Cranfield crash, 5 June 2013
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
750m would be no problem in the tommy.
But why aren't these airmanship things coming up in the reports?
Its almost as if that the powers that be believe its the way things should be done.
But why aren't these airmanship things coming up in the reports?
Its almost as if that the powers that be believe its the way things should be done.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another insight from Mr. (not so mad)....or is that "angry?" Jock. And Mr. Genghis.
I have had no official flying -training whatsoever. Yet I think I have a reasonably good grasp of mechanics, physics and aerodynamics, enough to enable me to understand what's going on, and why.
I have made it my business to explore the subjects in some depth. Unfortunately, many people just shut down at the first hint of anything technical...they learn by rote, spew the correct answer out, parrot fashion,but cannot apply the theory to a real-life scenario.
IMHO, it's bloody stupid to have someone spend~45 hours learning and then try to assess their competence to apply that knowledge ina brief flight.
Sure, some will obviously stand out as "natural",capable pilots, some ,like my late mother who took ~17 driving tests ON THE ISLE OF WIGHT
before some incompetent fool overruled the examiner and let her loose!.....will never ever be competent and safe.
It seems that everybody is excusing a 200 hour jockey.....the man set himself up as a professional.....It was up to him and his professional integrity, to make sure he absorbed as much expert knowledge of his subject as possible.
The two posters mentioned above both demonstrate this trait. That is why they are respected and important to this Forum....PROFESSIONALS!
I've never met either, but would trust my life to them...couldn't say the same about a guy that can't be bothered to learn the fundamentals of his trade.
A few hours flying a Radio -controlled "toy" would give some of these greenhorns a real insight into aircraft handling, aerodynamics and energy-management.
Since when have the inhabitants of the Belgrano, admitted to incompetence or bad admin?......they never make mistakes, just shuffle the cards and slip in a few jokers periodically....it's for your own good, you know!
I have had no official flying -training whatsoever. Yet I think I have a reasonably good grasp of mechanics, physics and aerodynamics, enough to enable me to understand what's going on, and why.
I have made it my business to explore the subjects in some depth. Unfortunately, many people just shut down at the first hint of anything technical...they learn by rote, spew the correct answer out, parrot fashion,but cannot apply the theory to a real-life scenario.
IMHO, it's bloody stupid to have someone spend~45 hours learning and then try to assess their competence to apply that knowledge ina brief flight.
Sure, some will obviously stand out as "natural",capable pilots, some ,like my late mother who took ~17 driving tests ON THE ISLE OF WIGHT
before some incompetent fool overruled the examiner and let her loose!.....will never ever be competent and safe.It seems that everybody is excusing a 200 hour jockey.....the man set himself up as a professional.....It was up to him and his professional integrity, to make sure he absorbed as much expert knowledge of his subject as possible.
The two posters mentioned above both demonstrate this trait. That is why they are respected and important to this Forum....PROFESSIONALS!
I've never met either, but would trust my life to them...couldn't say the same about a guy that can't be bothered to learn the fundamentals of his trade.
A few hours flying a Radio -controlled "toy" would give some of these greenhorns a real insight into aircraft handling, aerodynamics and energy-management.
Since when have the inhabitants of the Belgrano, admitted to incompetence or bad admin?......they never make mistakes, just shuffle the cards and slip in a few jokers periodically....it's for your own good, you know!
It seems that everybody is excusing a 200 hour jockey.....the man set himself up as a professional.....It was up to him and his professional integrity, to make sure he absorbed as much expert knowledge of his subject as possible.
But in this instance I would say that this chap was told by the system that he was a qualified professional pilot competent to do what he was doing. That included his CPL school, CPL examiner, FIC school, FI examiner, and the head of training for the school he was flying within.
Whilst relatively young and inexperienced people can be safe and competent (after all, the Battle of Britain was won by pilots often as young, and with as few hours), they are at-least as much in need of competent assessment and supervision as anybody else. I am making the case that this was almost certainly deficient as this fellow, with his hours, had nothing BUT his training to draw upon. Had he a few thousand hours, then I'd view it differently.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 20th Mar 2014 at 13:41.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cranfield
Age: 44
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What next?
