Microlight Down near Kincardine, Clackmannanshire

[riverrock83]

BBC News - One dead after Clackmannan microlight crash (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-17691664)

One person has died (no survivors). The picture on the Beeb appears to show it as G-MVSV which was a GEMINI FLASH IIA, but G-INFO says that was de-registered so I've probably got that wrong.

RIP


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59630000/jpg/_59630030_microlight_closer.jpg
(image from news link)

[DX Wombat]

I don't think you have. I read that exactly the same. :(

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

It was G-MVSV... whatever it was doing in the air at that time should come out in future I hope!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have no knowledge but the permit could have bee just renewed, or the flight could have been for a permit renewal.

G

[Unusual Attitude]

Seems the gutter press have mastered G-Info :ugh:

Pilot dies as microlight falls 100m - Top stories - Scotsman.com (http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/pilot-dies-as-microlight-falls-100m-1-2231113)

As Genghis said, could well have been the Permit test flight, seems to take the CAA a few weeks to update their online records from what I've seen of my own aircraft over the years.

UA

[gasax]

You can hardly blame the press - given that pilots - who bluntly should know a great deal better - leapt to the same conclusions.

[All-The-Nines]

To be honest, I think that newspaper article is one of the most accurate and well researched articles I have seen.

I have no knowledge but the permit could have bee just renewed, or the flight could have been for a permit renewal.

Agreed. But surely it'd have to be registered in the first place before any flight can take place? According to G-INFO the site was updated at 20:55 yesterday, and so if the aircraft was registered yesterday I think that it would show up when searching today?

[DX Wombat]

Gasax, I think it is you who has jumped to conclusions. Wondering why an aircraft, which according to G-INFO is de-registered, was flying is not jumping to any conclusions it is simply wondering. I certainly haven't jumped to any conclusions but if there are any which you feel you might like me to jump to do let me know and I'll see what I can do. :rolleyes: :*

[AnglianAV8R]

All The Nines... You seem to assume that nobody would take to the skies unless they had been trained, gained a licence and their aircraft was properly registered and in permit?

Of course the rules say you should do so, but not everyone obeys the rules in the big bad world.

[All-The-Nines]

AnglianAV8R, I don't assume such, just as I don't assume that everyone obeys the speed limits on the road just because the law says you should.

I was just trying to clarify a couple of points further up the thread, and questioning how it could be a permit test flight if it wasn't already registered. I think that any inspector would like to be fairly sure that an aircraft is registered before it is flown, otherwise any insurance certificate that the aircraft might hold would be invalid? I also think the BMAA would reject the permit application if they found the aircraft to be De-Registered, so surely it is something that is checked? I'm not trying to be clever here, just stating the way I interpret the law and how it would work. I don't personally have experience of gaining a permit to fly on a microlight, and so I'm sure someone here will be able to either confirm the above or else put me right.

[DX Wombat]

As a complementary, illustrative post to Anglian's have a look at the video on this thread. (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=76145)
NB: for the benefit of those who need things to be spelled out for them in words of one syllable: I am NOT saying or implying that this is what happened in this case.

[AnglianAV8R]

All The Nines... fair comment. The BMAA permit check flight needs to be done by a BMAA Check Pilot, who could be the inspector but doesn't have to be, I believe. I'm not sure whether the Inspector needs to validate the registration of the aircraft to the owner, but the owner would need to be a BMAA member. Much the same with LAA permit machines, except the owner can do the check flight, subject to having sufficient hours on type or similar.

Time will tell, but there are reports indicating that the pilot was advised to take lessons, but didn't. 'nuf said.

DX.....
Brilliant entertainment and certain darwin award category on that video.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Could I remind everybody that somebody died here. The reasons for this have yet to be determined, but they ultimately will not be about the paperwork, they'll be about the aeroplane and the pilot. So, whilst of interest, the status of the registration, PtF and the PiC's licence(s) are not what actually caused the accident. That was something physical - perhaps weather, perhaps how it was flown, perhaps a physical failure. But it wasn't the paperwork.


