UK AAIB Oct 2012
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Wrong Town
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His car being there was the thing that most pissed me off reading that report. What an arrogant, idiotic moron! Even if his car hadn't been there he could have phoned someone to give him a lift.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having illegal parts do not necessarilly contribute to having an accident
Do tell.....
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FSXPilot
Dont forget some of Mark's family and friends read this...I being one....I find your comments rather distastefull..!!!
What an arrogant, idiotic moron!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Age: 44
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with FBW, and the fact this chap paid with his life is enough. A lesson to all about the pearls of inclement weather and night flying. Report says all that needs to be said.
MF26
MF26
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are you actually saying here - that it's OK to have bogus, time-x, un-certified (read forged Form 1), etc. parts on a helicopter?
Do tell.....
Do tell.....
But this helicopter had an overhauled, uncertified engine fitted which had nothing wrong with it.
None of these issues could be directly linked to the cause of the accident,
The helicopter was obviously signed off by the engineer and was perfectly safe to fly.
Come now, is there really something wrong with the Astazou IIIB?
No, of course not, but the alternative is pay 200K for a IIIA instead?
With crazy rules like this is it any wonder some are tempted to fit perfectly good alternative parts?
Il add some context to fishbang wallops comments.
Mark wasnt one to sit in the class room doing endless exams, he would rather be out there doing it. Sure he never did a night rating but flying around the circuit on a cloudless night has little in common with flying through the hills and valleys of the lakes in darkness. Its not something i would do and i don't condone it.. They are indeed character flaws but for every man who scoffs at such a cavalier attitude a hundred loved him for it.
And as for spare parts if a military piece of kit is perfectly serviceable for a fraction of the cost you have to ask why it is illegal?? The military variant of the engine seemed to work just fine, so what's the problem with it?? The answer its illegal just doesn't cut it... who makes these rules that we seem to just take on the chin and pay for?? If they are unsafe then fine that's good enough for me but are they??
The mine mark ran existed right on the line of economic viability and making it pay meant not necessarily cutting corners but constantly asking 'do i really need this....??' We all talk about this qualification and that qualification but mark had no formal qualification in business yet became a millionaire. Lets not talk about this regulation and such and such a thing in easa land.... what mark did in no way reflects what other private owners do he was a complete one off.. there won't be another.
The only thing that puzzles me is that although he was a serial risk taker he took calculated risks.. and there was nothing calculated about the weather that night... it just wasn't even close to being flyable.
Mark wasnt one to sit in the class room doing endless exams, he would rather be out there doing it. Sure he never did a night rating but flying around the circuit on a cloudless night has little in common with flying through the hills and valleys of the lakes in darkness. Its not something i would do and i don't condone it.. They are indeed character flaws but for every man who scoffs at such a cavalier attitude a hundred loved him for it.
And as for spare parts if a military piece of kit is perfectly serviceable for a fraction of the cost you have to ask why it is illegal?? The military variant of the engine seemed to work just fine, so what's the problem with it?? The answer its illegal just doesn't cut it... who makes these rules that we seem to just take on the chin and pay for?? If they are unsafe then fine that's good enough for me but are they??
The mine mark ran existed right on the line of economic viability and making it pay meant not necessarily cutting corners but constantly asking 'do i really need this....??' We all talk about this qualification and that qualification but mark had no formal qualification in business yet became a millionaire. Lets not talk about this regulation and such and such a thing in easa land.... what mark did in no way reflects what other private owners do he was a complete one off.. there won't be another.
The only thing that puzzles me is that although he was a serial risk taker he took calculated risks.. and there was nothing calculated about the weather that night... it just wasn't even close to being flyable.
Good evening rotorboater!!
Well yes i am a pilot but no i don't own a machine. I would dearly love to but don't have the brass!!
What do you mean by the belgrano??
Well yes i am a pilot but no i don't own a machine. I would dearly love to but don't have the brass!!
What do you mean by the belgrano??
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,597
Received 450 Likes
on
239 Posts
If he was constantly asking about the cost of everything, it must be asked: Did he really need a helicopter?
As the old saying goes, "If you think flight safety is expensive, try having an accident."
As the old saying goes, "If you think flight safety is expensive, try having an accident."
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Making decisions
There is an old saying that goes:
RULES ARE FOR THE OBEDIENCE OF FOOLS AND THE GUIDANCE OF WISE MEN
Sometimes it's hard to accept that you are in the first category and not the second but there are times when you just have to accept that someone else knows better.
I'm not an engineer but from what I understand bogus parts come in all shapes and sizes:
1. Those that are recycled - serial numbers erased or changed and forged support papers to back it up. Very dangerous as the official life of the component will certainly be exceeded.
2. Parts manufactures in non-approved facilities and given false papers. (I visited Russia recently and they told me they had problems with TR blades being knocked up in small workshops in Asia)
3. Military parts. Lifed items are particularly vulnerable here and the reason military parts should not be seen as acceptable replacements is because the military use different limitations for their use and this will be reflected in the life it has.