So what happens with the owner now? Is de-registration the only sanction or are the CAA likely to prosecute for the other things discovered as part of the investigation?
They seem to document a lot of facts that they know, even if they are not the direct cause of the crash (although, as we know, there's usually a chain of small failures rather than one big reason).
They seem to document a lot of facts that they know, even if they are not the direct cause of the crash (although, as we know, there's usually a chain of small failures rather than one big reason).
Specific and comprehensive EFATO training?
From Cow's earlier post:
I agree that this would be ideal, and perhaps in a pilot of several thousand hours one might expect this, or at least hope for it! However this chap had just 390hours, most probably in a fairly rigid environment where the sort of experimentation that might lead to a good 'feel' in order to build up a good instinct would be frowned upon.
GtE makes some interesting comments; I'm horrified to hear that a qualified [low hour] pilot would ever express the possibility of a turn-back without having an extremely good reason for so doing - and obviously they didn't.
In the absence of experience then one would want pilots to put training before instinct, no easy thing to do in the heat of the moment. To express this kind of thought suggests that such training was deficient, or perhaps that they didn't listen, or thought they knew better once they got the bit of paper... none of these things are good and presumably would have lead to a serious discussion and retraining before consideration for the syndicate!
But that's one that was 'caught' by one such as GtE, and his later comments are very germane insofar as the training/examination/supervision system appears to be failing some people.
I'm not so sure that this comment is defendable - 'safe' in 1940 would be very fluid I would have thought, and the environment then is as different to now as chalk is to cheese. However, coming back for a moment to Cow's comment, I think that 1940's Sptifire pilots certainly got the chance to 'feel' an aircraft a lot more, or at least a lot earlier, than today's pilots. In short their flying was perhaps much less by rote or definition than it is today - and it's probable that those selected for the task were of better than average ability.
Today then for an average pilot to get to such a level of competence, and have a useful instinct for their craft, they'd probable need to have several thousand hours of flight time, and have 'experimented' somewhat during that time - a combination of an inquiring mind with a carefully judged taking of risks in order to learn well.
But such a combination is probably rare, and the taking of even qualified risks is not encouraged, so we're left with a cadre of pilots whose response to EFATO may be sub-optimal.
So to bring this back to the present, and to contribute to the future, what can we do?
It's my view that for a minimally trained low hour pilot (after all 50hours isn't a lot, yet one can be in an a/c with passengers and be expected to deal with an EFATO when it happens) the strictures of current training methodology may not have been sufficient to overcome natural tendency, that is to say the instinct to turn back would transcend the voice that says land dead ahead.
Cautiously therefore I'd suggest that some actual turn-back training should be given. I should say very cautiously; but to qualify this, and to present something for discussion here's my thinking:
FP.
An analogy is driving a car through town without instinctively using the steering wheel to control direction. A professional pilot ( ie instructor) should be able to 'feel' the aircraft and react accordingly
GtE makes some interesting comments; I'm horrified to hear that a qualified [low hour] pilot would ever express the possibility of a turn-back without having an extremely good reason for so doing - and obviously they didn't.
In the absence of experience then one would want pilots to put training before instinct, no easy thing to do in the heat of the moment. To express this kind of thought suggests that such training was deficient, or perhaps that they didn't listen, or thought they knew better once they got the bit of paper... none of these things are good and presumably would have lead to a serious discussion and retraining before consideration for the syndicate!
But that's one that was 'caught' by one such as GtE, and his later comments are very germane insofar as the training/examination/supervision system appears to be failing some people.
Whilst relatively young and inexperienced people can be safe and competent (after all, the Battle of Britain was won by pilots often as young, and with as few hours)
Today then for an average pilot to get to such a level of competence, and have a useful instinct for their craft, they'd probable need to have several thousand hours of flight time, and have 'experimented' somewhat during that time - a combination of an inquiring mind with a carefully judged taking of risks in order to learn well.
But such a combination is probably rare, and the taking of even qualified risks is not encouraged, so we're left with a cadre of pilots whose response to EFATO may be sub-optimal.