Having said that, yes I believe it's entirely possible either that it had been re-registered but G-INFO hadn't been updated: the lag is generally a few weeks, or that the owner intended to use the permit renewal to get the aeroplane re-registered. If this was a check flight, then the check pilot was insured by the BMAA; if it was a private flight shortly afterwards then potentially the insurance had just been renewed on the phone. All quite legal.

Or it was an illegal flight, of a de-registered aeroplane with no current Permit to Fly. That also fits what we know at the moment.

But again, the paperwork did not cause the accident.


Flexwings, like any other aeroplane, bite if stuff goes wrong. That tragically happened here. So far as I know, nobody knows enough right now to piece the reasons together, but I'm sure this will come together shortly. The photograph indicates a near vertical collision with an intact aeroplane. That could be a low level stall, a tumble, or a cable failure. Or something else.

The type, a Gemini F2a had an inglorious early history and quite a few fatal accidents due to loss of control. However it has been perfectly safe over the last decade and more since various modifications were mandated. It is however known to have a wing that is intolerant of not being correctly set and maintained. I've no doubt that somebody's already told AAIB about that.

G

[patowalker]

I believe it's entirely possible either that it had been re-registered but G-INFO hadn't been updated:The CAA posts the date and time "data extracted", which has a very different meaning to "updated". I know that data on my aircraft has not always been up-to-date in G-INFO.

[mad_jock]

I know a couple of folk that have scared themselves ****less on flex wings after a purchase on ebay.

They were all rather qualified in flying terms. And they were all legal for jumping in and having a go solo.

But this whole thing of power on the foot, push to flare instead of pull and no rudder really is a recipey for a change of pants and multiple approaches and your bag of luck getting emptied.

Another one which was hilarious to watch was someone that had bought one of those para gliders and then strap a big fan on your back. Eventually it ran out of fuel and landed with a fence post stopping his forward velocity middle wicket. As one of the others said if you had aimed to hit it you would always miss.

[Genghis the Engineer]

They were all rather qualified in flying terms. And they were all legal for jumping in and having a go solo.

But this whole thing of power on the foot, push to flare instead of pull and no rudder really is a recipey for a change of pants and multiple approaches and your bag of luck getting emptied.

Before microlight differences training became mandatory (although it seems to have slipped back to "recommended" again for most pilots) we used to see at-least one perfectly serviceable microlight aeroplane a year destroyed in the UK by experienced and well qualified pilots who didn't think they needed training.

Personally I have no trouble jumping between the flexwings and light aeroplanes, any more than I do between a car and a bicycle; I find them so different there's no real issue. But I did get properly trained for each, not try and make it up as I went along. There is nothing intuitive about either if you've not done it before, and the first half dozen hours I had in a flexwing regularly scared the willies out of me.

Now however, I actually find jumping between 3-axis microlights and light aeroplanes more difficult and potentially dangerous, because the controls are basically the same, but all of the speeds and attitudes are quite different.

G

[mad_jock]

Must admit I did have the offer to have a shot which i declined.

I just had to look at the collection of tent poles with a bath slung under to know that it would be twentys mins of saying "oh fcuk" every thirty seconds and a safe arrival wasn't a cert. And after seeing a engine failure in one on youtube they just don't glide.

They do look very good fun though and once I find one I can fit my arse into after suitable instuction its on my list of things to do.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Very welcome to a go if you're ever at a loose end down my end of the country Jock.

And they do glide pretty well, as I'd be glad to demonstrate :E

G

[fisbangwollop]

MJ......I just had to look at the collection of tent poles with a bath slung under

That's no way to talk about the J31 :cool:

[mad_jock]

J31 would be more of a brick ****e house suspended on a Steel lintel.

[Graham Borland]

Pilot has now been named (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-17726412).

[Genghis the Engineer]

Of note that that is not the name of the registered owner on G-INFO.

G

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

Also of note is the CAA seem happy to state to the media that, as far as they are concerned, it is de-registered. So G-INFO would seem fairly accurate!

[riverrock83]

beeb article here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-17726412) now says:
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said Mr Paterson was unlicensed and the microlight unregistered.

