky by forces over which he had no control.

My expert opinion as an aerobatic instructor is that there was a clear pattern of reckless flying exhibited that day. No amount of glossing over the facts of what happened on the first flight will change what happened on the first flight and to say the attitude towards flying he demonstrated by his reckless maneuvering is irrelevant to the accident flight simply does not make sense to me.

I agree that the actual sequence of the accident maneuver is in doubt but so is the fact that what ever precipitated the upset had to result in a fatal outcome. It is equally likely that a more professional approach to flying the aircraft including a significantly more complete training program combined with sensible flight profiles could have resulted in a recovery and uneventful landing.

From a legal perspective I agree, Not Guilty was an appropriate verdict, but that does not mean he should also escapes taking any responsibility for the accident. Bad choices were by this pilot on the day of this accident and indeed even before that. I am sure he is very regretful for the distress that has resulted from this tragedy and he has already paid a heavy personal price.

We can choose to learn from this tragedy.....or not. It appears two posters in particular see no greater flight safety lesson here, I think they are very wrong.....

9 lives

15th May 2015, 03:40

Legalapproach

15th May 2015, 06:48

From a legal perspective I agree, Not Guilty was an appropriate verdict, but that does not mean he should also escapes taking any responsibility for the accident. Bad choices were by this pilot on the day of this accident and indeed even before that. I am sure he is very regretful for the distress that has resulted from this tragedy and he has already paid a heavy personal price.

You are late for work, as a result you drive too fast breaking the speed limit and overtake in a couple of places where it is unwise to do so, you did the same a week before. You get away with it. On the way home you are no longer in a hurry and so drive perfectly normally. A deer jumps out and you hit it. You are responsible for the accident because of the bad choices you made previously?

We can choose to learn from this tragedy.....or not. It appears two posters in particular see no greater flight safety lesson here, I think they are very wrong.....

If you are suggesting that I am one of those posters you are very wrong in your implication. I have never suggested that or anything of the sort. All I have done is to factually correct some of the speculative assumptions some posters have jumped to, suggesting that somehow the AAIB report was definitive and gospel and therefore the jury must have got it wrong. I have not in any way sought to discuss safety lessons.

BPF I do find it extraordinary that you can provide an "expert" opinion based on your experience as an aerobatic instructor that the pilot was responsible for the accident without having heard the evidence, without having examined the GPS traces, the computer flight dynamics modelling and the flight reconstructions. Justice was clearly failed because the jury did not get to hear your expert opinion but had to rely instead upon amateurs such as the experimental test pilot with 13,000+ hours (experience on 50+ pre and WWII types) who had in fact meticulously carried out all of this analysis. His opnion was that the spin was unrecoverable and a crash inevitable. He was wrong was he?

There are flight safety lessons to be learned from this case. Not with regard to the fatal flight but certainly from previous flights. The pilot had to some extent been let down by the system. He had been misled in some ways by the system and in what he had been shown in the past.

All of the flying experts agreed that the lack of spin training in the PPL syllabus was a mistake. This pilot had in fact elected to take additional spin training and had been lulled into believing it was sufficient. Again the lack of a formal requirement until recently to undertake a formal aerobatics course, may, in the circumstances of this case have misled the pilot. I'm not going to go through what all of those circumstances were as life is too short but they were carefully examined in the evidence and the pilot told the jury in his evidence that knowing what he did now, he would not have carried out some of the previous manoeuvres at the altitudes he did and would have sought additional training.

flying-saint

15th May 2015, 10:37

I am in agreement with Legalapproach. I also point out that for the subject aircraft type there is still no requirement to undertake a formal aerobatic course, (as repeatedly already stated, not that there is any relevance whether there was or was not in relation to the subject accident - an unintentional fully developed spin with a stuck rudder).

BPF, I am in agreement with the general safety messages for aviation. The problem is that your comments are not applicable to this case and as such are a disservice by application here.

My expert opinion as an aerobatic instructor is that there was a clear pattern of reckless flying exhibited that day

In addition to this comment being demonstrably wrong, I find that comment quite remarkable where you have presumably not first studied and analysed the totality of the evidence...? Your comment has an air of the approach by one of the prosecution 'experts', who came rather unstuck when confronted by the evidence from experts who had properly analysed and considered all the actual evidence.

There are certainly concerns and lessons to be learned here, just not the ones you appear to be peddling. I suggest it would be better to start with the training (scope of PPL syllabus), mentoring and investigation systems...

9 lives

15th May 2015, 10:53

The pilot had to some extent been let down by the system. He had been misled in some ways by the system and in what he had been shown in the past.

the pilot told the jury in his evidence that knowing what he did now, he would not have carried out some of the previous manoeuvres at the altitudes he did and would have sought additional training.

