Plane crash near Basingstoke UK

[Harry O]

Plane crashes near Popham Airfield (From Basingstoke Gazette) (http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/11700761.Plane_crashes_near_Popham_Airfield/)

[Sop_Monkey]

BBC News stating 25 firefighters in attendance. Would that be overkill or did it come down on a road?

[srobarts]

A friend lives across the road from where this happened, the accident appears to have occurred behind the BP garage which backs on to the woods. The woods have difficult access with mainly narrow mud tracks. I guess the access and proximity to the petrol station probably guided the turnout of so many firefighters.

[srobarts]

sadly now reported that there were two fatalities and one critically injured.
BBC News - Two dead in aircraft crash near Popham, Hampshire (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30666201)

[chrisbl]

The weather this afternoon in the area was pretty bad.


As an example this is Farnborough


EGLF 031520Z 36011KT 6000 2000SW BR VCSH BKN006 06/05 Q1018
EGLF 031450Z 34013KT 4000 BR FEW006 BKN016 07/06 Q1017


Odiham


EGVO 031550Z 36012KT 9999 OVC004 05/04 Q1019 YLO2
EGVO 031450Z 33015KT 9999 BKN004 OVC016 06/05 Q1017 YLO2
EGVO 031350Z 27016KT 9999 BKN008 OVC015 11/09 Q1014 GRN



Boscombe Down


EGDM 031650Z AUTO 01013KT 9999 OVC006/// 05/04 Q1022
EGDM 031550Z AUTO 35009KT 9999 BKN006/// BKN017/// 05/05 Q1020 RERA
EGDM 031450Z AUTO 35015G25KT 8000 -SHRA SCT003/// BKN016/// 06/05 Q1017

[gpn01]

BBC News stating 25 firefighters in attendance. Would that be overkill or did it come down on a road?

Better too many than too few.
Condolences to those affected.

[Pirke]

Not good news :(

Any info on what type of aircraft it was and probable cause?

[zz9]

Popham is a big microlight base, for training and for owners. But if there are three fatalities, and they were all on board, that rules out the microlights.

[Dawdler]

It is reported on Flyer Forum that it is NOT a Popham based aircraft.

[cumulusrider]

According to Pophams facebook page it was closed at the time due to surface conditions.

[srobarts]

A few more details have been released about this sad accident.
Man and woman identified after Popham plane crash (From Basingstoke Gazette) (http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/11701089.Man_and_woman_identified_after_Popham_plane_crash/)

[GBEBZ]

Boy, 6, orphaned and fighting for his life after both parents die in light aircraft crash | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2896304/Boy-6-orphaned-fighting-life-parents-die-light-aircraft-crash.html)

Took off from Bembridge apparently...

[007helicopter]

Believed to be a Pioneer 400

Angry and sickened about the loss of innocent lives:ugh:

[pasir]

Sorry to hear the sad news. Last flew in to Popham many years back. I dont know which runway they were aiming for but some could find the airfield a little 'uncomfortable' if new to the airfield, especially with the Garage and Cafe area to take into account if on short finals for that particular runway. One report mentioned that weather was not so good, but appreciate this is all speculation until details and facts are known.

[Fostex]

Judging by the pilot's name stated in the press and a quick search of G-INFO it would appear the aircraft in question is G-CGVO.

Very sad news, two people have lost their lives and a little boy has lost his parents.

[BLEED-AIR]

G-CGVO recent change of ownership RIP Lewis and Sally

[S-Works]

I have to ask myself what a permit aircraft was doing flying in those conditions when the weather forecast was terrible all day and the actual matched it.

I would be surprised if we have anything to learn from the AIB report when it comes out. But who knows....

[frangatang]

Not only was it forecast...it was ferking awful when l drove past at 1 pm.

[phiggsbroadband]

Does anyone know if they were flying towards their home in Alcester, in which case Wellesbourne Mountford could have been their destination.


Popham is a good 60nm further south, but on track.

[piperboy84]

Damned shame, hope the poor little guy pulls thru.

[FBS]

One poster has mentioned that Popham was closed due to surface conditions. Whilst this was true yesterday, it would have not mattered if we had a weather divert or an emergency, Popham will never turn away an aircraft that needs to come in.

[FI-Joe]

I was at Lee on the Solent on the day of this tragic accident, and binned all my flying due to an estimated 300 foot cloud base and appalling vis.
I cant believe anyone would have departed Bembridge in those conditions. Even with an IR and well equipped aircraft, I would have thought twice. However, lets wait for the AAIB report before we speculate.
Tragic loss of life!

[maxred]

Yes, I remember the day of the Colin MacRae helio crash, where he wiped out his small son, a friend, and another young child. I was at an airfield close by, and decided it was just too crap to fly. On the road home, I heard the first reports coming through. Like you, my first thought was, why anyone would go up in that, particularly with young family. I waited for the report, and guess what. Nothing wrong with the aeroplane, everything wrong with the pilot, again......

I am getting pretty sick about reading all these reports, where guys take off, with family members on board, generally youngsters, and plough it in. The seven year old survivor of the latest one in the States, makes totally despairing reading. I am actually beginning to wonder what it is all about..

[daxwax]

This is a real conundrum for me.
I've got two children of 8 and 11. I regularly fly with the 11 year old as he really enjoys it and I must admit I'm pretty paranoid about safety with him (I've even bought him nomex coveralls and gloves) but of course I can't cover all eventualities.

What if we have a bird strike and I'm knocked out, what if we had a mid-air, what if I hit a sheep half-way down my PFL field etc etc?
Should I make him wear a helmet?
I got an IMC rating last year and I know lots of people say it's only safe if you use it regularly but should I use it in real IMC with my son on board or not?

I'd like to think that I wouldn't have taken off in the wx on Sunday (but I wasn't there) but I would genuinely appreciate guidance on how others manage this. There are some days I feel I should never take him up again as the risks are too great but then you can kill yourself crossing the road.
I don't ever want to be the person deemed to have put my kids in a position of unacceptable risk.

My condolences to the family at this terrible time for them.

[maxred]

Dax, it is the eternal conundrum. I also have two kids, now aged 9, and 14. The 14 year old now has 10 hours of Cub time. He has also flown the Bo quite a bit. He is good. They have flown with me on many adventures. It was because of them that I spent a lot of time and money, gaining IMC, Night, and nearly, almost there, my FAA IR. It was actually all for them. I also do plenty of instructor led recurrent.

Now, I can understand that accidents/events, can happen. Despite every precaution, you can still error. It is life. However, if it is truly bad, bad as to let's drive, let's go Easyjet, let's get a train, I would like to think that my whole life experience would tell me to do that. Evidently, some people, decide that it is worth the risk.

The States one was a long flight from Key West to Illinois, in a Seneca, three kids, and wife. It was very doable, but.........IFR, night, known icing, and a line of T cells. Would I have done it? I like to think not.

This one, in a Permit aircraft, with known low level crud, all the way. 300 foot cloud base, and yet they go. I honestly just do not get it..

I sincerely hope the wee chap pulls through, and has some decent extended family..

[rattle]

Dax and Max

All those thoughts have passed through my head today, not helped by speaking to a friend who hasn't flown since the kids were born. My kids love it and ask "when can we go?" all the time. I lost a colleague who crashed with his family on board some years ago. I don't know when you decide it's too much of a risk but naturally wx is going to keep me on the ground.

Feel desperately sad for the boy. I cannot imagine my son in that situation.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

I started a Thread just over a year ago entitled 'Motorway Flying' to highlight the dangers of flying in poor weather conditions. I was generally ridiculed.

The following is one of the more memorable replies:

I can well remember picking up a Cessna 150 for the owner! the aircraft had not one bit of navigation kit available apart from the radio.

I took off VFR in VMC but seeing a front covering the hills decided to follow a river which I knew took me to within a mile of the destination field.

I took off with 1000 foot cloud base in light rain and approx 5000 meters in rain keeping the river below and on my left!

Soon the cloud was down to 600 feet and visibility down to 3000 meters.
Shortly after that I was down at 400 feet agl cloud base 400 feet in heavy rain vis approx 1500 meters.
Again i had the river on my left and knew by being over the river I would not hit anything.

I threw in the towel when I was again forced down to 200 feet visibility down to 700 meters and scud cloud below the aircraft.

Time to climb into IMC and the SSA which I did expecting a PAR into a military base.

I never took the PAR as I burst out of the front with 15 miles to run.
Yes we all do it at some point! or at least some of us do!
Some of us are even still here to tell the tale

Pace

Sadly two people are no longer here to tell the tale and a young boy has been orphaned.

I have survived for 40 years as a pilot by not being gung-ho, by following the rules and by passing on the knowledge I have gained to others.

It's not ironic - wish it was - but tragic that someone has succumbed to the very dangers I tried to point out in my Thread.

I, for one, am not laughing now.

SITW

[Wycombe]

I was on the ground driving not too far north of Popham at around 4pm on Saturday (just before news of this accident broke) and observed what looked like the Thames Valley Police helicopter proceeding south at low-level. As it turns out, it may well have been on it's way to the area of the accident.

It was at low-level, I estimate 500' at the most, just beneath the cloudbase. The horizontal viz was actually not too bad, I estimate >5k at least (and possibly more), but I remember thinking it was a day when not a lot else would be flying. I was shocked when news of the accident broke just after I got home.

The conditions weren't transient either, it was like that most of the day in the area, with heavy rain earlier.

A local TV Report (BBC South) was at Popham today, where people on the ground reported hearing an aircraft pass over "very low" just before the accident. No radio calls were received.

A tragic accident that didn't need to happen.

[piperboy84]

I started a Thread just over a year ago entitled 'Motorway Flying' to highlight the dangers of flying in poor weather conditions. I was generally ridiculed.

Now Spanner I,m not sure it that is completely accurate, if I recall correctly you got harangued because you were going to grass up the guy for flying low in bad weather.

[hoodie]

You do recall correctly. The pilot concerned robustly defended himself, too. Here's the thread (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/526954-motorway-flying.html); we all do well to remember that it's difficult to rewrite your own history on the Internet.

[skyrangerpro]

Chrisbl:

The weather this afternoon in the area was pretty bad.


As an example this is Farnborough


EGLF 031520Z 36011KT 6000 2000SW BR VCSH BKN006 06/05 Q1018
EGLF 031450Z 34013KT 4000 BR FEW006 BKN016 07/06 Q1017


Odiham


EGVO 031550Z 36012KT 9999 OVC004 05/04 Q1019 YLO2
EGVO 031450Z 33015KT 9999 BKN004 OVC016 06/05 Q1017 YLO2
EGVO 031350Z 27016KT 9999 BKN008 OVC015 11/09 Q1014 GRN



Boscombe Down


EGDM 031650Z AUTO 01013KT 9999 OVC006/// 05/04 Q1022
EGDM 031550Z AUTO 35009KT 9999 BKN006/// BKN017/// 05/05 Q1020 RERA
EGDM 031450Z AUTO 35015G25KT 8000 -SHRA SCT003/// BKN016/// 06/05 Q1017

We must try to keep an open mind, however difficult, those metars look grim and will be the first thing the aaib refer to in their report. There could be more than one contributory factor, he could have had the situation under control preparing for a precautionary at popham and then had engine problems from say carb icing. Those weather conditions look ideal for carb icing, particularly if you have been skipping along just under cloud level for a few miles. The one and only time I have experienced carb icing in a 912S that is rarely prone to carb icing was doing exactly that. Unfortunately of course, the evidence, if any, will have evaporated long ago.