I feel for his family. So easy to be flippant but a life has been lost, and every life is precious.

[BabyBear]

With the greatest respect to his family and acknowledging a life has been lost let's not overlook how it happened, or indeed the apparent disregard the pilot had for the law and safety of others!

Taking it at face value I find it difficult to get all sentimental.

BB

[NorthSouth]

Presumably the CAA would not know if this pilot had a non-UK licence.
NS

[Unusual Attitude]

Presumably the CAA would not know if this pilot had a non-UK licence. NS

I'm led to believe that the chap had purchased the Microlight on ebay and enquired about lessons however the cost put him off. I've heard quite a bit more but I'll leave it at that for the moment and let the investigation run its course.

UA

[patowalker]

Presumably the CAA would not know if this pilot had a non-UK licence.
NS

It wouldn't matter, because you cannot fly a UK microlight on a foreign licence.

[mad_jock]

Aye you can.

You just need any JAR license with a SEP Class rating.

Just like I can fly one on my UK JAR ATPL SEP class rating with zero training if I was stupid enough to try.

[patowalker]

To quote someone on here: The CAA is entitled to (and does) permit JAR-FCL licence holders with SEP ratings to fly Microlights and has specified the requirements. There is no obligation for any other State to follow the same procedure or to accept the CAA's National Position.

[mad_jock]

Yep so anyone from any JAR country with a JAR license not a national one can come to the UK and fly G reg microlights on there JAR SEP class rating.

You just can't presume you can do it the other way round though. And for that matter they may not be permited to do the same thing at home.

[patowalker]

I see what you mean. Very strange indeed.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I see what you mean. Very strange indeed.

The issue of permissions to fly microlights, for other licence holders, has always been rather odd.

The issue should be simple - they're different, but not that different. So you need training, or you are probably going to break it, and possibly yourself. The amount of training will depend upon the pilot and the aeroplane.

But depending upon whether you have an ICAO licence, a UK licence, a JAR licence, or an NPPL - all of which you might be quite legally flying, say, a PA28 with - the rules change about what training and testing you need to fly a microlight.

Which is daft. It really should be the same for everybody. Which is to say MANDATORY differences training. The only debating point really is then whether it should be just signed off by an instructor, or requires an examiner.

G

[mad_jock]

Your not really needing to test the full skill set so a sign off solo by an instructor should be fine just like a tailwheel differences in my opinion.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Your not really needing to test the full skill set so a sign off solo by an instructor should be fine just like a tailwheel differences in my opinion.

That is my opinion as well.

But my strongest opinion is that everybody should have to meet the same requirements, rather than jumping around depending upon what form of "heavy metal" licence you happen to hold.

G

[NorthSouth]

you cannot fly a UK microlight on a foreign licenceandAye you can.
You just need any JAR license with a SEP Class rating
Hang on. What about ANO Article 62 which states:
any licence which authorises the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft and is granted:
(a) under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom but which is not a JAA licence...is, unless the CAA gives a direction to the contrary, deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order.Surely that allows non-JAR PPLs to fly G-reg microlights? Where does it say that the "deemed valid" provision doesn't extend to microlights?
NS

[Genghis the Engineer]

Any ICAO licence with something equivalent to SEP should do. I've come across people with FAA PPL(SEP) licences flying microlights, so far as I could tell legally.

But in my opinion differences training should be mandatory for everybody. Either when going to microlights, or when switching control systems between 3-axis, flexwing, and/or PPC.

In the meantime, any pilot who is not an idiot should get differences training, whether legally required or not.

G

[patowalker]

In France you cannot fly a microlight on a French or foreign PPL. So, the UK CAA could not deem a French PPL valid for microlights.



Depuis l’arrêté du 4 mai 2000, il n'y a plus d'équivalence.
Si vous êtes titulaire d'un brevet de pilote avion, d'hélicoptère, de planeur ou de ballon libre, ou encore d'une licence étrangère, vous êtes uniquement dispensé du certificat d'aptitude théorique commun ULM.


Détail d'un texte (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000401045&dateTexte=)

[mad_jock]

The CAA can deem valid anything it likes on a G reg and its airspace. It got nothing to do with the French CAA.