4. Scrap parts being re-used after repair by unqualified or uncertified organisations.
The pilot in this case thought he knew better and paid for his arrogance or ignorance, or both, with his life. We have to be sure that we learn from this and that his loss in some way benefits the pilot/owner community.
G.
RULES ARE FOR THE OBEDIENCE OF FOOLS AND THE GUIDANCE OF WISE MEN
Sometimes it's hard to accept that you are in the first category and not the second but there are times when you just have to accept that someone else knows better.
I'm not an engineer but from what I understand bogus parts come in all shapes and sizes:
1. Those that are recycled - serial numbers erased or changed and forged support papers to back it up. Very dangerous as the official life of the component will certainly be exceeded.
2. Parts manufactures in non-approved facilities and given false papers. (I visited Russia recently and they told me they had problems with TR blades being knocked up in small workshops in Asia)
3. Military parts. Lifed items are particularly vulnerable here and the reason military parts should not be seen as acceptable replacements is because the military use different limitations for their use and this will be reflected in the life it has.
4. Scrap parts being re-used after repair by unqualified or uncertified organisations.
The pilot in this case thought he knew better and paid for his arrogance or ignorance, or both, with his life. We have to be sure that we learn from this and that his loss in some way benefits the pilot/owner community.
G.
As usual great comments and a great platform for learning. Thank you.
Let me try and articulate my point a little clearer.
I dont for one second support the risks mr weir routinely took. I dont have the balls, and i don't have the energy to sort out any subsequent problems either. Its not for me.
But.. 1. Please don't discuss this issue like its a problem in the wider aviation community, its not. The way he operated was individually as a complete one off.
2. Does illegal mean unsafe?? if its a safety issue then the law is doing its job and great. If not why is it illegal??
3. And most importantly. Poor decision making killed mr weir, not (as far as the investigation can figure out) mechanical failure.
Its easy to sit and pass judgement. Lets talk about the failings that led to his death and not pillory the individual.
Let me try and articulate my point a little clearer.
I dont for one second support the risks mr weir routinely took. I dont have the balls, and i don't have the energy to sort out any subsequent problems either. Its not for me.
But.. 1. Please don't discuss this issue like its a problem in the wider aviation community, its not. The way he operated was individually as a complete one off.
2. Does illegal mean unsafe?? if its a safety issue then the law is doing its job and great. If not why is it illegal??
3. And most importantly. Poor decision making killed mr weir, not (as far as the investigation can figure out) mechanical failure.
Its easy to sit and pass judgement. Lets talk about the failings that led to his death and not pillory the individual.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like its a problem in the wider aviation community, its not
Stringfellow ... The Belgrano
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any idiot can kill himself in bad weather at night, regardless of the airworthiness state of the aircraft.
Surely the big question about the airworthiness should be aimed at the inability to apply common standards across various EASA states? It seems to me that EASA is failing in a core task. From their website:
Surely the big question about the airworthiness should be aimed at the inability to apply common standards across various EASA states? It seems to me that EASA is failing in a core task. From their website:
The Agency promotes the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation in Europe and worldwide
Last edited by Cows getting bigger; 14th Oct 2012 at 10:22.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it a problem or no?
If you venture on to the Transparency International website and inspect their Corruption Perception index then you will see at the bottom of the page,
2011 Corruption Perceptions Index -- Results
a table of the perceived levels of corruption in the world. From what I have seen during my 40+ years in the business the level of abuse of maintenance procedures is broadly in line with this table.
Note that the UK is 16th, the USA 24th, France 25th, Spain 31st, Hungary 54th, Italy 69th, Brazil 73rd and Serbia 86th. Figures for the year 2011.
We are not angels and the problem is I suggest one that is likely to grow logarithmically as you move down the table rather than a simple linear growth.
A few years ago I did a Maintenance Manager's course in the USA and all attendees had to do a compulsory session with a man from the FAA on the use of counterfeit or 'bogus' parts. They considered it to be the No1 global problem at that time.
G.
(CGB (above) I think we need to have a chat about your interest in live-stock)
2011 Corruption Perceptions Index -- Results
a table of the perceived levels of corruption in the world. From what I have seen during my 40+ years in the business the level of abuse of maintenance procedures is broadly in line with this table.
Note that the UK is 16th, the USA 24th, France 25th, Spain 31st, Hungary 54th, Italy 69th, Brazil 73rd and Serbia 86th. Figures for the year 2011.
We are not angels and the problem is I suggest one that is likely to grow logarithmically as you move down the table rather than a simple linear growth.
A few years ago I did a Maintenance Manager's course in the USA and all attendees had to do a compulsory session with a man from the FAA on the use of counterfeit or 'bogus' parts. They considered it to be the No1 global problem at that time.
G.
(CGB (above) I think we need to have a chat about your interest in live-stock)
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 14th Oct 2012 at 10:30.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G.
Have to disagree with you.
He was arrogant yes (and that's not necessarilly a bad thing), but these parts had nothing to do with the cause of the crash, so perhaps he did know better in regards to the parts fitted?
