PDA

View Full Version : PA28 down Switzerland


JUST-local
15th Oct 2011, 19:24
BBC News - UK pilot reported dead in Switzerland plane crash (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15320889)

Fox Four
15th Oct 2011, 19:32
BBC News - UK pilot reported dead in Switzerland plane crash (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15320889)

UK Aircraft

horatio_b
15th Oct 2011, 19:52
This evenings local Blackpool paper states that the aircraft was returning to
Bagby where it had been hired from.
It was operated by Flybpl.com who have a base there.

SFCC
15th Oct 2011, 20:42
ALLEGEDLY, if the rumours of the the PIC are correct, it will come as no surprise to the regular consumers of the AAIB bulletins.
ALLEGEDLY:sad:

Midlifec
15th Oct 2011, 20:47
Quite a good swimmer by all accounts.........

madlandrover
15th Oct 2011, 21:24
Let's leave the personal speculation until some reputable facts are established. It's tempting but would be morally incorrect to draw any parallels between this incident and a previous fatal incident involving a Blackpool based aircraft - totally different circumstances.

John R81
15th Oct 2011, 21:25
Do you mean the Breighton swimmer who recently had a small part on Helicopter Heros?

SFCC
15th Oct 2011, 21:42
sorry old chap. Nothing was meant in respect to another BPL related fatal accident.
Some other posters appear to know the score though.

Midlifec
15th Oct 2011, 21:45
You would in all likelihood be correct John, although for the record madlandy, no link known of or inferred to any previous fatal accident- just previous swimming prowess..

Fox Four
15th Oct 2011, 23:21
River Derwent.

OldManJoe
16th Oct 2011, 02:34
Appears the CofA ran out at the end of August according to G-INFO.

Pilot DAR
16th Oct 2011, 03:31
River Derwent.

Okay, I'm intrigued, and simply nosy.

I recall that there was an accident which was reported to have been a "forced landing" on a river, beside an area of ground that looked really good for a forced landing.

Is there a suggestion that the PA 28 acciden of this thread, and that "force landing" are related to each other (same pilot)?

Just me trying to stay with the program here....

Monocock
16th Oct 2011, 06:19
Utterly unbelievable.

werewolf
16th Oct 2011, 08:49
From a local newspaper :
Le brouillard aurait-il causé le crash mortel d (http://www.24heures.ch/vaud-regions/actu/brouillard-cause-crash-mortel-piper-2011-10-15)
An inn-keeper, a few hundred metres from the accident, heard an aircraft noise which appeared to be close, then a noise of broken branches and trees... He went out but could not find anything due to a solid fog ....

Fox Four
16th Oct 2011, 09:50
Pilot DAR,

See G-SACK on the AAIB site.

Same individual.

A le Ron
16th Oct 2011, 10:16
Lessons to be learned?:ooh:

overun
16th Oct 2011, 10:19
Bagby, below Sutton Bank ?

Timothy
16th Oct 2011, 11:15
One lesson that might be learned is that this is an indictment of the AAIB methodology.

Clearly AAIB isn't a court of law, and the intention is not to ascribe blame, but if they are nearly certain (if not absolutely certain) that G-SACK was being flown dangerously low along the Derwent when it either had an engine failure, or maybe just hit the water, then maybe saying so rather than just parroting the pilot's version of events might have cast enough of a question mark over the pilot to have prevented him flying again, and thereby saved his and his pax' life.

I am not criticising the AAIB inspectors, they are working to brief. I am questioning the brief they are given, which does not seem to be geared towards dangerous flying.

Deeday
16th Oct 2011, 12:07
To be fair to the AAIB, they didn't just parrot the pilot's version; they also added a comment exposing the contradiction between his story and the available evidence.

Whether behind those contradictions there are rules being broken is a decision best left to the Authority, and there was nothing back then stopping the CAA from digging deeper and possibly prosecuting the pilot.

madlandrover
16th Oct 2011, 12:07
sorry old chap. Nothing was meant in respect to another BPL related fatal accident.
Some other posters appear to know the score though.

No worries, I'm glad to see that no-one has drawn any parallels to the one a couple of years ago. This particular incident sounds rather like CFIT in unsuitable conditions...

Pilot DAR
16th Oct 2011, 12:35
I know only what I read here (and the other thread) so only jump down my throat that far....

From what I see here, and from my experience with different pilot types, I will watch with interest for a future report to draw parallels between these two events.