[tmmorris]

What's interesting about those is the deterioration - very noticeable with BDN. I could see how you might with a bit of pressonitis be suckered into flying at 1450 yet it was nasty at 1550 and stinking by 1650.

[rog747]

sadly beggars belief why to fly last saturday when the weather down here was one of the nastiest days for a while -
i am not far from compton abbas and BOH and the weather had been rough since the afternoon before driving back through hampshire to dorset

very sad to learn of the casualties and the poor lad orphaned

[skyrangerpro]

Gethomeitis.

It looks like this was the return leg to the previous day's outbound trip to Bembridge. The track from the 2nd jan from brize radar is still there on flightradar24

[robin]

Hmm
Reported cloudbase around 4-800' or less, Popham at 550' and the high ground en route to Wellesbourne up to 7-800' or so.

Doesn't leave a lot of options.

[fa2fi]

The way I remember that post is you came on here, making out to have good intentions but then you started to pontificate, people responded, you didn't like that and just because of people's replies you decided to complain to the CAA just because people (randoms on a forum, and not the pilots involved) didn't agree with you.

Here's your post:

"In view of the comments and criticisms I have received I consider the only way forward is to file Form FCS1520 for an Alleged Breach of Air Navigation Legislation against this pilot"

[BEagle]

fa2fi and SpannerInTheWerks, would you chaps mind awfully getting yourselves a room and moving your private spat on this thread elsewhere, please?

Thank you

:rolleyes:

[Pilot DAR]

fa2fi and SpannerInTheWerks, would you mind awfully getting a room and ending your private spat on this thread, please?

Yes please....

[fa2fi]

BEagle/Pilot DAR: my apologies. My intention was to keep the conversation pertinent to the topic before it went way off course like the Motorway Flying one did. I will now quit with it. I've made my point. Now I'll leave both of you to actually contribute something to the thread which neither of you have yet.

[Capn Bug Smasher]

Should I make him wear a helmet?

I have a nice pair of RAF Mk 16 coveralls in a lovely desert pink.

I am shopping for a stylish pair of leather gauntlets to match my stout leather walking boots.

I try to put £100 or £200 a month towards a flying helmet.

I am fully aware that I look a complete fool embarking a Cessna in my top gun finery.

But I am a fool who knows what happens if you're unlucky enough to need it and not have it.

[tmmorris]

Dax,

I too regularly fly with my son - now 11 but a regular passenger from 2 onwards. You just have to do your best to minimise the significant risks. Birdstrike through the canopy causing serious injury is massively unlikely; pressing on VFR into IMC is an obviously dangerous thing and you can avoid it in several ways. Mine is to have and keep properly current an IR(R), but I am lucky enough to fly from an airfield with an ILS. My wife is completely understanding but this has been uncomfortably close to home - Popham is so close to home base that I've actually only been twice, but it's a familiar sight.

I have, though, used this crash as an opportunity to remind my son that if what I am doing seems dangerous to him, he must say so. He is an avid watcher of Air Crash Investigation and understands a lot about heuristic traps as a result. Maybe one day he will be the one who says to me that we should get a hotel room or a train home...

[Pilot DAR]

actually contribute something to the thread

Contributions are encouraged, but not required.

[belowradar]

I flew some fun training hours with a great instructor /commercial pilot in USA on gliders many years ago, he flew piston twins for a living but had a personal SOP to only fly VFR with family members ( mostly fun trips on vacation or jollies)

Sounded sensible to me is I adopted it and it is a rule that has worked well for me so I am posting it for others to consider as a reasonable practice

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Would the light a/c involved in the accident have carried a Mode C transponder? If it had and had the pilot been in contact with a nearby radar unit ATC might have nudged him about his altitude.

[maxred]

Sounded sensible to me is I adopted it and it is a rule that has worked well for me so I am posting it for others to consider as a reasonable practice

The problem with that is that you rule out the requirement of half the GA fleet. I also have a very highly qualified friend, 25000 hrs+, who will not fly single pilot IR. He does however, scud run, and has crashed twice:ouch:

The issue here is decision making and airmanship. If a pilot sets off, in a machine that is fit for purpose, he has reviewed all conditions, at destination, and on route, and he is suitably qualified, and current for the mission he is about to embark on, then as well as he could, all bases have been covered. Accidents can still happen.

But, to set off with family members, in challenging circumstances, remember they rely on you to ensure their safety, is untenable. The accident in the States, with the surviving 7 year old, is receiving, rightly so, very, very bad publicity. GA can well do without these incidents, life is tough enough, but the press are concentrating on the fact that she walked out in a tee shirt, no shoes, and a pair of shorts.

This wee fella jumped into a Permit aircraft, trusting his Dad, who then took off, into very poor, Metar'd weather, on route, and at destination. Now, he may have had a full IR panel it, but I would doubt it was IR certified. He also had the option to go up, see what it was like, think no way, and return to Bembridge. You makes your choice...

[sharpend]

I probably am an old woman, but I am still alive after 10,000 hrs.

In my light aircraft we wear Nomex flying suits, quality flying helmets, we don't fly in bad weather (though I have an IR and the aircraft has 2 x VOR, 2 x GPS, DME), and we carry an emergency bag which, amongst other things, contains a PLB.

Yes, both my partner & I get ribbed for wearing 'fancy dress', normally by idiots who fly in shorts and T-shirts. That is their choice, we have made ours.

We don't wear our protection for show.

[Pace]

Or go and rent or buy a Cirrus and educate your loved ones in the use of the chute.
it has saved many from usually pilot mistakes and inadequacies and gives you and your loved ones an extra element to consider if all goes pear shaped

Pace

[Wycombe]

...although even that may not save you, as the accident into the Channel off LFAT (involving Blackbushe-based Cirrus) a couple of years ago proved.

[ChissayLuke]

I'd be interested to know what ratings this guy had beyond his basic PPL.
I'm surmising that he wasn't either IMC or working a radar station, one or both of which might indeed have saved this dreadful tragedy.
I once (not that long ago, but pre smartfone) had an option to take off from an un-manned Bembridge but elected not to due to wx uncertainty, even with IMC rating. Loooooong taxi/ferry ride ensued and I collected a/c a couple of days later. Very expensive, but the right call on the day.
Private flying is a risk, like anything else. One can only try to minimise that risk.
To others, that have spoken on this thtead of concern about taking their precious and eager children aloft, I'd say 'go for it. Share the fun'.
I well remember my Skills Test Examiner saying to me, before the test: 'Luke, there are no tricks today-I just want to be sure that I could trust you to take my wife and son flying'.
Words I've thought of each and every time I have lined up and declared my readiness for departure, solo, or with passengers.

[Pace]

Yes but I did stress the word " Educate " Which maybe should have also referred to the pilot as well.

That means the pilot not allowing a situation to develop to the point that he is desperately lost in low cloud and poor visibility with no game plan other than a wish and a prayer and pulling the chute at a suitable altitude.
in this situation and in a Cirrus aircraft the chute would probably have saved them if used correctly and at the right time.

my own example many years back was used by one poster as an example . the difference was I had a game plan knew the area exceptionally well, knew I could not hit anything with the river below knew the back of the front lay ahead and was as comfortable flying in clouds as out so I was fully comfortable taking to the clouds and the MSA when plan A was not working.
Also the actual and TAFS on departure were for 800 broken and 6K in light rain not what developed for part of the route with clear weather already into my destination.

And that is the point! Never fly without an " out " an alternative plan if A does not work because then you are in the lap of the Gods
its about the pilot always being in control of the situation and his actions its when that control is lost that these tragic accidents happen

I have survived for 40 years as a pilot by not being gung-ho, by following the rules and by passing on the knowledge I have gained to others.

It's not ironic - wish it was - but tragic that someone has succumbed to the very dangers I tried to point out in my Thread.

Spannerinthewerks

How you can post my example from years back as some sort of vindication of your view I don't know! You neither know the cause of this tragic accident or the background to the flight I made. I am very happy you have survived 40 years of flying I am not that far behind you on years of flying but probably 10 times your hours
i always preach fly within your and your aircrafts limits which you obviously do as so do I but don't judge others on your own abilities or views on aviation as they may not be the same as others.

Pilots will legally with a night rating fly a single piston at night! I consider that to be a highly risky occupation as there are no outs no game plan if the donkey goes bang! I do not find that an acceptable risk so don't fly singles at night but I don't dictate my views on others

Pace

[piperboy84]

My thoughts on weather, let me preface by saying I have spent the last year attaining my FAA instrument and commercial rating and am about to embark on my CFI rating, I have attended Met GA weather training seminars in Exeter and have spent the last few years reading and rereading FAA published Aviation Weather Services training manuals and relentlessly pick the brains of more experienced pilots about weather conditions and observations, I have about 800 TT and have been flying for 20 years.

BUT , and here is the rub, I honestly feel I am still not proficient in the process of acquiring, determining the applicability and interpreting aviation weather in a manner that matches the levels of safety and comfort that I possess in other areas of GA flying. When I look at flying overall there can be no doubt there is a definitive process and procedure for most aspects, god knows we have checklists coming out our rear-end for every phase of flight and aircraft inspection including mechanical, documentation and licensing that are black and white. When it comes to weather we are taught a hodge-podge of methods, sources and steps that are available from multiple official and unofficial resources that is hard for a guy like me to put into a go/no go workflow or checklist because of the infinite variables. In the tragic case that initiated this thread it’s obvious that the weather conditions were decidedly not suitable for VFR but there is a whole bunch of conditions between what this guy flew in and VFR,999,SKC, no wind, that present significant dangers to the average GA pilot that can be missed due to information overload or interpretation failures.

Just my 2 cents

[JW411]

Pace:

I can well understand your personal reluctance to fly single piston aircraft at night but has it ever occured to you that the Royal Air Force did this for years and years and years with very little problem?

I myself, did many hours at night in the Piston Provost behind an Alvis Leonides engine which had a lot more moving parts than the average Lycoming O-320.

Indeed, towards the end of my 50-odd years of accident and incident free professional flying, I used to get a great deal of enjoyment out of going night flying in my PA-28.

Each to his own taste.

[ChissayLuke]

Night flying is, indeed great. Returning to base during the afternoon, watching dusk fall, then making a night approach and landing is such a pleasure.
As is flying across the channel by day, and from Morocco to the Canaries, (200 NM and I only saw 3 ships).
Sure; an increased risk, but correctly assessed and prepared for, an acceptable one.
IMHO.

[maxred]

Sure; an increased risk, but correctly assessed and prepared for, an acceptable one.IMHO.

And this of course has been what the recent debate has been all about.

[worrab]

correctly assessed and prepared for

How do you prepare for an SEP engine failure during a night flight? (Apart from flying a Cirrus).