So to bring this back to the present, and to contribute to the future, what can we do?
It's my view that for a minimally trained low hour pilot (after all 50hours isn't a lot, yet one can be in an a/c with passengers and be expected to deal with an EFATO when it happens) the strictures of current training methodology may not have been sufficient to overcome natural tendency, that is to say the instinct to turn back would transcend the voice that says land dead ahead.
Cautiously therefore I'd suggest that some actual turn-back training should be given. I should say very cautiously; but to qualify this, and to present something for discussion here's my thinking:
- The possibility of EFATO is just as important, if not more so, as say flight into cloud yet we spend 5 hours specifically on instrument training for a VFR PPL pilot.
- I use the word 'important' deliberately because EFATO is an instant unexpected thing whereas flight into cloud carries some deliberation to it - the mechanism is different.
- EFATO and all aspects of recovery should be specifically taught to a level similar to instrument training (ie. 5hrs minimum) and should include actual demonstrations of heights and situations at which landing dead ahead, or turning back, are appropriate.
- One thing that would hopefully come from this is a clear knowledge of why you don't turn back at 75-200ft - there's nothing like seeing what happens to focus the mind.
- Such training could occur at height, but should also include simulator work to give visual aspect cues that wouldn't be available at 3000ft or whatever.
- Obviously real-life EFATO's with turnbacks etc would offer the best experience wrt of training, but I suspect we'd very quickly end up with the same issue as to why we don't teach spin recovery to student's these days - the cure could be more fatal than the disease. Yes I know that's arguable but...
FP.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the very good fortune to be sent off on first solo by an instructor who flew a Spitfire in combat in the Battle of Britain.
I was never taught to do stabilised approaches from 500' & didn't need a tarmac runway to land safely.
That first solo was done from 600m of grass & I was expected to be vacating on landing by the halfway point.
During initial training I did once try following the PAPI's at Hurn on a dual XC & quite rightly got severely chastised for it.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post, FP. What I would add is the need to consider the PARTIAL engine failure case in the training and briefing. I touched on my own partial EFATO experience in an earlier post and despite the hell of a surprise, I believe that it was prior briefing, the instinctive nose down etc, previous practice in finding out minimum power for level flight, and enough knowledge about the fuel/air induction systems to juggle the carb heat and mixture, that allowed me to make a decent assessment and response.
Unless you have the picture sorted in your head before the event, what hope do you really have? Going through the "what ifs" in the situation of partial (and full) EFATOs at various altitudes is a very useful exercise. Clearly, a partial at 75' is a case for pulling the power and landing ahead. However, endlessly repeating the truisms applicable to a full loss of power are probably not the best way of getting pilots of varying ability and experience, in different aircraft, to the best partial EFATO outcome in all cases. I understand entirely the need to simplify the message for students, and to ensure the reflexes are developed as they need to be. However, I expect that for many people a more thoughtful advance analysis and associated training regime would help.
Like our Australian ATSB reports these days, the UK report on this accident looks of pretty marginal value to me. Interesting to tell the story but the conclusion doesn't go beyond the well-known (and true) observation applicable to a full EFATO at low altitude. If PPruners can rustle up the Australian stats showing the better results in full EFATOs, surely the AAIB can use those to produce a much stronger recommendation about partial failures at low altitudes - namely, pull the power and treat the failure as a complete one.
To not address in the partial power situation is to miss a large part of the story especially, I suspect, in the Cranfield case. When the rpm drops but the engine doesn't entirely stop, you've got a big decision to make in a very short period. A perfectly reasonable response by some pilots in some aircraft will be to shut down the engine and invoke the full EFATO response. In other cases, depending on the altitude, pilot, aircraft and nature of the problem, different responses are reasonable. It ought to be possible to address all the responses, at least at the CPL or instructor training level.
Unless you have the picture sorted in your head before the event, what hope do you really have? Going through the "what ifs" in the situation of partial (and full) EFATOs at various altitudes is a very useful exercise. Clearly, a partial at 75' is a case for pulling the power and landing ahead. However, endlessly repeating the truisms applicable to a full loss of power are probably not the best way of getting pilots of varying ability and experience, in different aircraft, to the best partial EFATO outcome in all cases. I understand entirely the need to simplify the message for students, and to ensure the reflexes are developed as they need to be. However, I expect that for many people a more thoughtful advance analysis and associated training regime would help.