For the purpose of this discussion, "flight", in the CFIT context, is presumed to be under the pilot's control (pilot had the ability to fly it differently (less risk) if they chose...). The "CF" part. Sounds to me from what I read here, both circumstances involved flight which was controlled to the point of contact with the earth (but I do not have "facts")

The "IT"part for into terrain = did the pilot hit the surface of the earth? Seems so in both cases...

That is a big parallel in both events (if it is indeed the case in both events)

Unsuitable conditions (and yes, I know what the writer of this phrase intended) do extend beyond just atmospheric conditions though - extends to pilot attitude, knowledge/choice of landing surface, or flying without a safe "out".

Poor pilot attitude could be an example of a poor condition, as would be flying an aircraft in a manner so as to make an adequately safe gliding landing not possible. (As I remember, that field looked really nice, beside the river Derwent in the photo!).

As I write this, I think further than just the two events associated here, there are so many others.... Anyone recall that recording of the communication between the Piper pilot and New York ATC, when that pilot decided to execute a beach landing not too long ago? Same theme in my mind....

In my past, I have encountered the pilot type which commonly gets labeled "cowboy". I have to admit to having some of those traits earlier on (now I have a job to do safely, including setting a good example!). Some cowboys are more so than others. I grounded one once, and have spoken sharply to a few others along the way. It's not often well received, but perhaps it adds one small observation to their "should I not be doing this? mindset".

For those pilots who can learn here (all of us I hope), Pilot attitude, and simply allowing your inner "scared" nerve to have a say, can save your and your pax life.

IO540
16th Oct 2011, 14:18
Unfortunately the AAIB rarely if ever link an accident with the pilot's history of previous fruitcake-type behaviour.

It's a pity because yet another trusting passenger has paid the price for this policy of silence.

And cowboy behaviour is rarely going to be a very isolated thing, in a particular individual.

It underlines the need for some care before just flying off with somebody. But thankfully this kind of thing is very rare in GA. Just as well, since there isn't much one can do if the said pilot moves around when renting, and nothing at all can be done if he is an owner.

What is less rare is crap maintenance...

LH2
16th Oct 2011, 14:34
Timothy

One lesson that might be learned is that this is an indictment of the AAIB methodology.

I am rather surprised at this comment coming from you.


Clearly AAIB isn't a court of law, and the intention is not to ascribe blame,

I think their intention could be better described as "to not ascribe blame". The purpose of accident investigations is clearly set out in Annex 13 t the Chicago Convention 1948, which in Chapter 3 Section 1 says:

The sole objective of the investigation of an accident
or incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents.
It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or
liability.

Blame and liability is for the courts to eventually determine (as I believe you well know!), while administrative action might be taken by the local civil aviation authority. If the pilot was careful enough to eliminate all the usable evidence, neither the courts nor the CAA would have had anything to go on, and the only available remedy would have been for plane owners and renters to be aware of this man's qualities before allowing him to fly their hardware. This is all moot now as he appears to have met his fate.

But in any event, I do not think I understand your point re. the AAIB.

I am not criticising the AAIB inspectors, they are working to brief. I am questioning the brief they are given, which does not seem to be geared towards dangerous flying.

Well, no. I think it's fair to say that intentionally putting oneself at risk (dangerous flying) might well end up in tears, so there is not much to learn from it, is it?

Lyman
16th Oct 2011, 14:50
At the rodeo, cowboys ride solo. Inexcusable to cause another's death by lack of proper demeanor. If such is the case.

Pilot DAR
16th Oct 2011, 16:20
cowboys ride solo

In a literal sense, yes, but in reality, to the pubic, the guy on the horse is a hero, or a villain/idiot, based on what they were seeming to do, and the outcome. Pilots flying recklessly, solo, or with pax, are still our responsibility as a community. We all get the black mark (and insurance impact) when something like this happens. It's up to all of us to deem it to be unacceptable at the early states, and demonstrate, and mentor better behaviour.

Fox Four
16th Oct 2011, 18:34
Insurance impact? In this case, I don't think so. If you don't have a CofA isn’t your insurance null and void?

madlandrover
16th Oct 2011, 18:42
Usually. It's just possible though that the ARC is in date but hasn't been updated on the GINFO database - rare but does happen. 1.5 months is a little long though!!

IO540
16th Oct 2011, 18:44
If you don't have a CofA isn’t your insurance null and void?

That's true, but the legal implications might depend on who was responsible for the lapse of the CofA.

I am not a lawyer but let's say that a renter (or the lawyer representing his estate) is able to convince a court that the renter could not have reasonably known that the CofA had lapsed. Then the owner/operator (the school?) will go down for the passenger liability.