[sunday driver]

When it comes to weather we are taught a hodge-podge of methods

I am in the final throes of renewing my lapsed IMC (IRR) rating
I don't have your experience but I share your methodical approach

When it comes to weather, my current IMC instructor is a great source of experienced wisdom, to wit ...
If cloud cover at destination = broken @ circuit height, then chance of successful arrival < 50% = 'Do you think you're lucky??'

SD

[SpeedbirdXK8]

There are a couple of posts that concern me, very much. They relate to "questions" of when to decide whether to fly with children, young children, who have no real concept of how dangerous flying can be. Fly with children all day long. In fact I am considering whether to introduce my 14 year old to the world of flying but for the first few flights my professional executive jet PIC friend will be the handling pilot in CAVOK until my son feel safe & comfortable. My point is don't expect your young child to make the decision whether to take the car, train, bus, bike or whatever nor decide whether is the weather down the line is going to be ok. All they will do is look at you as the responsible adult and their idol to make the correct decision based on safety first. 90% of accidents start in the pilot's head. Rant over.

[ChissayLuke]

I'm not sure that a Cirrus is necessarily a panacea. It might drop you into an electrical sub-station with spectaular results.
And is also not available to most PPL anyway.
When I did my night rating, I asked my instructor what I should o if the enine topped. 'Aim for the dark bits', said he.
That a PPL night rating exists at all suggests that the CAA finds the risk acceptable. And so do I.
With the benefit of a landing light, it is probable, though not guaranteed, that I could land reasonably safely.
I'm not sure about some of this thread-if we are blanket-bothered about what MIGHT happen, having planned as best as we are able, we maybe shouldn't have taken up flying in the first place.

[Capn Bug Smasher]

quality flying helmets

sharpend, would you mind making the recommendation? I am considering an SPH-5 but really would love to know what others are wearing!

Capt Bugsmasher

[007helicopter]

With the benefit of a landing light, it is probable, though not guaranteed, that I could land reasonably safely.

I would say it would make virtually no difference to your chance of survival and to think it would is extreme optimism, however that is irrelevant to this thread.

Most of us have made the mistake of taking of in inappropriate weather and generally learn to tell the tale and grow in our experience, sadly sometimes innocent victims were with them who were not in a position to make an informed decision about the risks.

[Pace]

When I did my night rating, I asked my instructor what I should o if the enine topped. 'Aim for the dark bits', said he.
That a PPL night rating exists at all suggests that the CAA finds the risk acceptable. And so do I.

The one I heard was that on a dark night if the engine stopped to glide towards a dark area.

As you come closer to the ground put on the landing lights !!! If you like what you see leave them on! If you don't like what you see turn them back off again :E

Having a few engine problems albeit I must admit in twins i cannot say I have a massive confidence in piston engines.

I really do like to approach anything I do with outs a plan B another door if one closes. To do something risky with no other get out doors is Russian roulette.

If you know that accept it and still take the risk then that risk is acceptable to you! But do we hav ethe right to accept risk for others especially our Kids.

i have flown piston singles at night over long stretches of water over fog banks or solid cloud with very low cloud bases but it makes me uncomfortable to do so because I know if the engine quits I have no outs and am in the lap of the Gods

Now give me a Cirrus and I might change that view because the chute gives me the lacking out :ok:
As for the CAA regulations a lot is steeped in history and there is no ryme or reason to some of the legislation!
Apart from the engine failure scenario on a dark night it made no sense to me why the night rating was not rolled into the IMCR or the IMCR a requirement for a night rating CAA madness ???

Pace

[mary meagher]

Why is it so difficult for some pilots to execute a 180 degree return?

Because they want to get home....

[Pace]

Why is it so difficult for some pilots to execute a 180 degree return?
Because they want to get home....

Mary that is one aspect but there are more

Maybe they think things will improve if they hold on a bit?
maybe they see it as defeatism to go back
Maybe they are not good instrument pilots and having got into IMC conditions take all their brain power to keep straight and level?
a turn back is not always a guarantee that you will meet the conditions you left ?
Maybe even vanity comes into it " Jack in the plane ahead has got through why can't you?"
The challenge??
but yes get home itis is a major element in not turning back

Pace

[abgd]

I'm not sure that a Cirrus is necessarily a panacea. It might drop you into an electrical sub-station with spectaular results.

It might, but if you work out the proportion of Europe covered by substations it seems to me unlikely.

Why not glide over the middle of a dark bit then pull the chute? Best of both worlds.

[rog747]

the poor chap may have considered a turn back to the IOW but the weather down here on Saturday afternoon was vile in extremis with squalls and 45 mph gusts along the coast from Dorset to Hants/IOW.
we do not know if he had an IR but just a look out of the window that day and any private flyer surely would have not gone anywhere...

i drove past Bournemouth airport in the afternoon and the viz was hopeless
if you were in a VFR situation flying a small plane it would be horrid

just watched 2 interesting programs this week
one about the Hampden that went down on Dartmoor returning from bombing submarine pens and the eagle rock HRH duke of Kent sunderland crash - both in 1942
both poor viz and low level flight

[Pace]

Rog

we do not know so many things about this crash! What was so urgent about the trip that the pilot even got out of bed to fly on such a day especially with his family? Surely not a sight seeing trip?

We don't know what brought him down? was he flying IMC/ IFR rules and was forced down by some other problem?

Did he think he was better more capable than he was? What was his mindset?

its strange I was on a trip just before christmas me and the co pilot were on the ground for a couple of days in the french Alps and my co pilot wanted to Ski
A lack of low level snow meant a high resort which only had reds or blacks.

my co pilot asked if I was up to skiing reds or blacks?" Yea Yea of course I am bar the fact that I only took up skiing 10 years ago and had not skied for 4 years.
So yes I got down with wide turns and occasional stops some intentional others not :ugh:while seeing my co pilot drop almost vertically down the slopes arriving at the bottom by the time I had got a 1/3 rd down :ugh: but yes technically I was skiing reds and blacks.

Amongst pilots especially private pilots there is a huge variance in ability and sadly many have less ability than they claim or believe.

There will always be pilots who can manage conditions like that even in a piston single and then there are those who think they can and then those who get into those conditions inadvertently or allow themselves to be put into conditions like that by some outside pressures.

Why this pilot was flying that day who knows? there are still too many questions to be answered but the outcome is very sad

Pace

[robin]

We don't know what brought him down? was he flying IMC/ IFR rules and was forced down by some other problem?

It was a Permit aircraft, so his options were limited

We'll know more about his contacts with ATC and/or Popham when the AAIB report is issued

[rog747]

robin and pace
thanks all for the replies

just to add that apart from the location of the crash Popham field has no reference to this accident
afaik the airfield was officially closed that day and he was not heading for a diversion there nor spoke to them (according to pophams FB site)

[sharpend]

Capn Bug Smasher,

We purchased two Alpha 200 helmets from SES. The RAF helmets are too heavy and the field of view of an Alpha is better.

[S-Works]

We purchased two Alpha 200 helmets from SES. The RAF helmets are too heavy and the field of view of an Alpha is better.

Are you serious, that you are wearing Nomex and bone domes in a spam can? Or is this some sort of warbird?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm guessing from his profile, aerobatics in a Bulldog?

G

[A and C]

it is interesting that you say "It was a permit aircraft so his options were limited"

it is not the first time I have seen aircraft dammaged by following "rules" be they local or misunderstood bits of the ANO, fortunatly all the inccidents that I have seen have just resulted in bent metal and no injury to the occupants.

It is my view that the captain of an aircraft can take any action he/she sees fit to assure the safety of the aircraft and its occupants, the bottom line is that if I painted myself into a very low cloudbase situation I would climb above the MSA and get radar vectors to some place that I could safely get the aircraft on the ground irrispective of the certification status of the aircraft, if the aircraft was not capable of IMC flight I would pick the best field I could find and land in it.

There are parts of the ANO that permit the breaking of any of the rules if life is in danger.

In aviation the only action that matters is the one that gets you back on the ground safely.

I would far rather explain my actions to the CAA than St Peter.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yes.

I got caught in an unforecast descending cloudbase, reducing visibility, and commencing rain within a couple of miles of where this happened, around 10 years ago - in a permit aircraft.

I landed in a field, got a taxi home after apologising to the farmer, and later removed the aeroplane by road. I dropped one bolt de-rigging and lost it, which I had to replace at the cost of about £10.


Admittedly I had rather better short field capability than a Pioneer 400, but that option is available to all of us, and used far too rarely.

None of which should be taken as any assumption that I know what happened to this Pioneer.

G

[robin]

A&C

Completely agree

There have been a few noteworthy occasions when sticking to the rules would have led to my demise. Not sure how thick the cloud was last week or whether the pilot felt able to go up, but if his choice was to stay low in the murk, then he was lining up a few more of the holes in the cheese

[Pace]

I agree 100% with A and Es post above! Some permit aircraft are very well equipt for instrument flight and at some point the pilot is better climbing to MSA and getting an SRA or PAR into somewhere or at worst vectors towards better weather where a safe descent can be made.

G makes a good point on controlled off airport landings! I can remember a great story of two pilots one German the other English flying over France when bad weather forced them to land in a field and wait for the weather to clear through.

they were enemies but both landed in the same field and shared cigarettes together as well as chatting to each other.

After the weather cleared they both took off again in different directions as friends.

G part of the problem is surely that off field landings are not encouraged or taught and probably not even contemplated as an option by most pilots when doing that and taking to a field might be the best option available

Pace

[mary meagher]

Field landings...all in the gliding sylabus.

All the same, the weather on the Sunday was dreadful, terrible viz, we were local flying, but had to keep a sharp lookout on the fog that kept encroaching on the airfield and beat a hasty retreat when it got too interesting.

[Pace]

Field landings...all in the gliding sylabus.

Mary its part of the glider pilots brain set to land off airfield but nothing which is really taught or encouraged to do by the power pilot!

Yet it could be a life saver.

The clubs obviously don't want a bent or collapsed nose wheel by encouraging pilots to land in what could be a muddy pothole strewn field at the first sign of being unsure of position or deteriorating weather.

They worry about the damage and costs of getting an aircraft removed from too short a field but in certain circumstances it could indeed be the best option!
in fact it could be an option which saves lives

Pace

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Mary its part of the glider pilots brain set to land off airfield but nothing which is really taught or encouraged to do by the power pilot!
It was a standard exercise in the PPL syllabus when I was taught.

Never practised it since mind.

[thing]

Mary its part of the glider pilots brain set

Lot of truth in that which is why I keep banging on about going solo in a glider as part of the PPL course. Even go xc in one.

Yes, I know the practicalites etc etc but I reckon it instills confidence in not having an engine. An engine failure as long as it's not say 100' above a housing estate would be no sweat whatsoever to me or I dare say any glider pilot. Every landing I've ever done as a glider pilot has been with an engine failure and every cable break has been an EFATO.

I know this falls generally on deaf ears but I'm convinced it could save lives.

[A and C]

If you learn to fly with me you will practice forced landings with power and as long as we are not going to infringe the 500ft rule the aircraft will get close enough to the ground that the student will be in no doubt a landing would be sucsessful.