It couldn't let a french licensed pilot fly a F reg, in UK airspace or a G reg in French airspace.

As I said they might not be allowed to do the same thing at home.

[patowalker]

any licence which authorises the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft and is granted:
(a) under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom but which is not a JAA licence...is, unless the CAA gives a direction to the contrary, deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order.

MJ
I disagree. The French PPL does not authorise the holder to fly a microlight, so the CAA can hardly override that. It would be different if the Contracting State did not specifically exclude microlights from PPL privileges.

In the event of an incident, the foreign licence would need to be verified with the issuing state and the microlight exclusion would come to light.

[mad_jock]

What you do in a countries airspace in its registred aircraft has nothing to do with any other country. Your license is only there to prove to the authority you know what your doing. If they decide your good to go under certain conditions outside your license rights thats up to them on home turf.

Its quite normal for commercial pilots to fly on validations and for us to be given rights which we don't have on our home licenses. TRE rights and TRI are the usual favorites.

[riverrock83]

Out of curiosity (and I'm sure its been well covered else where) - how does that work for things like VFR on top. Not allowed as far as a vanilla UK PPL licence goes (no matter whether its EASA/JAR/old school), but in most other countries, VFR on top is allowed on that other countries own version of the PPL licence.

Do other countries then say that a UK PPL holder can fly VFR on top in that other country's airspace, when flying that other countries registered planes? I had understood not...

However a non-aviation example: for the year after you've passed your driving test in Northern Ireland, you are restricted to driving below 45mph and must display "R" plates (rather than "L" plates). However, since that restriction isn't in the rules for anywhere else, if you travel across the water to Scotland, you can take down the R plates and drive at the same speed as everyone else, even though your paper licence says on it you are restricted till X date. So you follow the rules for the location you are in, not your home rules.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Straightforward enough I think.

You are required to work to the most restrictive of your licence / CofA privileges and local regulations. If you are requested by ATC to do something you can't do, you decline (giving reasons why if this is practical) and either ask for, or offer, and alternative.

If flying as PiC in another country you have a legal duty to know what rules apply to you. On long GA trips, this can be a major faff, but you still have to do it.

G

[patowalker]

Its quite normal for commercial pilots to fly on validations and for us to be given rights which we don't have on our home licenses. TRE rights and TRI are the usual favorites. Ah, but you are talking about validations, do you mean validations on bits of paper where the privileges are listed? I am talking about "rendered valid", as in using the foreign licence without the need for validation.

You are required to work to the most restrictive of your licence / CofA privileges and local regulations.That is why I believe G-reg microlight cannot be flown in the UK on a French PPL. It is all academic now anyway, because the proposed amendments to the ANO read:

50A (1) ... a person must not act as a member of a flight crew of a non-EASA aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without holding a licence granted or rendered valid under this Order.

50B An appropriate licence for the purposes of this part means a licence which entitles the holder to perform the functions being undertaken in relation to the aircraft concerned on the particular flighthttp://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2131/20110608ProposedAmendmentsToTheANOLic_v2.pdf

[mad_jock]

I am talking about rendered valid, then they add approvals that you can do under there oversight which is there aircraft and thier airspace and there licenese holders.

If the UK ANO had restricted the license to its original state legislation which most of the validations do. But in this case the UK stated it would validate any SEP class rating so it doesn't matter what the french say. If anything went wrong or you busted any airspace etc in a G reg they wouldn't even get informed.

[patowalker]

Thanks MJ, that's good to know. I fly a G-reg on an FAA PPL and rely on the ANO to render it valid to fly abroad. It will be interesting to see what happens when I am subjected to a ramp check and pull out my copy of the relevant article in CAP 393.

[mad_jock]

The Brits have been sneaky because even though they validate your licence they then proceed to limit you to the very minimum of only day VFR private flights so there is no wiggle room how ever much your ticket would nomally allow you to do unless its a JAR license. But they will let you to fly a microlight.

Using Validations in a third country airspace gets alot more envolved.