In my renting days, no renter ever checked any of the aircraft paperwork.

This accident took place outside the UK, but in the UK there is no passenger liability unless pilot negligence is proved. In this case that would perhaps not be so hard...

SlipSlider
16th Oct 2011, 19:48
Please do not infer anything from the CofA validity date on G-INFO, lest the press go off on one.

That date information on G-INFO is simply not reliable; a few years ago my own aircraft's permit renewal was not updated at all, and I know of several other similar instances just with regard to other aircraft of the same type, so I have no doubt it is not uncommon.

Whopity
16th Oct 2011, 19:51
to convince a court that the renter could not have reasonably known that the CofA had lapsedAn EASA C of A is non expiring. In any event it must be carried on all flights together with a copy of the ARC so there is no excuse for not being aware!

John R81
18th Oct 2011, 13:42
Pilot named

BBC News - Switzerland plane crash pilot from West Yorkshire (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-15350147)

It seems that Mr Osman was the pilot who in October 2010 ditched and sank in the River Derwent in North Yorkshire. I saw him interviewed on "Helicopter Heros" and remarked to my wife that I would never want to fly with him. I recall that he mentioned on that show a desire to be an airline pilot.

flyingflea
18th Oct 2011, 14:34
google him and there are lots of you tube home flying videos

IO540
18th Oct 2011, 14:37
A fine one here

The Old Fat One
18th Oct 2011, 19:53
I am not a lawyer but let's say that a renter (or the lawyer representing his estate) is able to convince a court that the renter could not have reasonably known that the CofA had lapsed. Then the owner/operator (the school?) will go down for the passenger liability.

In my renting days, no renter ever checked any of the aircraft paperwork.



Feel free to flame me, but every flying school/club has an Ops manual (copy lodged with CAA??) and an authorisation process.

The Ops Manual at the school I worked at had a pre flight document checklist, which included all the airworthiness and insurance documents (as well as many others). When the PIC signed the auth slips/sheets he/she signed a statement to the effect that they are fully conversant with the Ops Manual (signature sheet and amendments up to date) and have carried out all the relevant checks and pre flight requirements.

PIC carries the responsibility into the air. If the school/club is operating correctly case closed.

mad_jock
18th Oct 2011, 20:42
I worked for a school which sent an aircraft up without a C of A and the school got done not the PIC.

But as it was up in scotland, the fine was less than the profit on the flights until it got picked up.

Legalapproach
18th Oct 2011, 20:44
I am not a lawyer but let's say that a renter (or the lawyer representing his estate) is able to convince a court that the renter could not have reasonably known that the CofA had lapsed. Then the owner/operator (the school?) will go down for the passenger liability.

In my renting days, no renter ever checked any of the aircraft paperwork.

By virtue of Part 21 an EASA aircraft is obliged to carry its C of A or permit on every flight.

Under the provisions of Article 86 of the ANO a non-EASA private aircraft is required to carry its national certificate/permit on any international flight (Schedule 10(2)).

Article 52(c) of the ANO requires the commander of an aircraft to take all reasonable steps before flight to satisfy himself that the aircraft is in every way fit for flight.

It would be hard to imagine a scenario where you could convince a court that a renter could not have reasonably known that the C of A had expired because it would beg the question what reasonable steps had been taken to satisfy himself that the aircraft was fit for flight? If the paperwork is not available/the pilot failed to look at it how could it be said that all reasonable steps were taken and he/she was properly satisfied?

Maoraigh1
18th Oct 2011, 20:51
Renting in the US last autumn, the relevant documents were in pockets, to be checked.
I wonder if I've rented/flown the "No C of A" aircraft MJ refers to. I think I've usually taken them on trust in Scotland.

Gertrude the Wombat
18th Oct 2011, 21:14
I still don't understand this concept of carrying the paperwork in the aircraft so that in the event that it crashes and burns the paperwork is lost.

IO540
18th Oct 2011, 22:07
It would be hard to imagine a scenario where you could convince a court that a renter could not have reasonably known that the C of A had expired because it would beg the question what reasonable steps had been taken to satisfy himself that the aircraft was fit for flight? If the paperwork is not available/the pilot failed to look at it how could it be said that all reasonable steps were taken and he/she was properly satisfied?

I agree, but some court rulings (in the UK) have been rather perverse.

Taking the ANO literally, a PIC is strictly responsible for a long list of stuff, but people have still got off where the school (or the operator, if self fly hire) was poor at record keeping.

flybymike
18th Oct 2011, 22:56
Graham Hill will inevitably be mentioned at this point....