Like our Australian ATSB reports these days, the UK report on this accident looks of pretty marginal value to me. Interesting to tell the story but the conclusion doesn't go beyond the well-known (and true) observation applicable to a full EFATO at low altitude. If PPruners can rustle up the Australian stats showing the better results in full EFATOs, surely the AAIB can use those to produce a much stronger recommendation about partial failures at low altitudes - namely, pull the power and treat the failure as a complete one.
To not address in the partial power situation is to miss a large part of the story especially, I suspect, in the Cranfield case. When the rpm drops but the engine doesn't entirely stop, you've got a big decision to make in a very short period. A perfectly reasonable response by some pilots in some aircraft will be to shut down the engine and invoke the full EFATO response. In other cases, depending on the altitude, pilot, aircraft and nature of the problem, different responses are reasonable. It ought to be possible to address all the responses, at least at the CPL or instructor training level.
I wonder to what extent the problem is with the CPL syllabus. Getting sidetracked here a bit, but the vast majority of CPL holders will become either airline pilots or flying instructors.
Airline pilots will spend much of their time on A/P.
Flying instructors will spend much of their time in small areas exploring basic aircraft handling issues.
Both will most need to earn their money dealing with emergencies, if they ever do. Neither have much requirement for accurate hand-flown precision navigation. Getting to a diversion airfield, by a slightly erratic route, a few minutes slower than hoped, really aint much of a problem in the real world.
Yet we have a CPL syllabus that is about 70% hand-flown precision nav, 15% handling emergencies, and 15% just handling.
Move the syllabus around to maybe 60% handling emergencies, 20% handling, and 20% precision nav, and you'd have something much more suited to the modern flying environment - and where people like the pilot we're all talking about would be much better fitted to dealing with real emergencies.
Incidentally I disagree with:-
If I had followed that advice, I'd have landed out two aeroplanes, possibly breaking them, in the last few years when I had partial EFATOs. On the other hand, fly field-to-field, positioning for the best landing site, ideally a runway, and you most likely save the aeroplane, and if all else fails, at-least crash where the emergency services can reach you easily. It would also roughly agree with your earlier:-
G
Airline pilots will spend much of their time on A/P.
Flying instructors will spend much of their time in small areas exploring basic aircraft handling issues.
Both will most need to earn their money dealing with emergencies, if they ever do. Neither have much requirement for accurate hand-flown precision navigation. Getting to a diversion airfield, by a slightly erratic route, a few minutes slower than hoped, really aint much of a problem in the real world.
Yet we have a CPL syllabus that is about 70% hand-flown precision nav, 15% handling emergencies, and 15% just handling.
Move the syllabus around to maybe 60% handling emergencies, 20% handling, and 20% precision nav, and you'd have something much more suited to the modern flying environment - and where people like the pilot we're all talking about would be much better fitted to dealing with real emergencies.
Incidentally I disagree with:-
urely the AAIB can use those to produce a much stronger recommendation about partial failures at low altitudes - namely, pull the power and treat the failure as a complete one.
I believe that it was prior briefing, the instinctive nose down etc, previous practice in finding out minimum power for level flight, and enough knowledge about the fuel/air induction systems to juggle the carb heat and mixture, that allowed me to make a decent assessment and response.
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 21st Mar 2014 at 10:50. Reason: Adding stuff.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G you have a large subset though that the CPL is virtually bypassed with an in house check.
They have everything set up to move straight to shiny fully automated jets.
Now instead of going for the CPL which to be honest isn't where the problem is. they need to go for the Instructors courses and examinations more. And get a grip of the syllabuses
In theory you have to do a pre course test but I have never known anyone failing one.
this stuff has to get banged in from the word go. And as long as there are pilot that have been trained with pseudo airline ops pish they will bring it back to GA flying if they are allowed to instruct.
So either ban them form being instructors and propagating this pish or get the syllabuses that they are taught changed to teach them the correct way of flying this class of aircraft.