As soon as your in someone elses airspace you have UK ANO and the airspaces "owners" ANO to comply with. It not an automatic right that you can fly G reg anywhere you like with a FAA ticket just because the UK ANO says its OK. yes your 100% bullet proof in the UK FIR outside that you better do your home work.

I will leave it to Peter etc to give you a more infomed answer to that though.

[goldeneaglepilot]

You could always call Tom Hughston for advice about the legalities of an FAA licence in the UK and on G reg aircraft in general.

Tom is "always" approachable:)

Return Home (http://www.rnav.us/)

[patowalker]

As soon as your in someone elses airspace you have UK ANO and the airspaces "owners" ANO to comply with. It not an automatic right that you can fly G reg anywhere you like with a FAA ticket just because the UK ANO says its OK. yes your 100% bullet proof in the UK FIR outside that you better do your home work. The aircraft is a VLA here, but a microlight everywhere else in the EU, so if the FAA PPL is rejected, I will pull out my UK and French microlight licences. At least I will be able to claim that I acted in good faith. :)

You could always call Tom Hughston for advice about the legalities of an FAA licence in the UK and on G reg aircraft in general.Thanks, but there is no question of the legality of my FAA licence in the UK. The problem is that outside the UK in a G reg it depends on the national authority, and although there may be no specific prohibition, there is unlikely to be an authorisation.

I am waiting until June (?) to exchange my NPPL SSEA for an LAPL.

[mad_jock]

Sounds like you have your arse covered :D

[CPL593H]

Late last night, BBC News announced the findings of the AAIB accident investigation.

Turns out that the pilot had no official flight training at all, and that this flight was an ill fated solo attempt. On top of that, the aircraft was not insured and de-registered.

From what is described in the report, it would appear he stalled upon take-off.


Here is the BBC News article:

BBC News - Clackmannanshire fatal microlight crash pilot untrained (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-20242535)

[CPL593H]

Here is the official AAIB report on the accident.

Confirms a stall upon take-off.

More worryingly, an 'experienced' microlight pilot was present on the ground and helped prepare the ill fated a/c. Knowing fine well of the owner of this a/c had no flight training.

Report can be found here;

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Gemini%20Flash%20IIA%20G-MVSV%2011-12.pdf

[DaveReidUK]

From the report:

"The owner mentioned to some friends that he would be flying his microlight from a field near Alloa, Scotland on 12 April 2012 and invited them to attend. Two of them arrived at the field. One of them had limited knowledge of aviation and the other was an experienced microlight pilot."

"Power was increased but not sufficiently to take off, and the aircraft accelerated to a fast taxi speed. After it stopped the experienced pilot explained to the owner that he would need full power to become airborne."
Hmmmm.

[ZH875]

And this years Darwin award goes to .....

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

What on earth was that 'experienced pilot' on to not only allow but to assist someone with zero training to do this? :confused:

[xrayalpha]

"Experienced pilot"

You may wish to read some of the other comments:

"There was no evidence that the pilot had received any formal training"

This is very different from the pilot had received "no training".

The microlighter present was an "experienced pilot", not an instructor.

The "experienced pilot" gave the dead chap some instruction: ie "use full power to take-off".

One question being asked by PC PLod and others is whether or not this was the only "informal" training the dead chap receved.

And if he had received other training, who did he get it from?

There are many "lines to be read between" here - but the lesson is the same.

Wise people learn from other people's mistakes - so use an instructor. And remember that getting a licence is only the start of your training.

[tonyhalsall]

Correct me if I am wrong here but is this not how you learned to fly the early microlights? Before registration and licensing became mandatory you just had to get some ground based advice and off you went.
There is traffic about this incident on most aviation related websites and predictable tut, tutting about the idiocy of the pilot but he was only doing what most microlight pilots did 30 years ago. Difference now is that you have to have a licence and the microlight has to be "registered."
As aviators we look poorly on people who don't abide by the rules and as Brits, we never question the vailidity, requirement or onerous nature of the rules - we just accept whatever they are.
If we take away the fact that microlights are now in the licenced category and so legally he was in the wrong - what we don't know is if his "experienced" friend checked over the aircraft and also gave the deceased the same sort of training that any microlight pilot might have had 30 or so years ago....