Pilot DAR
19th Oct 2011, 00:46
KNOW FOR CERTAIN that an insurance company has not paid out to a victim in an accident?

I'll tread lightly here, 'cause I'm not an expert, however...

Insurers might refuse to pay out the hull portion of a claim if the owner was found to be in violation of any of a number of requirements for legal flight. They might also pay out a third party claim, and then sue the owner, or other "negligent" insured party, for what they had payed out to the "victim".

All in all, best to not have the insurer turn on you, when you've had the accident, keep everything in order.....

IO540
19th Oct 2011, 07:28
I have been told by various insurance people here in the UK that they won't pay out if the flight was illegal to start with e.g. no CofA, no/expired pilot license, medical, etc.

Yes, Graham Hill is a well known example of a non-payout following a void CofA. According to several accident books which discuss his accident, the aircraft had been de-registered from N but nobody noticed. I have never found anybody who knows the details but I suspect that somebody did an Export CofA on it and this is known for causing the FAA to assume it has been exported from the US reg, and strike it off.

The grey area is how far the insurers dig. Every 747 landing at LHR this moment is technically unairworthy, in that there will be a washer or a light bulb somewhere which was fitted without the correct traceability data entered in the work pack. The old joke is that bulbs on AOC aircraft last for ever, because nobody can be bothered to do the paperwork for them. In GA terms, if you dismantled a plane and noted the serial numbers of every item (incl. avionics) and traced it all the way back, you would find that bits were changed without being logged. And of course most of today's 30 year old planes don't have the full logs back to Day 1 anyway. I have never seen evidence that insurers look for that kind of stuff, but I suppose in theory they could.

However

KNOW FOR CERTAIN that an insurance company has not paid out to a victim in an accident?

is a different question because that asks about passenger liability. The pilot is obviously dead. I have no idea what the law is where this plane crashed. In the UK, negligence needs to be demonstrated for passenger liability to kick in, AIUI.

42psi
19th Oct 2011, 07:59
Is it not likely that the insurance position is similar to that (for the UK at least) for motor vehicles.

UK law says that having issued a certificate of (motor) insurance, an insurer is always responsible for third party claims and cannot avoid them. This is regardless of what the insured may have done (i.e. drunk driving is in breach of insurance conditions but anyone you injure will be able to claim).

That means they pay any third parties and then have to try and recover what they can from the insured (or insured's estate) via the civil courts.

That's exactly what seems to happened in the Graham Hill case?

Insurers don't have to pay out the policyholder claim.

IO540
19th Oct 2011, 08:52
Is it not likely that the insurance position is similar to that (for the UK at least) for motor vehicles.

UK law says that having issued a certificate of (motor) insurance, an insurer is always responsible for third party claims and cannot avoid them. This is regardless of what the insured may have done (i.e. drunk driving is in breach of insurance conditions but anyone you injure will be able to claim).

Not in aviation.

That's exactly what seems to happened in the Graham Hill case?

AFAIK the GH estate got simply stripped by the lawyers acting for the estates of his dead passengers. But details on this case, interesting though it is as a precedent, are very thin on the ground.

UV
19th Oct 2011, 15:16
We had a talk form a very familiar Insurance Company and the guy was tellling us about some recent cases.

He went on to explain that they dont refuse to pay out if there is some small technicality (you can always find one) but may start to debate when there is a long line of invalid documentation...as so often is the case in accidents involving a pilot with some sort of "form".

This may not necessarily relate to aircraft docs (if hired) but personal documentation, i.e. licence , medical, lack of IR or IMC Ratings etc...mmm... you only have to look through AAIB Bulletins to see this.

He cited the Colin MacRae case where they arrived at an "agreement"...

John R81
19th Oct 2011, 17:09
See Aviation Law Blog (http://www.airlawblog.com/2011/06/valid-medical-certificate-required-for-coverage/) for a 2011 Appeal court decision in Canada which confirmed that without a valid, in-date medical certificate the pilot does not have a valid license, and the insurer was not liable for the hull value of the aircraft.

2006 crash, pilot deceased, insurer refused to pay out, estate of the deceased sued for C$60,000.

Full case http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2011/2011abqb283/2011abqb283.pdf

mm_flynn
20th Oct 2011, 12:00
Is it not likely that the insurance position is similar to that (for the UK at least) for motor vehicles.

UK law says that having issued a certificate of (motor) insurance, an insurer is always responsible for third party claims and cannot avoid them. This is regardless of what the insured may have done (i.e. drunk driving is in breach of insurance conditions but anyone you injure will be able to claim).