I am not familiar with the prevailing UK regulations as they apply to aerobatic flight. As required when I fly aerobatics, I am familiar with the Canadian regulations which apply to me:

Aerobatic Manoeuvres — Prohibited Areas and Flight Conditions

602.27 No person operating an aircraft shall conduct aerobatic manoeuvres

(a) over a built-up area or an open-air assembly of persons;
(b) in controlled airspace, except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate issued pursuant to section 603.67;
(c) when flight visibility is less than three miles; or
(d) below 2,000 feet AGL, except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate issued pursuant to section 603.02 or 603.67.

Aerobatic Manoeuvres with Passengers

602.28 No person operating an aircraft with a passenger on board shall conduct an aerobatic manoeuvre unless the pilot-in-command of the aircraft has engaged in

(a) at least 10 hours dual flight instruction in the conducting of aerobatic manoeuvres or 20 hours conducting aerobatic manoeuvres; and
(b) at least one hour of conducting aerobatic manoeuvres in the preceding six months.

Perhaps the UK regulations let the pilot down by not specifying the "minimums" for aerobatic flights - I honestly do not know the UK situation. But, the pilot took the responsibility to inform himself of the regulations which did apply to him before the flights (as weak as they perhaps might be) and assure his compliance?

Would a person familiar with the UK equivalent (if there is/are such regulations), present them here, so those of us not familiar with the UK "system" can understand the information available to the pilot? With our understanding of the "system" available to him, and trusting that he would have availed himself of it, maybe some of the skeptics here would understand better....

Jetblu

15th May 2015, 11:30

flying-saint you are not alone. Anyone balanced with a reasonable knowledge of the ANO and the law would agree with Legalapproach. Only a fool wouldn't.

BPF is right on one thing. Their are two predominant posters here whom profess to know absolutely everything their is to be known about manned flight, and to come out now and state that they don't understand the ANO and law after what has already been previously said for everyone in the coming months/years to read is a bit rich IMHO.

I also find it absolutely shocking that our PPRuNe brethran here was so eagerly looking to hang this pilot out to dry. Whilst BPF will be promoting expert aerobatic instruction as an instructor for $$$ I can assure him that the 'experts' do still continuously get it wrong. We had a British champion the other week spin in. Accident - not deliberate - human nature.

9 lives

15th May 2015, 11:46

Anyone balanced with a reasonable knowledge of the ANO and the law would agree with Legalapproach. Only a fool wouldn't.

With respect to knowledge of the UK regulations, I'd be on the "fool" side, until informed. JetBlu, would you assist some of us, by helping us to those UK regulations, so we may objectively inform ourselves, and form a fair, balanced opinion, in the context of the regulations, and how they may have been followed?

Whilst BPF will be promoting expert aerobatic instruction as an instructor for $$$

How can it not be good to promote competent instruction for a skill, let alone a very demanding one? And, do we expect instructors to work for no $$$?

Jetblu

15th May 2015, 12:03

Step whilst I am pleased that you are considering to learn something new, may I suggest that it would have been more prudent to ask for the assistance you now seek a lot sooner rather than later on subjects that you are unfamiliar with.

Unfortunately, I do not have the links to hand but I am sure someone will be along and post them for you.

Do I think it's wrong to promote instruction for skill ? Of course I don't! However, our 'experts' here took spinning out of the PPL syllabus. Why? Because too many of those 'expert' instructors were allegedly killing students demonstrating spinning characteristics. :ugh:

Where has that put us? The low time ppl's that may spin in and have no practical idea of how to recover. Progress eh.

Midlifec

15th May 2015, 12:13

To be fair to Step Turn, he asked me a couple of days ago and I forgot to get back to him, but fair to say the Canadian regs seem to be far far tighter than ours- recommendations on the whole.......

9 lives

15th May 2015, 12:30

However, our 'experts' here took spinning out of the PPL syllabus. Why? Because too many of those 'expert' instructors were allegedly killing students demonstrating spinning characteristics. :ugh:

Where has that put us? The low time ppl's that may spin in and have no practical idea of how to recover. Progress eh.

JetBlu, We agree completely about this. I extend that fine thinking to aerobatics. The fact that a skill is not in a [PPL] syllabus, does not mean that the enthusiastic candidate is absolved of seeking out training beyond the basic PPL for those skills. No fair saying: "I took my PPL, and now I fly whatever I want in the plane, 'cause I got the license".

Honestly, aside from looping and rolling (the commonly considered aerobatic maneuvers), spinning fits into the Canadian definition for aerobatics. Therefore, If I want to intentionally spin a passenger, I would have to meet the instruction/experience, and recency requirements of the quoted aerobatic regulations, to be compliant. I do.

To me, a pilot who can demonstrate that what they did as closely as possible conforms to good airmanship, regard for their passenger's safety, and adherence to regulation, is really entitled to my brethren support. That demonstration might include a "signoff" by an instructor or other competent person with respect to those advanced skills. It is a pilot's choice to not enter a maneuver which exceeds that pilot's skills, experience or recency. Those might be defined in regulation (I have admitted that I do not know for the UK).