If training is not realistc it is not worth doing.

[thing]

Amen to that.

[Pace]

A&E
I was not talking about PFLs in the event of an engine failure onto any piece of suitable landing area within gliding range but powered controlled landings when your best option is to get the aircraft safely on the ground for whatever reason!
It's more of a mindset traing that such a possibility exists

Pace

[ChissayLuke]

I was taught both power on and power off 'practises' both in basic training and re-validations, and executed same myself from time to time, down to 500' rule. Over land and water.
Thus it was always something that, in emergency or sudden extreme weather, would have been a comfortable option.
Maybe I was just lucky with my flying school and examiner, but I assumed everyone got this training and check.

[27/09]

A&E
I was not talking about PFLs in the event of an engine failure onto any piece of suitable landing area within gliding range but powered controlled landings when your best option is to get the aircraft safely on the ground for whatever reason!
It's more of a mindset traing that such a possibility exists

Pace

Exactly what A & C said. If you learn to fly with me you will practice forced landings with power and as long as we are not going to infringe the 500ft rule the aircraft will get close enough to the ground that the student will be in no doubt a landing would be sucsessful.

[Pace]

ok my apologies )) I misread what A E said but hats off to him for taking that approach as many just teach PFLs rather than considering off airfield landings as a serious consideration if you get into a mess and i appreciate and so should others that an off airfield landing itself poses risks especially when carried out in poor visibility and low clouds

pace

[MrAverage]

Pace

Precautionary landing is definitely still part of the syllabus, at least in the UK.


It must be taught and is tested on the initial skill test. It's Exercise 17.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Precautionary landing is definitely still part of the syllabus, at least in the UK.

I'm quite surprised that there's any experienced pilots in the UK who are not aware of that?!

Anyway onwards and upwards!

I think the problem with private pilots is that they don't appreciate the difference between 'risk' and 'consequence'.

How many times have I heard pilots say in the clubhouse: 'there's no greater chance of an engine failure at night or over the sea than there is flying over land in daylight - the risk is the same' - and they base their decision-making on that.

Yes, risk might be the same but consequences are totally different. Ask yourself if 'Forced Landing at Night' or 'Ditching' form a part of the PPL Syllabus or Night Rating training. Obviously not.

When airline flying there is no situation that is not/cannot be trained for. No commercial pilot ever goes flying thinking there might be a situation could be faced that cannot be overcome. Helped in this are options created by aircraft design, training or operational considerations.

Not so the private pilot flying a SEP.

Comparison between the training and operational environment of the average twin-engined jet flying public transport operations to that of the private pilot flying a SEP shows that there are few options available in comparison - and as PACE alluded to above - often none.

Advanced flying training not only gives you more options for flying, but more options in an emergency - but not that many more in a SEP and even the most experienced pilot will find no more options available when flying over the sea or at night in a single than a relavatively inexperienced day-tripper.

Morale of the tale: it's often the consequences which should be considered rather than the perceived risk.

I always took my wife and child flying in good VMC by day. Never over water or at night. Not particularly because of the perceived risk, but always because of the potential consequences.

[Pace]

:EI'm quite surprised that there's any experienced pilots in the UK who are not aware of that?!

Spannerinthewerks

As it is 30 years ago that I learnt to fly sorry if I cannot remember details of what was involved :E I obviously remember the PFLs and maybe there were precautionary landings but certainly not to the extent of PFLs and this is the real point I was making.
In gliding controlled landings off airfield are part of the course to such an extent that they are part of the mindset of the glider pilot.

A precautionary landing under power is really little different to any other landing under power albeit a slow short field approach where the big differenceEs comes into determining wind,landing area length , surface quality, slope, obstructions visible and invisible, visibility cloud base and so many other factors to a standard landing that you could almost put a great chunk of training over to that alone.

A quick 30 minutes with the instructor and at 500 feet ok go around is hardly in depth training but going through then motions to sign off precautionary landings! PLs should be taught to an extent that they become a mindset alternative for a pilot in trouble. The fact that they hardly register with me from 30 years back means they were jumbled in with PFLs just to sign off that they had been done
Now if I was a current instructor who did not know you would be justified in your comment but I am not

Pace

[S-Works]

When airline flying there is no situation that is not/cannot be trained for.

Really? Seems to have been rather a lot of airliners in the drink over the last few years........

Speaking as a Commercial Pilot, I am pretty sure that we have not trained for every eventuality we just try and envisage failures and train for them.

When private flying, I am quite happy to fly my single Engine Cessna at night, under IFR and across water. We assess the risk individually, if we don't like the risk then we don't take it and I am not going to knock anyone for having a different level of risk assessment to me.

Apart from wearing Nome and a Bone dome in a spam can, which I think is just plain daft....

[taxistaxing]

Yes, risk might be the same but consequences are totally different. Ask yourself if 'Forced Landing at Night' or 'Ditching' form a part of the PPL Syllabus or Night Rating training. Obviously not.

Actually on my PPL I was given some instruction around ditching e.g. ditch near ships if possible (although not directly ahead of them) and land parallel with the wave crests rather than against them. Not sure if it's officially in the syllabus or just a helpful instructor.

Rather different from my night rating where I was told in the event of an engine failure to "switch your landing light on at 50 feet. If don't like what you can see switch it off again."

[hoodie]

I think the problem with private pilots is that they don't appreciate the difference between 'risk' and 'consequence'.

Well, just so long as they don't exaggerate and over-generalise, eh?

[ShyTorque]

Precautionary landing is definitely still part of the syllabus, at least in the UK.

I'm quite surprised that there's any experienced pilots in the UK who are not aware of that?!

I learned to fly SEP 42 years ago and I remember it well enough even though I haven't flown any fixed wing for a decade. Maybe it depends how you were taught and how much it was emphasised at the time.

I also recall how the Cessna 150 with the old type of flap switch (3 position, centre loaded paddle switch) could craftily fully retract its flaps if you let go of the switch from the spring loaded "down" position. The centre detent was worn, so the the switch paddle could flick from "down" to "fully retract", rather than remaining at the centre "neutral" position.

The one I was flying did this to me as I came in over the hedge at Ipswich Airport for a practice short field landing. I'd selected full flap and let go of the switch, whereupon the flaps began to retract fully. I didn't realise what was happening and landed very short, probably the shortest "short field" landing I ever did. The aircraft stalled just over the hedge and I only just cleared it.

[piperboy84]

Practicing a precautionary landing in a field during PPL training involves getting it set up and down to 500 feet over a hastily selected pasture then if you are reasonably lined up and the instructor believes you would make it, then its power back in and onto the next exercise. The problem after training and receiving a license a lot of pilots who get in over there head with weather push on till its too late instead of actually putting it down when things get a bit hairy. I have the good fortune of flying a taildragger in a rural area and bump in and out of random fields just for fun which made me realise any Cessna or Piper spamcan would get down safe for the pilot (and in most cases for the plane) in a moderately flat 700ft field whether its grass, cropped or just cultivated. I think some folks get into a mentality that the only place to land a aircraft when things are going South is at a towered airfield and will go to extraordinary lengths when in trouble to find that. When I have found myself in these situations a few times I just say bollox to this I am setting this down till things get better. It should not be considered a last option but one of your first. The aircraft rental outfit, insurance company and anyone else who objects can go whistle dixie if they don't like it, I,m looking after No1

[A and C]

As I said above provided that the aproach is going well and we will not break the 500 ft rule the training will continue until a sucssesful landing is beyond doubt in the mind of the student.

This means that the student gets close enough to the field to know exactly what surface he/she has selected.

50 ft is the sort of height above the ground that you can expect a good aproach to be aborted.

Training that is not realistic is worthless.

[27/09]

SpannerI always took my wife and child flying in good VMC by day. Never over water or at night. Not particularly because of the perceived risk, but always because of the potential consequences.

Where I fly there is a terrific lot of countryside where you'd be far better off if you could ditch the aircraft. Miles and miles of countryside with steep hillsides razor back ridges and a sharp V valley floor. Nowhere for a forced landing. Your only option is to stall it onto a ridge or onto the tree tops.

You'd do bugger all flying over here if you were to apply your "Gold" standard of "consequence" assessment.

I can think of only one fatality over this countryside due engine failure, scores of weather related fatalities though. That tells you where the real risks and consequences are.

[Zsilotski]

I am a virgin poster and low hour ppl, so feel I am accepting a fair amount of risk posting here!! But anyhow here we go….

When we fly we all accept an inherent level of risk. The level of risk associated with any given situation or set of prevailing circumstances is massively influenced by our experience, training, natural skill level, the vehicle we are flying in and its equipment. For example, the level of risk accepted by a high hours professional pilot flying in adverse weather or over hostile terrain is going to be far less than for a bloke like me – an amateur, low hours ppl.

Given all this, the level of risk we are prepared to accept ultimately comes down to personal judgement. So, if we have accepted a reasonable level of risk, go flying and nonetheless something bad happens – eg professional pilot forced to deploy a chute on a cirrus only to end up in an electricity sub station – then that is bad luck. If on the other hand we accept a high level of risk - eg inexperienced pilot in a poorly equipped aircraft hitting the ground whilst flying over mountainous terrain in bad weather – then that us poor judgement.

In the case of this recent tragic accident, the metars and tafs certainly paint a very bleak set of weather conditions. On the face of it, it is hard to see that the pilot accepted a reasonable level of risk when he decided to fly. Whether bad luck or bad judgement, he and his passengers paid a very high price for this decision. All our thoughts have got to be with family and friends of those on board.

[mary meagher]

Anyone learning to fly, power or glider, when doing the exercise entitled Emergency Field Landing, would profit from going to a gliding club and flying IN A MOTOR GLIDER with an instructor who is qualified to teach the exercise called CHOOSING A FIELD. Power instructors make a dash at this, but not in a very expert way. The glider pilot who intends to fly cross country MUST be able to choose a field, so this motor glider training intended to teach field landings is the very best and most intense. And it usually costs a lot less than a power lesson.

Go on, guys, when is the last time you SERIOUSLY looked at fields? low down?

[Sam Rutherford]

When choosing your location for practices, consider the consequences should the practice become reality (engine cut or rough running on re-application of throttle for example).


Doing a PFL over water does not strike me as too great a plan...


Fly safe, fly further, even fly over oceans! Sam.

[A and C]

That is exactly why only the good aproaches go down to 50ft so if the engine quits it becomes a good landing.

It is all about giving the student the confidence to put an serviceable aircraft into a field when circumstance has painted him into a corner.

When the engine quits a pilot has no decision to make, the aircraft is going to land what ever the pilot does, in the case of bad weather, onset of night or fuel running low it is the pilot who has to make a "command decision" to land, pilots lacking in confidence in their skills to do so are much more likely to seek another way out of the situation and press on.

Unfortunately the numbers are not in favour of those who press on.

This is why I feel it is my duty to make the training as realistic as posable while keeping it safe.

Those who stop every forced landing practice at 500 ft AGL are doing their students a great dis-service, from that height no student is ever going to be 100% confident that he/she could have turned the approach into a good landing.

Unrealistic training is just turning AVGAS into noise.