That means they pay any third parties and then have to try and recover what they can from the insured (or insured's estate) via the civil courts.

That's exactly what seems to happened in the Graham Hill case?

Insurers don't have to pay out the policyholder claim.
I don't think this is fully true even for UK Auto Insurance. Specific issues which I believe can invalidate ones insurance include selling the car to another person (I don't believe the insurer then has any liability for the actions of this third party) or substantial failure to pay the policy premiums.

As a note, various people claim one or both of the above to have been true in the GH case.

The link to the Canadian judgment is interesting, but not that relevant as insurance practice is quite varied by jurisdiction. Also, it referred only to hull insurance, and I would have thought walking away from this part of the claim is the aspect least likely to be regulated as it only involves the insurer and the operator - who is clearly in a position to know about any lack of compliance with the conditions of insurance.

People's main concern should be with the liability side of their insurance as this is the one likely to wipe out your estate and impact your family.

Robin400
20th Oct 2011, 14:15
The Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) flew into Blackpool yesterday.

Whopity
20th Oct 2011, 16:01
TOFO:
Feel free to flame me, but every flying school/club has an Ops manual (copy lodged with CAA??) Not yet! There is no such process for flying schools/clubs that are Registered Facilities, there will be under EASA. There is no requirement for a RF to have any specific paperwork. You must have worked at an approved FTO!

robin
20th Oct 2011, 16:09
The Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) flew into Blackpool yesterday.

Nice trick if you can do it.......:ok:

beatnik
24th Oct 2011, 00:22
OK - so let's start a list the things "wrong" in that video that IO540 posted.
I'll start...
1) Satnav propped up against the magnetic compass
2) 1/2 mil map on back seat behind pilot - i.e. impossible to reach
3) No decent lookout/scan done throughout duration of video
4) Night light in overhead panel ON

UV
24th Oct 2011, 00:41
I still don't understand this concept of carrying the paperwork in the aircraft so that in the event that it crashes and burns the paperwork is lost.
Because all the papers you are required to carry are all on record at the CAA, the Radio people and FCL anyway?
You are not required to carry the important stuff like Aircraft Log Books, maintenance records etc.

flybymike
24th Oct 2011, 11:37
OK - so let's start a list the things "wrong" in that video that IO540 posted.

5) Horrendous singing voice.

hambleoldboy
11th Nov 2011, 10:13
Another crash in the Swiss fog...

http://www.flightforum.ch/forum/showthread.php?t=87189

Navaho, HB-LOT, trying to get out of the fog at Fribourg/Ecuvillens.

englishal
11th Nov 2011, 18:23
Regarding insurance....

we bought our aeroplane from an insurance company following a landing accident (and then went and rebuilt it to as new). But the interesting thing is that during the rebuild we found several things which one would have thought should have lead to an invalid CofA - for example lifed hoses which had never been replaced and had no markings on. The previous owner received a full settlement.

So this leads me to believe that actually the insurance companies don't look very hard trying to find a loophole, I think the surveyor came down, spent half a day checking paperwork and seeing that the aeroplane was indeed beyond economic repair and signed on the line rather than a full technical audit.

Maybe it is different if your aeroplane is worth half a million?

IO540
11th Nov 2011, 20:48
They are very unlikely to do a full back to birth "export CofA" job on a plane, because if they did, every one would be technically illegal, and that includes every 747 taking off at LHR as I write this.

All you need is a light bulb in the loo to be changed, without the batch traceability number etc written up in the work pack, and the plane is illegal to fly.

Redbird72
12th Nov 2011, 09:17
So this leads me to believe that actually the insurance companies don't look very hard trying to find a loophole, I think the surveyor came down, spent half a day checking paperwork and seeing that the aeroplane was indeed beyond economic repair and signed on the line rather than a full technical audit.

I would imagine the economics play a big part, if the aircraft is worth £60k they will be loathe to spend £10k on a surveyor going through with a fine tooth comb, who may find nothing wrong. Also, I've seen a friend's policy with a clause along the lines of, if it's a very minor ANO breach and there is absolutely no way it could have anything to do with the accident, then it won't prevent a claim. That said, it would be very unlikely to get off with a big paperwork gap (no medical, no rating, no Cof A) as paying out would surely be seen as supporting an illegal act?

Adrian_B
26th Jun 2013, 21:41
Final report is out:

http://www.sust.admin.ch/pdfs/AV-berichte/2175_e.pdf

Spatial disorientation due to flight in IMC.

sad....

regards,
Adrian