And change the FIC initial test to be done by an independent FIE which focuses on the basic skills.
They have everything set up to move straight to shiny fully automated jets.
Now instead of going for the CPL which to be honest isn't where the problem is. they need to go for the Instructors courses and examinations more. And get a grip of the syllabuses
In theory you have to do a pre course test but I have never known anyone failing one.
this stuff has to get banged in from the word go. And as long as there are pilot that have been trained with pseudo airline ops pish they will bring it back to GA flying if they are allowed to instruct.
So either ban them form being instructors and propagating this pish or get the syllabuses that they are taught changed to teach them the correct way of flying this class of aircraft.
And change the FIC initial test to be done by an independent FIE which focuses on the basic skills.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis, I was simply making the point that the AAIB conclusion would have been more useful if it had specifically addressed the issue of partial failure at 75'. As you correctly infer, my personal response to a partial with different parameters was a measured one along the lines you describe. It struck me as less than useful to conclude the report with a perfectly correct truism, without linking it back to the initial circumstances of the crash.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was fortunate enough never to have had a EFTO apart from practice ones.
However I considered it good practice to actually say the EFTO option as part of my final checks prior to every take off - not just repeat a written sentence but have a look at what was beyond the runway and work it out.
Over the top? Maybe, but it's what I did.
However I considered it good practice to actually say the EFTO option as part of my final checks prior to every take off - not just repeat a written sentence but have a look at what was beyond the runway and work it out.
Over the top? Maybe, but it's what I did.
I don't believe that he is, but is known locally to have had significant "issues" with the British legal system for reasons unconnected with aviation. All proveable so not slander or libel, but probably not actually helpful to put on here.
G
G
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
previous practice in finding out minimum power for level flight, and enough knowledge about the fuel/air induction systems to juggle the carb heat and mixture, that allowed me to make a decent assessment and response.
I am sure that any putative instructor reading this thread, will have cause to consider where the gaps are in his knowledge.
I don't care if the instructor has 5 hours total time since qualifying, he has not absorbed the basic training and fundamental physics of flight, if he doesn't understand the inherent risks of a slow turn.
Any power is useful to "stretch the glide",especially when confronted with a sea of rooftops! When there's a good choice of inviting fields below, with the furrows in the right direction, there may be a case for a Gimli re-enactment....otherwise, one roof is very much like another, a part-performing donk will give a little bit of extra flight-time to check the obvious (fuel-cock/selector) and carb-heat in some circumstances, followed ,Iwould think, by mixture......A mechanical or Mag failure is usually beyond your control,but a bit of power still gives you some thinking -time. I would be very wary of throwing away one card in a very poor hand,under the circumstances.
I don't buy the "the system's given him a ticket, therefore he thinks he is a professional" scenario.....anyone complacent enough to assume that exam passed = know it all, is not suited to responsibility!
@ mad jock [quoteWell to be fair I don't think she will cause any accidents from her grave.][/quote]
Thankfully, no, but I'll lay odds on that she caused a fair few accidents! My late partner drove over 40years without a license
and one trip with her was enough to convince me to ALWAYS drive.....she came back from a trip to the local shop, accompanying Mother, a nervous wreck....highlights included a 12 mile detour because she took the wrong turning, a close inspection and testing of the characteristics of the opposite-side verge (got distracted) sailing through junctions without priority 
......No, I never risked it, personally!
Forgot to say, Mother only drove Automatics, a clutch and gear-lever were a leap too far!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However I considered it good practice to actually say the EFTO option as part of my final checks prior to every take off - not just repeat a written sentence but have a look at what was beyond the runway and work it out.
Over the top? Maybe, but it's what I did.
Over the top? Maybe, but it's what I did.
Thought that was standard training for the PPL syllabus? It's what I was taught to do, just assumed everyone else did as well.
It has been part of a glider takeoff in UK since at least 1981 when I did my silver C, but I don't think was generally done by power pilots at that time. For gliding there is a memnonic of CBSIFTCBE, for those who like such things, and the E stands for either emergencies or if you have a nervous passenger it seems to become eventualities.