[ShyTorque]

Agreed, Sam. When I instructed on SEP, I wouldn't let a student get low over a ploughed field during PFLs in case the engine didn't pick up. My judgement of risk was that a landing in a ploughed field greatly increased the risk of the aircraft flipping nose over on its back. In a low winged aircraft with a rearwards sliding canopy that would mean you won't get out unassisted. If spilled fuel ignited, you're done.

I didn't like the thought of dying for the sake of practicing for a situation that might never happen.

[Capn Bug Smasher]

We purchased two Alpha 200 helmets from SES. The RAF helmets are too heavy and the field of view of an Alpha is better.

Cheers sharpend.

Interestingly it is, actually, illegal to purchase and wear ex-RAF helmets. When I rang the manufacturers to ask for a size chart I got a very curt idea where I should put it :}

p.s. Please don't listen to the naysayers. Carry on wearing that helmet.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Mary's right

Go on, guys, when is the last time you SERIOUSLY looked at fields? low down?

Glider pilots train for and carry out 'forced landings' on a regular basis (you could argue EVERY landing is a 'forced landing'), whereas power pilots really just play at it.

A PPL/RT is, after all, a very basic flying qualification.

[S-Works]

Speaking as a line Captain as well as being an Instructor and Examainer I would pit a good many of those "play pilots" against many of the professionals I have flown with.

You still did not respond to my earlier comment about why if everything in commercial aviation can be trained for we have had so many airliners in the drink?

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Bose-X

Really? Seems to have been rather a lot of airliners in the drink over the last few years........

Trained for is what I said - not whether accidents had happened or not.

Apart from midair collisions and catastrophic structural failure, I don't know of any scenarios which are not covered in a B737 QRH for example - including double engine failures, engines dropping off and the like.

Now most private pilots take off knowing (or at least should be aware) that there are situations where the consequences of engine failure, for example, would pose a serious threat to life - engine failure at a low height (low level route?), engine failure at night, ditching, flight over hostile terrain, flight into deteriorating weather and flight after sunset (if not suitably rated).

Not something a commercial pilot flying public transport would generally consider or be affected by.

Private pilots waltz off into the unknown often without a care in the World.

I wonder how many pilots reading this might one day say to the husband/wife: 'There's a d******d on PPruNe who winds everyone up talking about "motorway flying" and being caught out by weather. What a p***t' - only one day to find themselves flying in deteriorating weather, at low level, with no options and end up crashing killing themselves, their partner and injuring their child?

No one is too qualified or too experienced - or too confident or wealthy not to have an accident.

[piperboy84]

Shytorque
In a low winged aircraft with a rearwards sliding canopy that would mean you won't get out unassisted. If spilled fuel ignited, you're done

Wouldn't you have that unlatched, slid back and pinned during the practice ?

[ShyTorque]

No. Have you ever flown a Bulldog?

[piperboy84]

No, never flown in an aircraft with a rear sliding canopy, closest I have to this is the Varga Kachina which opens from the side and can be flown open, I would be hesitant to fly an aircraft that you could not pin or block the door as you know the most likely damage in a rough put down after the nose gear/prop is the firewall with the door and frame getting bent/jammed in place .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varga_2150_Kachina

[cats_five]

Anyone learning to fly, power or glider, when doing the exercise entitled Emergency Field Landing, would profit from going to a gliding club and flying IN A MOTOR GLIDER with an instructor who is qualified to teach the exercise called CHOOSING A FIELD. Power instructors make a dash at this, but not in a very expert way. The glider pilot who intends to fly cross country MUST be able to choose a field, so this motor glider training intended to teach field landings is the very best and most intense. And it usually costs a lot less than a power lesson.

Go on, guys, when is the last time you SERIOUSLY looked at fields? low down?



We were told a story about this when the CAA did a safety evening at the gliding club. They firstly told glider pilots to shut up, then showed an image of nasty bit black threatening clouds above a stubble field and asked the rest of the audience what they would do. 'turn around'. 'it looks the same all round'. Apparently they were pretty stumped at coming up with the answer of landing in the stubble field.

[ShyTorque]

Obviously no helicopter pilots in the audience, then.

[pulse1]

I have done 2 PPL courses separated by over 25 years. On the first one, in a Tiger Moth, I certainly had to carry out a precautionary landing as part of my test. I hated doing them in the Tiger because you had to fly very close to the stall, with the nose well up so you couldn't see anything, and I never felt confident enough to do that without an instructor. I do remember that it was a frosty morning and, when I looked back after my landing the tail skid marks were satisfyingly close to the hedge.

On the second course, I never did any precautionary landings or glide approaches although I did carry out a Xcountry leg simulating low cloud. I did have to do glide approaches on the test but made a mess of them because I didn't know how to set it up at a fairly busy airport with rigid circuit procedures. Crazy really because, in my Tiger days, I only ever did glide approaches.

[thing]

Varga Kachina

We've got one of those at our place. Comfiest rear seat in the world.

[Mechta]

On the first one, in a Tiger Moth, I certainly had to carry out a precautionary landing as part of my test. I hated doing them in the Tiger because you had to fly very close to the stall, with the nose well up so you couldn't see anything, and I never felt confident enough to do that without an instructor. I do remember that it was a frosty morning and, when I looked back after my landing the tail skid marks were satisfyingly close to the hedge.

That sounds contrary to what I have been taught, albeit in gliders. By coming in slow you are all set up to stall in the wind gradient and end up in a very bent aeroplane. If you come in a bit faster, you won't stall, but you may end up in the hedge at the other end, walking away from a repairable aeroplane. If the former is what they are teaching power pilots, no wonder so many make a hash of dead stick landings.

Even if you are power on, coming in slowly at a high angle of attack and suddenly applying full power could potentially cause to to flick if you came out of a gust and a tip stalled.

[ShyTorque]

As is very often the case in aviation, it's wrong to over generalise. Different aircraft have different requirements and sometimes quite different techniques are required to achieve the same thing.

[pulse1]

Mechta,

I was trained to speed up for the approach in gliders because, if you suffered a wind gradient at low altitude, you had no other weapon. In a powered aircraft you do have another weapon, the engine. The trick is to recognise you might need to use it before it is too late. As I said, in the Tiger I never felt confident enough to do it solo, bearing in mind that the Tiger does not have flaps. I once remember my instructors were having a laugh, so I'm told, as I flew solo across the airfield in what turned out to be a very slow fly by instead of a precautionary landing. I am more confident now with a lot more hours and an aircraft with a better view even with the nose high and good flaps.

[India Four Two]

I was trained to speed up for the approach in gliders because, if you suffered a wind gradient at low altitude

pulse1,

The primary reason for flying faster on approach is because gliders, particularly trainers, are often flown slower than a safe approach speed (1.3 Vso). Then on top of that, an additional increase in speed can be required, depending on the wind velocity, to allow for wind gradient effects, just like in a powered aeroplane. For example, the SAC Instructor's Manual recommends an approach speed of 1.3 Vso plus the full wind speed.
http://www.sac.ca/website/index.php/en/documents/safety-and-training/instructor-resources/420-instructor-manual-11th-edition-parts-a-a-b/file

[Pace]

Any flight training needs to be geared towards the reality of the situation that you are training for.

Hence why in jets so much is done in sims.

A PL flown to 500 feet on a glorious day is completely useless when the reality is more likely to be that an aircraft is flying low level in poor visibility and surrounded by mist and clouds maybe rain and turbulence or icing.

So there should be three aspects of training

Slow flight and short field landings under power!
Identification of suitable landing areas
Operations in low visibility conditions.

An off airfield landing can be for a number of reasons which require the aircraft to be on the ground as quickly as possible so not just for a situation where the pilot has flown into weather conditions he or the aircraft cannot handle but also pilot unwell, mechanical or structural problems, smoke, fire etc.

Going by the stats a PL is a skill which would be more likely to be used than a FL although both are important in a SEP

Operating in low visibility conditions is a skill of its own and the cause of many loss of control situations with the pilot fixated on looking out and not controlling airspeed or attitude

Pace

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Pace

Absolutely.

... and I can't help thinking that the 'fear' of a telling off for getting into the situation in the first place, the possibly of damaging an aircraft and the inconvenience of getting back late, override the sensible approach of carrying out a PL.

Therefore pilots will tend to press on and hope it all works out rather than taking an early decision and completing a successful off-airfield PL.

A shame really because in most parts of the UK there is a wealth of suitable landing sites, and therefore options, if the decision to land away is taken early enough.

No aerodrome, airfield or airport is going to turn you away in an emergency. It might prove expensive, be slightly embarrassing and/or inconvenient but at least you'll live to tell the tale.

I know it's been said many times but aeroplanes can be replaced, people can't.

[A and C]

It would seem that Spanner, Pace and myself are more or less in agreement that the Precautionary landing is not well taught and that the reason it is not used enough is probably 60% a CRM issue and 40% lack of skills issue.

I keep hearing this 500 ft thing talked about in flying training circles, do you think that misinterpritation of the 500 ft rule and the fear of the lawyers has resulted in instructors abandoning training in the PL/PFL area at a height that makes the training unrealistic ?

PACE, its A and C not A and E !...................... A and E is what we want to keep people out of !!

[sharpend]

Interestingly it is, actually, illegal to purchase and wear ex-RAF helmets. When I rang the manufacturers to ask for a size chart I got a very curt idea where I should put it


Actually Bug Smasher they may be sometimes correct. RAF helmet originally belong to the RAF and should have been handed back to stores. If aircrew leave the military and keep their bone domes, I suppose they are stealing. But I suppose some are sold by the MOD so I cannot think what case manufacturers have. Bit like a motor manufacturer not allowing cars to be sold secondhand.

[4Screwaircrew]

When I was actively instructing I had a number of sites that I used where I could take a student down to the flare without fear of prosecution; it instills confidence in their ability to conduct the manoeuvre.

[Pace]

A & C (CCC) :ok:

Going back to my original post about the German and English world war pilots riding out a storm by landing in the same field and becoming friends as they shared cigarettes and chatted also brought to mind the differences between then and today!

Back then some guy flew under the bridges along the thames through London.
Today the guy would be locked in prison.

We are so regulated and media covered that an off airfield landing is something to be feared not just with the dangers of doing so especially in a tri gear aircraft but also the repercussions in the media and highlighting all round that such a procedure might incur.

I am sure many do not even consider an off airfield landing as an option preferring to battle it out often as in this case with tragic consequences.
This is where the mindset of the glider pilot differs as an off airfield landing by a glider is far more accepted and expected than with a powered aircraft.

Pace

[007helicopter]

I am sure many do not even consider an off airfield landing as an option preferring to battle it out often as in this case with tragic consequences.
This is where the mindset of the glider pilot differs as an off airfield landing by a glider is far more accepted and expected than with a powered aircraft.


I think very dependent on type, Gliders are designed to land in fields, many GA types are not. I have no experience of gliding but I am guessing stall speeds, air breaks, and low weight all result in substantially less kinetic energy than many heavier GA aircraft which as I have said many times before I would be very reluctant to land in an unknown field.