Bottom line is that the deceased stuck two fingers up at the CAA and then paid the ultimate price but I am sure that there are others doing the same.

[Pilotage]

Sticking two fingers up at the CAA has never, to the best of my knowledge, carried a death sentence.

However, sticking two fingers up at the common sense of learning properly how to do something dangerous before trying on your own, often has carried a death sentence. As it apparently did in this case.

P

[All-The-Nines]

Difference now is that you have to have a licence and the microlight has to be "registered."
As aviators we look poorly on people who don't abide by the rules and as Brits, we never question the vailidity, requirement or onerous nature of the rules - we just accept whatever they are.
If we take away the fact that microlights are now in the licenced category and so legally he was in the wrong - what we don't know is if his "experienced" friend checked over the aircraft and also gave the deceased the same sort of training that any microlight pilot might have had 30 or so years ago....

Does the evidence of this case (i.e. someone's very unfortunate death) not suggest though that the current rules are there for a reason? I know we can sit here all day long and debate the CAA but that's not the point. Despite their inefficiencies, high prices, red tape, you do have to sit there and think for a moment hang on, despite all of this they surely wouldn't make the rules up for a laugh? There has to have been something or some piece of evidence to trigger any rules that we now have in place, no matter how much you do or don't agree with them.

People say that the aircraft didn't crash because it wasn't registered. Indirectly of course the answer is 'no', the CAA producing a piece of paperwork and recording the ownership of the aircraft doesn't make the aircraft immune from crashing. But I guess as with all these things it's part of a string of requirements which one way or another goes some way to proving that everything is being carried out legitimately.

Just like police pulling over drivers for their tax being out of date...the tax disc doesn't stop the car from crashing, but when the police pull them over they quite often discover that said driver doesn't have adequate insurance, or the MOT's expired, or they're banned from driving as well. I think that if someone isn't following one rule, then there is a suggestion that there might be a deeper down reason in the sense that they are trying to escape following other rules too (unless of course it was purely an accident that they forgot to send off a particular application form).

[cockney steve]

@tonyhalsall....right on the money :ok:

Nobody taught the Wright Brothers, Nobody taught the Rogallo pioneers how to pilot their creations......leaning the hard way is a highly risky business....sensible pioneers swap experiencesand build up an
EMPIRICAL knowledge -base.....then the regulating authorities decide to take over and that empirical base becomes the starting-point of FORMAL training and safety regimes.

Officialdom has to keep itself in work...you can still teach yourself to sail an inherently unstable high-performance racing dinghy.-not necessarily the BEST way (it can get wet and cold!) but any reasonably intelligent and physically capable person can do it.....unfortunately, the air is not so forgiving and reactions have to be really sharp (or the aircraft inherently "self-righting") in ordre to survive the steep early-learning curve.

The sensible route to self-instruction , is to tap into the world's accumulated wisdom pertaining to the interest in question. Books, when I was younger,-more comprehensive and wider-ranging , we now have the Web.

It would seem the deceased had delusions about his abilities. he was bought down to earth very quickly.
He chose the DIY route and didn't do adequate preparatory learning.

I have NO problem with formal instruction, I do have a problem with some jobsworth organisation decreeing that it is the ONLY fount of knowledge and you WILL follow it's mandated training-regime etc.

License, proving your competence to practice your subject in proximity to other people....no problem with that.

sorry, can't feel sympathy for someone taking a very dodgy gamble.

But I do feel sympathy for those he left behind that miss him.

[Piper.Classique]

Correct me if I am wrong here but is this not how you learned to fly the early microlights? Before registration and licensing became mandatory you just had to get some ground based advice and off you

Well, with single seaters, yes. But pretty soon there were two seaters, and people who had survived long enough to be able to teach the others. Of course, early glider training was done solo in the ATC and by civilian clubs until about 1950. Doesn't mean it was the best way to do it though. First microlight I flew was a single seater, but I had a PPL and a silver C. Didn't crash it.