I invite you to take the opportunity to take my mind there, in respect of the event we've been discussing - but I will ask for some reference information to help me get there.... Fair enough?

Jetblu

15th May 2015, 13:01

Step on those particular points, I agree with you. Any novice pilot contemplating any aerobatic manoeuvre without any form of instruction is foolish, but we are largely digressing off the thread subject now.

This pilot DID have previous aerobatic instruction. This pilot did NOT intentionally start to perform a spinning aerobatic manoeuvre with his passenger. He had previously looped earlier in the day because he had done it before, had competent previous instruction and he knew how to do a loop. The regs here are different to yours.

Big Pistons Forever

15th May 2015, 14:26

This pilot DID have previous aerobatic instruction. This pilot did NOT intentionally start to perform a spinning aerobatic manoeuvre with his passenger. He had previously looped earlier in the day because he had done it before, had competent previous instruction and he knew how to do a loop. The regs here are different to yours.

Jetblu: How much aerobatic flying experience do you have ?

Jetblu

15th May 2015, 14:51

josher

15th May 2015, 18:43

in my previos post in no way was I questioning the judges summing up.

The a/c I fly was the 'model' visited by the two juries for demonstration to them of the various features of the a/c and by the cps prior to the initiating the prosecution to review various matters including potential control restrictions due to the size of the front seat passenger. These I think were significant and I thought the AAIB report was pretty damning but was fairly baffled as to what a prosecution was likely to achieve.

I was impressed by the attention paid by the second jury in particular and the thoughtfulness of some of their questions at the time. Clearly there was convincing evidence brought by the defence that lead to the acquittal. I would have found it valuable to have some summary of what this was and in particular how the judge summed all this up. I think it is a shame that this is not generally available

Big Pistons Forever

16th May 2015, 01:09

Between 17 - 20ish hours over 30+ years simply because I personally do not like aerobatics. Flying is dangerous enough without opening the envelope further IMHO. Each to there own.

But I'm still curious BPF, how my aerobatic experience alters or assists your dilemma of not being able to assist the British Judicial system with your expert knowledge, which by all accounts we should have been eternally grateful for.

I have repeatedly indicated that I did not believe a criminal prosecution was appropriate in this case. I find the tone of your post rather uncivil which is good because it means I can just go ahead and provide a few blunt truths.

Your characterization of the accident pilots earlier flight is as follows

He had previously looped earlier in the day because he had done it before, had competent previous instruction and he knew how to do a loop. The regs here are different to yours.

Jetblu: I think you are wholly unqualified to state an opinion on whether or not the previous instruction this pilot received can be characterized as "competent" and then go on to state as fact, that he "knew how to do a loop"

That is not only my opinion, but also that of several experienced aerobatic pilots I reached out to in order to ask their opinion of the suitability of the "training" the accident pilot received prior to carrying out low level aerobatics with a passenger.

I raise this specifically because I think it would be very unfortunate if any reader took away your uninformed and incorrect assessment of the minimal training he received as constituting sufficient training to conduct any aerobatic maneuver on his own, let alone fly the flight profile he performed on that first flight.

Aerobatics is great fun and an enormous confidence builder for all pilots, especially relatively low time ones. However solo aerobatics should only be undertaken after a proper course of instruction by a qualified aerobatic instructor. That instruction will not only teach you how to perform aerobatic maneuvers correctly, but will also prepare you to deal with maneuvers gone bad and how to deal with aircraft malfunctions while performing aerobatics.

Aerobatics with a passenger brings additional responsibilities including a careful cockpit briefing with special care to ensure that nothing the passenger does could cause a flight safety issue.

Jetblu

16th May 2015, 10:07

Big Pistons Forever

I am sorry that you found my post uncivil. I had actually toned it down. That said, I was actually responding to your overall statements, dogmatic and condescending views of the pilot with your added inability of being unable to retain basic information posted here.

Whilst you incorrectly believe that I am unqualified to state an opinion on this matter, my submission would be the total reverse. I have the ability to comprehend the evidence whereas on the other hand you are still not getting it even with assistance from many here. That may just be deliberate ignorance on your own part, I don't know?

The only unfortunate part I see here is readers taking away what you have said in the strongest terms imaginable. The facts remain, this pilot had received previous competent instruction. That was the evidence. This pilot had previously and successfully looped the Tiger Moth. That was the evidence. I hope you are now with me up to here.

I think that you are now trying to tell us that you and your aerobatic flying colleagues are endorsing dual aerobatic flying instruction before going out and attempting to perform aerobatic flight with or without a passenger. No sh*t sherlock. Really.

Believe it or not, experienced aerobatic instructors are still screwing aircraft into the deck. Great fun eh. Whatever floats your boat.
However, I am still a great advocate of spin awareness going back in to the ppl.