I am not aware of the landing characteristics of the aircraft in this incident but I would suggest a complete handful and very uncertain outcome for any pilot, however competent they are, when you take into account the generally reported low cloud base and pretty dreadful weather.

The first mistake I believe this guy sadly made was driving to the airport.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Pace / 007helicopter

I think it's all a question of mindset, as has been stated.

Glider pilots train for landing out and it's de rigueur when cross-country flights cannot be completed.

PPLs on the other hand expect to return to base or fly on to destination.

Diversions are taught, but generally in a controlled manner to a suitable alternate airfield.

Maybe the emphasis should be changed and when 'diversions' are necessary, due to weather or lack of daylight, these are coupled with the mindset that a precautionary landing may be required if a suitable airfield cannot be reached. Diversion to a pre-planned precautionary landing (hopefully at some form of suitable 'airfield') rather than the precautionary landing being an emergency.

Not much difference in training requirements necessarily, but possibly a giant leap in respect of mindset regarding 'options'.

However, the overriding factor must be fear and uncertainty. Landing a light aircraft in an unknown field, as 007helicopter points out, with little training or experience (especially in poor weather and/or failing light) is no small undertaking. I'm not sure I'd be too happy faced with that prospect - which is no doubt why so many press on hoping that the outcome will be better than the field landing option.

The superior pilot is one who uses his superior knowledge to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skills!!!

In other words time spent on flight planning and threat and error management will significantly reduce the possibility of a hazardous situation arising in the flight.

[Whopity]

Back then some guy flew under the bridges along the thames through London.
Today the guy would be locked in prison.

Some of us recall the day Al Pollock put his Hunter through Tower Bridge. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter_Tower_Bridge_incident) He was not locked in prison!

Pilots who own their own aeroplanes are reluctant to land them in fields regardless of the situation.

[ChissayLuke]

Whopity, I am not sure that I can concur with your last sentence.
As an ex 50% owner, on the couple of occasions I actively considered landing in a field, ownership didn't enter my head. I simply wanted to execute the right call at that moment.

Separately, 'press-on-itis' can be a cruel mistress. But if only out of self-preservation, I am not sure that the several posters who have laboured the subject of whether or not one has recently carried out a powered pfl as being a factor in this particular incident are on the mark.
It would appear that this guy had, indeed, elected to get down anywhere he could, otherwise I doubt that he would have been as low as he was.
Whether or not he should have been aloft in the first place has already been copiously covered.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A couple of years ago, having got caught out by weather deteriorating faster than expected, I landed a microlight on a golf course. A few days later, with permission and better weather, I flew it out again.

It being an interesting anecdote, I told it s few times - and noticed the responses from various people. ..


Glider pilots were bemused that I thought it was even interesting enough to bother telling the story.

Microlight pilots tended to think about it, then agree that I'd done the right thing.

Light aeroplane pilots were us usually horrified that I had done something so radical.


Microlights are obviously short field aeroplanes, but actually a C172 would have handled the field fine. It's an interesting reflection on attitudes I thought.

G

[Mariner9]

It would appear that this guy had, indeed, elected to get down ...


It would appear so - I'm told the gear was down.

[creweite]

Many years ago I had a fuel vapor lock and landed on a golf course. I said that I would leave once things had cooled down, and was invited into the clubhouse for a (soft) drink. As I walked in, carrying my flying helmet, there was a concerted shout "HAS HE PAID HIS GREEN FEES"!

[abgd]

A while ago I went through all the NTSB statistics for off-runway forced landings in Long-EZEs and Vari-EZEs and the chances of them proving fatal were substantial - off the top of my head 30% to 50% depending on how you counted. By contrast it was hard to find a Piper Cub fatality due to an engine failure. There were a few stall-spin accidents but that was just about all.

It seems to me that precautionary landings are an excellent idea in the right aircraft, but not to be undertaken lightly in anything higher performance.

[9 lives]

It seems to me that precautionary landings are an excellent idea in the right aircraft, but not to be undertaken lightly in anything higher performance.

Wise words. To be type certified, the maximum stall speed, and therefore, to some degree, expectation of a successful off runway landing, are specified. Though, obviously, a heavy, high performance single, with a 61 knot stall speed will take a lot me, better surface landing area for it to work out well, than the proverbial "Cub".

But that leaves a much broader group of amateur builts, which are not required to have, and may not have the "off field" capability of even the bigger singles.

It can be a tough decision to land off airport, for precautionary reasons. There may also be insurance implications, as it could be considered a deliberate "landing", but not on a runway, as it specified for some policies. Of course, it is much more wise to sacrifice the plane neatly, to save your life, but that is not trained well.

I spent a lot of time ferrying high performance singles, and those many hours afforded me the protracted opportunity to be thinking "where would I put it in now?". And then, to refine things, would it be gear up, or gear down. Most often, my conclusion resulted in the potential selection of gear up. There'd be damage, but less chance of destruction.

I've been very lucky, I've been forced to land both power on and off a few times, and I have always managed to land damage free, at a place from which a later takeoff could be accomplished no fuss. Now, in the amphibian flying boat, I look for a body of water. If not that, then yes, I probably will slide it onto it's belly gear up, unless the surface looks particularly welcoming to wheels.....

[tecman]

Guys, I understand the reservations you're expressing but it still leaves a huge fraction of the SEP GA fleet that can be potentially successfully landed off-airport. I would never advocate such a landing be undertaken lightly but, in the right (wrong?) circumstances, a controlled out-landing is far preferable to having an unrated pilot or aircraft push on into bad weather or failing light. In those circumstances, truly any landing you can walk away from...etc.

I guess it's the same the world over but precautionary search and landing is still a big part of the Australian PPL training regime.

[A and C]

It is not just GA than needs to consider off airport landings, no matter what the size of aircraft it can become an unviable flying machine.

It is the speed of mindset change that is important, the A320 in the Huson river and the guy who put the HS748 back on the remaining runway at Stansted ( despite being long past V1) are both prime examples of flexable thinking that undoubtedly saved the lives of all on board.

Putting an airliner into a field is a very last resort but I can't think of a light aircraft that I would rather fly into a cloud covered hill rather than land in a controled fashion in a field.

[Sleeve Wing]

A quick search of Spectators' Balcony (Spotters' Corner) will reveal an interesting situation that happened in Devon in 1980. Check under "vickers viscount crash".

[worrab]

I do think that mindset plays a significant part. A glider pilot runs out of options when the lift runs out and a landing becomes inevitable. The powered pilot continues to have options right down to the ground and there is a slow degradation to the number of options. Vis diminishes slowly, just fly another 100' lower etc. At some point the pilot needs to take a firm decision and actively switch from "flying in poor conditions" to "find a place to land". How do we train for this? For example, the precautionary landing training I had included flying past at 500' and 100' to assess the field before making an approach. But the training didn't include the decision to switch from flying to landing. And as I sit in my comfy chair, with a cup of coffee in hand, I can imagine being just a few miles from an airfield, flying under a 1500' cloudbase. Do I fly on or do I try to find a field, circle it a couple of times and make the best fist of it I can? And then the clouds are forming a little lower and it's now 1000' - fly on or land? And visibility is reducing but I can see OK at 800'...

Even sitting here in warm comfort it's not a decision I welcome and I suspect few of us would; but we all know that proper planning prevents poor performance. Anyone got a plan?

[John R81]

I think mind-set is the critical matter.

When training for PPL(H) we have diversions and "practice" IMC turns. About a year after getting my license, during conversion training, I did have a deteriorating weather situation and found myself unable to complete the flight. We elected to put down in a field (much easier in a helicopter) just 3 miles from the airfield; made a radio call to announce intentions and then landed / shut down.

That event changed my analytical approach; the question of "Is this the right time to park it?" now joins the question list as soon as the weather starts to look more difficult than planned. In the early stages, the answer will be 'No, vis / cloudbase are still adequate for safe flight' and I continue, or reverse course to go home, or I divert. Having the question in the analysis from an early time makes it more likely (for me) that "Park it" becomes the appropriate response whilst I still have the capability to actually "park it".

[SpannerInTheWerks]

... and, perhaps, the PPL equivalent of what is termed 'commercial pressure' in the airline world.

Partner/passengers putting pressure on the pilot to press on because of prior commitments and placing the pilot under duress to complete the flight to destination.

[UV]

Anyone ever actually heard of a pilot landing in a field for weather reasons, or even done it themselves?
Bet there arent many.

[Johnm]

Well RAF Halton isn't much different to a field and I dived in there to avoid a massive Cb one day!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've done it three times in fields, once on a beach, each time with no aircraft damage, 3/4 times I flew out again once the weather had improved - admittedly each time in a microlight with good short field capability.

Maybe I could be more paranoid about forecasts, but there is more than one way to ensure the safety of your flying, and a preparedness to take plan-B/C/D is one of them.

G

[Mariner9]

I've had 5 weather diverts in several hundred hours of VFR flight. A remote, short grass strip in the middle of France was the closest I've come to a field. Certainly made for an "exciting" departure 4-up in a Piper Dakota the following morning!

[JW411]

Was it really an "exciting" departure?

You could always have left three of them behind on the ground and then picked them up somewhere else that was less "exciting".

[Genghis the Engineer]

Was it really an "exciting" departure?

You could always have left three of them behind on the ground and then picked them up somewhere else that was less "exciting".


I've done that a couple of times. With another pilot, it's straightforward - explaining to the former Mrs.G that she weighed too much and I had to fly without her on the other hand stretched my diplomatic skills somewhat.

G

[JW411]

That is indeed a bit of a dilemma. Is that why she is now the former Mrs G?

[Genghis the Engineer]

A minor, but contributory, factor. The present Mrs.G has an engineering degree, which means she can at-least follow the maths if I show her.

That she has a somewhat lower ZFW is admittedly an aesthetic advantage.

G

[Andrewgr2]

A glider pilot runs out of options when the lift runs out and a landing becomes inevitable.

This is something of an over-simplification of the glider pilot's decision process. Often the lift is getting weaker and the glider is sinking slowly. The pilot often feels that if he can only hang on a bit longer, the thermal will improve and he will climb away. Alternatively, by moving a bit to another position there may be better lift. At some point, the pilot must decide to abandon the flight and land. With a good field picked, that can be lower than when no field suitable for landing in can be spotted. Early cross country pilots are typically advised to commit to landing when they are down to around 1000' having started picking fields at perhaps 1500'. More experienced pilots are likely to continue trying to get away from lower heights. Some are even rumoured to have soared away from less than 300' AGL.

The truth is that most serious glider field landing accidents result from picking a field too late and / or trying to continue to soar away from too low a height with no time to execute any sort of sensible circuit into the field.

There's a lot in common between the decision to abandon soaring flight and land because of deteriorating lift and the decision to abandon powered flight and land because of deteriorating weather. The difference is that the glider pilot trains for it, and expects it to happen.

If it is true that in the case of this accident, the pilot had got his undercarriage down then one would assume the decision to land had been made, presumably at Popham. However, executing a decent circuit at low altitude perhaps flying into and out of cloud would never be easy.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Well RAF Halton isn't much different to a field ...

Both the Vulcan & the Comet have landed on the grass there, more than once.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Some people live sheltered lives!

Some of us would tend to regard 1150m and 840m runways and a windsock as becoming distinctly "airfieldish".

G

[FBS]

As one of the very few people that witnessed this event I am amazed at the depth of knowledge that some people appear to have on the subject.

It has been said on here that Popham was closed. That is not the case.

Popham did not close that day, since so few people were flying it was just not necessary. When Popham does close it is usually to preserve the runways and so is done when it appears the weather may be good enough to fly, but use of the runways would churn them up. When it is bad weather it is just taken as read.

However,

Popham would NEVER turn away an aircraft that needed to land. Even if the runways are closed we would accept a divert. Popham being 'closed' is NOT an issue here.

The weather earlier in the day had been vile but by 3pm it had cleared and whilst there was low cloud, estimated at about 400ft, it was clear beneath with visibility estimated at 5K. The wind was 10 - 15 kts from the north east. It as NOT foggy and it was NOT raining. It may have been elsewhere but if you are going to comment at what was going on at Popham you might as well try to get it right.

I am not going to comment on 'what if's' and even what happened as I have made my statement to the AAIB and the investigation is ongoing.

It was a sad and shocking thing to witness but we were able to get the emergency services there very quickly and the South Central Air Ambulance was there in 8 minutes and located the aeorplane immediately with directions from Popham.

The state of the weather elsewhere, and the decision making of the pilot is not for me to comment on, as I was not there, and the AAIB report will cover this. Most of what falls outside this is supposition.

Melvyn Hiscock

[Simon T]

Well said

Simon

[ChissayLuke]

FBS, thank you for your post.
Very crisp, and gets the thread back on track.
I have visited Popham a few times, never from the air, but for cups of tea etc. whilst trailers were being attended to by a local firm. I have always been impressed by the field, and imho you/it deserve the high reputation.

I would be interested to know, though, was he, as far as you know, actually trying to get into Popham when the accident happened?

[Cough]

That she has a somewhat lower ZFW is admittedly an aesthetic advantage.

May I point out that we all have a pretty low ZFW. Its only when you load the fuel reserve that we get the wide range of AUW's... :E

[maxred]

The weather earlier in the day had been vile but by 3pm it had cleared and whilst there was low cloud, estimated at about 400ft, it was clear beneath with visibility estimated at 5K. The wind was 10 - 15 kts

:ouch::ouch::ouch:


Thanks FBS, yes brings the thread back on track..

Airmanship This will be a challenging flight as Popham is small airfield with grass runways and no navaids to assist with locating it on the final leg. Good visual navigation is needed to ensure that one reaches the overhead for landing. Once at the airfield there are a lot of trees around so the approaches to Runway 08/26 are both not along the centre line and involve a turn when on very short final.



Cix VFR Club Events - Popham Airfield elevation is 550 ft above sea level.

[FBS]

Maxred

If you are going to quote me and then quote someone else I would appreciate there being a clear demarcation.

Whilst I said the first section of your quote I did not say the other two. Popham is, indeed 550ft above sea level but the other quote looks a little strange.

[piperboy84]

FSB

Your are right, none of us know why this poor guy had the misfortune of crashing, and you are also correct to state we will not know the true cause until the AAIB get done,

There have been several posts that contained rather dismal Metars that allude to weather potentially playing a part, you yourself pointed out that conditions had been "vile" prior to the crash but go on to state the weather "cleared" and "It was as NOT foggy and it was NOT raining" and observed conditions being cloud at 400, Vis 3miles, wind up to 15k. The implication, if I am reading your post correctly, is the weather went from very bad to acceptable. It didn't, cloud at 400, vis 3sm and wind of 15kt are challenging conditions for a VFR pilot to fly or land in regardless of the absence of rain or fog. I feel obligated to point this out not to further speculate as to the causes of this crash but to hopefully avoid the next one if some poor novice reads your post and incorrectly interprets the conditions you describe as clear flying weather.

[frangatang]

If it was cloud at 400 ft, was it completely overcast . If so how did he get below that cloud visually?!

[ChissayLuke]

The last 2 posts, in reference to weather, seem to make good sense on this particular day.
I wouldn't have gone aloft even with IR (R) on such a day.
I'd still be interested to know if he was actually trying to get into Popham, whose plate shows that first-time in, approach is quite tricky in CAVOK, let alone what existed on the day, or did he just happen to be there?
Was Popham trying to guide him in? Presumably they could, at least see him as they (to their credit) got the emergency services to the scene as quickly as they have said.

[BigEndBob]

I had a phone call on the Sunday morning from a customer.
Asked if I had been contacted by CAA or Police...no.
Told me Police had knocked on his door the previous night and told him straight out his son had died in a plane crash!

He doesn't have a son, named spelt slightly different.

I think you check some ones name and a few other facts first before coming straight out with that information.

[Talkdownman]

Was Popham trying to guide him in?
Using what? Telepathy?

[ChissayLuke]

I had two-way radio in mind.

[Talkdownman]

That would require a radio call in the first place.
What had you in mind? AGCS transmitting "This will be a Surveillance Visual Approach to Runway zero three terminating at touchdown"?

[treadigraph]

I think you check some ones name and a few other facts first before coming straight out with that information

Vaguely recall an incident some years ago, something along the lines of a young guy - in his mid teens I think - receiving a call from a journalist questioning him about the death of his parents in a light aircraft crash several hours earlier. They owned one of several of the type in the UK but not the one involved.

[ChissayLuke]

Indeed it would, Talkdown man.
Simple landmark and directional guidance, as is afforded to pilots who are lost, perhaps.

[Ridger]

A precautionary landing under power is really little different to any other landing under power albeit a slow short field approach where the big differenceEs comes into determining wind,landing area length , surface quality, slope, obstructions visible and invisible, visibility cloud base and so many other factors to a standard landing that you could almost put a great chunk of training over to that alone.

I agree. I suppose the question is whether the height you need to determine those factors is less than you would need to execute a 180 into better weather?

[Sillert,V.I.]

I agree. I suppose the question is whether the height you need to determine those factors is less than you would need to execute a 180 into better weather?

There may not have been better weather to execute a 180 into.

In these sort of conditions it is all too easy to paint yourself into a corner from which there is no safe visual escape and IMHO with a functional aircraft the least worst option is to climb to a safe height & call for whatever help you need.

It is seductively easy to be caught out by flying in conditions when better judgment should keep you on the ground. Maintaining proficiency in instrument flying to at least a level which gives you the option of a SRA/GCA or vectors to VFR weather mitigates the risk and gives you an alternative to an off-airport landing in unfavourable conditions.

[skyrangerpro]

I am based at an airfield very close to Bidford, where this flight originated the previous day. I too have flown to the Isle of Wight on this very route on several occasions, sometimes stopping overnight. The route takes you directly over Popham and in the past I have also landed there as well as talking to Popham en-route. On occasion, I have had to wait until well past lunchtime for conditions to improve enough to leave IoW. On reflection I think it is human nature that there are conditions that exist in which you would make a decision to return but you wouldn't start an outbound trip, particularly if the forecast for the next day was the same or worse of if you needed to get back for something.

My understanding is that the pilot was not inexperienced, the Brize radar track the previous day shows him routing straight through the Brize zone, and the onward routing being straight at around 140kts (although not level). He would have needed a clearance from Brize Zone for that and almost certainly been squawking a code. I believe he was also an active paraglider/paramotorer and had built the Pioneer 300 that he owned before this as well as owning a flexwing microlight.

FBS's first hand report of conditions is of interest but of course they relate to conditions at that exact moment at that exact place only. It is clear from the METARS that conditions would have been variable en-route and the area surrounding Popham. I also note the report of the wind from the north-east (whereas it was more northerly/north-west in the surrounding METARS) which would suggest 03 as the optimum runway, the approach of which is over Black Wood, although when I last landed at Popham and this runway was in use, someone mentioned it was operated under the 28 day rule and was not the most used runway.

The whole incident is terribly sad and shocking, no pilot would put themselves, much less their family, at deliberate risk. We don't know exactly what happened although FBS knows more than the rest of us. I would only ask that those who are attempting to identify a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle with only 100 pieces and declaring 'Mona Lisa' wait until the AAIB report, (even they may not have the 1000 pieces). Their report will be factual, comprehensive and professional as it always is. We should be mindful that in one, five or ten years time, the pilot's son will be reading this (and we all pray he pulls through unscathed) and those leaping to conclusions early risk looking tactless and insensitive, as well as potentially very foolish.

[Monocock]

Very well said that man.

[ChissayLuke]

Skyrangerpro,
A very interesting, well written, and informative post.
There are, however, elements of your final paragraph with which I do not concur.

[hugh flung_dung]

A thread such as this achieves nothing good so please stop the conjecture and WAIT FOR THE ACCIDENT REPORT TO BE PUBLISHED.

HFD

[Mariner9]

A thread such as this achieves nothing good....

Fundamentally disagree

Any thread that gets pilots possibly re-evaluating their approach to personal go/no-go weather decisions and/or actions when aloft and facing deteriorating weather has got to be good IMHO. This thread could possibly save someone's life between now and the eventual publication of the AAIB report.

[ChissayLuke]

Fundamentally agree with you, Mariner9

Contributions to this type of thread, if considered and relevent are very helpful.

[hugh flung_dung]

The facts are that an aircraft took off safely from the IOW and subsequently hit the ground in an area that may not have been experiencing weather that was suitable for safe VFR flight. Anything else is conjecture and unlikely to help anyone.

Without commenting on this particular case (because there are no relevant facts on which to comment), if any post-solo pilot does not know that continued flight into bad weather without substantial instrument training is a killer, or that stalling near the ground is a killer, or that blindly following "pink string" is a killer, then they need more help than can be provided in this forum.

Accidents happen. We start our aviation lives with a full bag of luck and an empty bag of experience - the trick to a happy flying career is to fill the bag of experience before emptying the bag of luck.

HFD

[ChissayLuke]

HFD,

Your final paragraph is indeed true!

But you hint at surmise in your second paragraph, and the point you appear to seek to make might have been better made without it, imho.

I respect your views, of course. And, by the same token, I assume that you respect those of others, at variance with your own.

[hugh flung_dung]

No surmise was intended - I just looked at a few of the earlier posts to try and see what you thought might have been of value, in case I was missing something. I stand by my original statement that there is nothing to be gained from threads like this - unlike the AAIB reports, which should almost be compulsory reading.

The real world beckons.
HFD

[ChissayLuke]

Hey HFD,

Quite agree about the reports being compulsory reading.
Logged reading in Flying Scools, Even-much could be learned.

It doesn't matter that you and I do not concur.
Free speech and contrary views are important communication.

[Pace]

Of course we do not know what happened but the point of this thread is not to do the AAIB work for them but to analyse possibilities?

Most in the thread are pilots and as such this sort of analysis will at least get others to think around the subject and hopefully avoid a similar situation.

I do not agree with the dramatic emotive statements of some who try to quash discussion by using the excuse of hurting feelings and discuss nothing till the AAIB report comes out a year hence when everything is forgotten.

Any tragic fatal accident will register more with other pilots when it happens it is only then that they are receptive to learning lessons sadly a year later when the AAIB report comes out and the subject is history.

it is a sad fact that the vast majority of accidents are pilot error and its extremely unlikely that this one will be any different! Not IMPOSSIBLE but extremely unlikely and yes that bit we will have to wait for the AAIB report.

As long as posters don't pick this particular accident apart stating fact I do not see anything at all wrong in discussing the possibilities! Nothing will bring back the people in that aircraft but discussion MAY stop something similar happening to another pilot.

Pace

[mary meagher]

High Flung Dung has indeed been kind enough to start another thread to discuss ways in which pilots can improve their safe flying. Waiting for the AAIB to complete their investigation and report is counterproductive, there are things to be learned now. And not everything gets into the AAIB reports.

[Pace]

Mary

And even then not all AAIB reports are conclusive of fact
The Malaysian airline whatever? will never be conclusive of fact
So those who say wait for the AAIB report may sadly be disappointed

Pace

[Pittsextra]

I'd be prepared to bet that every accident thread on this site at some point contains posts which contain "wait for the AAIB report" or "show some / out of respect for the dead...." or "I knew him he was a lovely man/woman" etc.

The time it takes for these type of posts to arrive is reduced if the accident involves a commercial pilot. At which point log books will be drawn out and hours compared....

Curiously pages and pages of complex mechanical engineering theory and thesis can be debated but over recent years the pilots decision making can be found at the root of most accidents. Unfortunately in single pilot private flying that is a difficult thing to really do much more about.

As has already been said if you take off on a VFR flight from point A with point B as the destination if you haven't planned, or not planned very well and the weather changes then at some point if you are a PPL with no instrument training (or with some training and no ability..etc pedants feel free to add as appropriate) it becomes a case of more luck than judgement.

Flying isn't hard, the rules aren't actually very restrictive or hard to understand and follow, especially if you take a simple view that is if you don't know and are not prepared to learn then don't do it.

If those who had come to grief could read the final AAIB reports into their demise I very much doubt that most would find it a shock / revelation.

The problem for the AAIB is that they are clearly under resourced and if you are in the "wait for the AAIB report" before being prepared to either think about or take action for own sake I guess you might see something on this in 2016??

[007helicopter]

After the crash, George was pulled from the wreckage and flown to Southampton General Hospital with “life-threatening” injuries. But he has since been moved to Birmingham Children’s Hospital and his recovery hailed as “miraculous”.

VIDEO: Classmates send messages to George | Stratford Herald (http://www.stratford-herald.com/31934-video-classmates-send-messages-to-george.html)

Some positive news about the recovery of the Son, these accidents generally have a life changing effect on many.

[maxred]

007 thanks for posting that. Great to here the wee fella will make, a physical recovey, at least.

The video certainly got the emotions going....

[anderow]

Terrible tragedy. Good to hear the little lad is making a recovery, but at a huge cost to his future.
I am a relatively new PPL who is currently finishing my IR(r) and I have a young son and wife who I have taken in the 172 a couple of times, only in good VFR and local area flights.

It reads like 'get home itis' that contributed to the pilot even taking off in those conditions, particularly with his family on board but the AAB report will no doubt cast some light on the facts surrounding this incident. Does anyone know if he was IMC or IR (even if the plane wasn't certified for IR I presume it could have had some instruments fitted?).
Was this a kitplane?

[skyrangerpro]

This aircraft was featured here:

FLYER Forums ? View topic - March FLYER - Pioneer 400 (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=81807)

and here:

Pioneer 400 - Flight Tests - Pilot (http://www.pilotweb.aero/features/flight-tests/pioneer_400_1_1650132)

[skyrangerpro]

the report is out. The pilot made some questionable decisions but that isn't the whole story, as is so often the case.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/501979/AAIB_Bulletin_3-2016.pdf

[skyrangerpro]

A seized engine on short finals wasn't a scenario foreseen by many expert speculators on this thread.

[tmmorris]

A sobering read. I always try to ask myself, 'What am I doing to avoid that happening to me?' Engine issues aside, it has at least reminded me why I fly certified ancient spamcans instead of sexy homebuilts. One option he didn't have was to climb into IMC and get vectors for an ILS at Southampton.

[Genghis the Engineer]

tmmorris' post above reminds me of something I was told by my first boss in a flight test department, which remains excellent advice.

Before making any aeronautical decision, always run through your head the phrase "at the subsequent board of inquiry"

That said, if he had the kit and training, he absolutely could have climbed into IMC and asked for a diverting IAP into Southampton. He might be embarrassed with paperwork to do - and would be wise to declare a pan. But if he and the aeroplane could do it, it's a legitimate set of actions, albeit emergency ones.

G

[Gertrude the Wombat]

it has at least reminded me why I fly certified ancient spamcans instead of sexy homebuiltsThis isn't the first accident report which has caused that thought to cross my mind. It's not very fashionable though.

[piperboy84]

Sadly the holes in the Swiss cheese lined up for this guy. Weather, low time, the added pressure of having prescious passengers, equipment failure, perhaps unfamiliar with the immediate local area all stacked up on him.

As others have said those top of the line LSA's have one heck of a lot of advanced systems and controls over your average spam can ( retract, CSP , turbo). I wonder if differences training is sufficient to get entry level pilots up to speed on operating them , perhaps a endorsement like the type needed to fly complex or high performance aircraft with an approved syllabus may be better?

[bookworm]

something I was told by my first boss in a flight test department, which remains excellent advice.

Quote:
Before making any aeronautical decision, always run through your head the phrase "at the subsequent board of inquiry"

The advice I treasure suggests that you envisage the accident report. If you find yourself reading the phrase "The pilot, nevertheless, …" then it's time to change the plan.

[skyrangerpro]

tmmorris' post above reminds me of something I was told by my first boss in a flight test department, which remains excellent advice.



That said, if he had the kit and training, he absolutely could have climbed into IMC and asked for a diverting IAP into Southampton. He might be embarrassed with paperwork to do - and would be wise to declare a pan. But if he and the aeroplane could do it, it's a legitimate set of actions, albeit emergency ones.

G
I don't think you've read the report. The die was cast. With the wastegate locked closed and the TCU protection logic disabled, it was a just a question of when not if the crank would let go on overspeed. Throttling up and climbing into IMC would guarantee a seizure.

Although of course the pilot was unaware of that.

[Genghis the Engineer]

No I read it.

It is holes in the cheese lining up isn't it.

Proceeding into poor conditions, with an engine not properly understood. Could have climbed before the fault arose into IMC and escaped - or diverted earlier into one of the half dozen farmstrips along that route. Ultimately yes, the engine failure caused the crash, but because the opportunities not to be in a position where an engine failure could happen and cause that had been rejected.

G

[Maoraigh1]

I wonder if the weather had any influence. If the problems had occurred in good VMC, and he decided to divert into Popham, would the result of an engine seizure on final to that runway have been different?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Reads to me that his route was pretty direct: most likely following a GPS track (that's not a criticism of the pilot in that regard, why shouldn't he?) - but presumably he'd not have been so low if he hadn't had the weather issue. At 800ft rather than 400ft, and with a better view, he'd certainly have had a better chance of handling the engine failure in a survivable manner.

G

[pulse1]

I can't help wondering why he didn't get a service from Solent Radar as soon as he left Bembridge. He did on the way down to Bembridge and they were very helpful. Although he was squawking 0011 I didn't see any record of him talking to them on the way back.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Lots of people use the listening squawk service without talking to anybody - that's the point of it.

G

[Mariner9]

One option he didn't have was to climb into IMC and get vectors for an ILS at Southampton.

The aircraft had a comprehensive avionics kit to include localiser and GS, freezing level was sufficiently high to get to MSA, and the pilot had an IMC.

Not legal of course per PTF conditions, but to consider it not to be an option is incorrect in my view.

[pulse1]

Genghis,

While I have tremendous respect for your knowledge and experience I am beginning to realise why some people find you irritating.

I appreciate that lots of people use the squawk service without talking to anybody, I do it myself most of the time. My point was that he seemed happy to talk to Solent in good weather on the way to Bembridge but not to talk to them in marginal weather on the way back.

It is not a big point, just stirs my curiosity.

[skyrangerpro]

without the knowledge that the engine was now configured in such a way that a seizure was probable if called upon with maximum throttle, I would likely have done exactly what the pilot did - diverted into Popham, and he would have made it but for that reason.

[skyrangerpro]

Genghis,

While I have tremendous respect for your knowledge and experience I am beginning to realise why some people find you irritating.

I appreciate that lots of people use the squawk service without talking to anybody, I do it myself most of the time. My point was that he seemed happy to talk to Solent in good weather on the way to Bembridge but not to talk to them in marginal weather on the way back.

It is not a big point, just stirs my curiosity.
pulse, there would have been an entirely different atmosphere in that cockpit on the way back than on the way down, when multi tasking was a breeze. As the report said he was most likely overloaded, having to fly low with the responsibility of two other persons and a faulty mode C transponder, he didn't even switch to the Popham frequency which I think confirms that thinking. Listening squawks and a service would have moved right down my priority list.

the other adult was in the back, he couldn't delegate from up front.

[Genghis the Engineer]

What we had was a low hour, low recency pilot in an aeroplane that was fairly complex and he wasn't yet very familiar with, in poor conditions.

Putting aside the pilot's arguably poor judgement in getting airborne, and then in not knocking the flight on the head earlier - I agree with skyranger. The pilot has probably got negative spare capacity there, and we're all told (rightly) "aviate, navigate, communicate" - so having squawked 0011 so people know where he is, he's knocked active communication on the head.

In that narrow context, his approach is reasonable. Again, the problem is that he got himself into that position, not in my opinion the specifics of not communicating when he was busy managing everything else going on.

G

[pulse1]

a faulty mode C transponder

A point on this that might be worth making. I have had regular problems with my transponder in that area and I wonder if it has anything to do with the number of experimental radar units on Portsdown Hill above Portsmouth. I used to work for a local defence contractor involved with radar countermeasures and became aware of the unusual number of radar heads in the area. Come to think of it, Solent are the only Radar unit who have ever challenged my altitude, as they did with the accident aircraft. I agree, that is not something you want to be messing around with when you have already given yourself a high workload.

[skyrangerpro]

Big hats off to the AAIB, getting to the bottom of this. Without their report we have an entirely different view on the incident.

Four safety recommendations have come out of it too.

As a footnote, I do wonder too whether the pilot's IMC rating was a negative factor in this. We hear so many times how an IMC has saved someone. This might just be the exception to the rule for all the wrong reasons.

[skyrangerpro]

A point on this that might be worth making. I have had regular problems with my transponder in that area and I wonder if it has anything to do with the number of experimental radar units on Portsdown Hill above Portsmouth. I used to work for a local defence contractor involved with radar countermeasures and became aware of the unusual number of radar heads in the area. Come to think of it, Solent are the only Radar unit who have ever challenged my altitude, as they did with the accident aircraft. I agree, that is not something you want to be messing around with when you have already given yourself a high workload.
you really should alert the authorities to this via the usual channels if you believe this is a serious safety issue.