Obviously he should have known better though not to fly that evening.
Stringfellow,
The pic of the Belgrano looks like the CAA building.
but there are times when you just have to accept that someone else knows better.
1. Those that are recycled -
2. Parts manufactures in non-approved facilities and given false papers.
3. Military parts.
4. Scrap parts being re-used after repair by unqualified or uncertified organisations.
The pilot in this case thought he knew better and paid for his arrogance or ignorance, or both, with his life.
1. Those that are recycled -
2. Parts manufactures in non-approved facilities and given false papers.
3. Military parts.
4. Scrap parts being re-used after repair by unqualified or uncertified organisations.
The pilot in this case thought he knew better and paid for his arrogance or ignorance, or both, with his life.
He was arrogant yes (and that's not necessarilly a bad thing), but these parts had nothing to do with the cause of the crash, so perhaps he did know better in regards to the parts fitted?
Obviously he should have known better though not to fly that evening.
Stringfellow,
The pic of the Belgrano looks like the CAA building.
Last edited by chopjock; 14th Oct 2012 at 10:39.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chopjock
I think the thread has moved on a little from a simple analysis of Mr Weir's view of right and wrong.
If you go to the doctor and he misses the signs of a fatal disease you may feel he is not up to the mark. If you are then knocked down and killed by a bus the following day are we supposed to conclude that the doctor's ineptitude was irrelevant because you didn't die from the fatal disease?
Should we not say, here is a lesson learned for the autopsy will reveal that the signs of illness were missed.
For the good of other patients we need to know what those signs were and if the patient was covering them up how did he do that and how can we make sure that in future the Doctor (EASA) has the right medication (oversight) to diagnose a possible problem.
Aviation is about risk management and you don't minimise risk by ignoring the airworthiness requirements.
G.
If you go to the doctor and he misses the signs of a fatal disease you may feel he is not up to the mark. If you are then knocked down and killed by a bus the following day are we supposed to conclude that the doctor's ineptitude was irrelevant because you didn't die from the fatal disease?
Should we not say, here is a lesson learned for the autopsy will reveal that the signs of illness were missed.
For the good of other patients we need to know what those signs were and if the patient was covering them up how did he do that and how can we make sure that in future the Doctor (EASA) has the right medication (oversight) to diagnose a possible problem.
Aviation is about risk management and you don't minimise risk by ignoring the airworthiness requirements.
G.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation is about risk management
you don't minimise risk by ignoring the airworthiness requirements.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chopjock
........and the MBB105 CAA 'special requirements' modification to the fuel system that turned out to ADD a risk rather than remove one.
Yes we live in an imperfect world but anarchy will result if we all accept our own views on right and wrong. The prime mortgage scandal was an example of where one group decided to agree to follow their own interpretation of the rules and look what happened. The 'Libor Rate' scandal, ditto.
The old adage holds good - Rules are for the obedience of fools (read newbies or the untrained) and the guidance of wise men (read trained experts in their field).
G.
Yes we live in an imperfect world but anarchy will result if we all accept our own views on right and wrong. The prime mortgage scandal was an example of where one group decided to agree to follow their own interpretation of the rules and look what happened. The 'Libor Rate' scandal, ditto.
The old adage holds good - Rules are for the obedience of fools (read newbies or the untrained) and the guidance of wise men (read trained experts in their field).
G.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,597
Received 450 Likes
on
239 Posts
Chopjock,
If a non-certified part is fitted, who is to say whether the aircraft is safe to fly or not? Ask any aircraft insurer for their views on the matter. Ask them if they would insure a helicopter if non-certified parts were fitted.
The reason the certification of aircraft parts has been mandated (it's not just the UK who do this, of course) is that in the past things have come apart in the air. How would you feel if an uncertified (and therefore illegally flown and probably uninsured) helicopter fell apart in the air and landed on your house and/or family?
If a non-certified part is fitted, who is to say whether the aircraft is safe to fly or not? Ask any aircraft insurer for their views on the matter. Ask them if they would insure a helicopter if non-certified parts were fitted.
The reason the certification of aircraft parts has been mandated (it's not just the UK who do this, of course) is that in the past things have come apart in the air. How would you feel if an uncertified (and therefore illegally flown and probably uninsured) helicopter fell apart in the air and landed on your house and/or family?
This reminds me of the thread about using heating oil (kerosene) instead of Jet-A1. Chemically identical, but one is subject to much higher quality control processes and more stringent checks that maximise safety.
I imagine the main benefit of a certified component is that its provenance has been authenticated. A non-certified part may have a dubious provenance that could ultimately manifest itself in a catastrophic failure. I appreciate that the AAIB believed it found nothing on Mark's Gazelle that had a material effect on its airworthiness, however, there wasn't a lot left of the aircraft to check and there are several people who can recall stories of Mark's cavalier 'that'll be alright' attitude to his flying. The reality of this situation, is that although illegal, the aircraft was probably safe and it was the pilot's decision making process and attitude that was unsafe. Even though Mark was popular as a lively maverick, it was this attitude to 'the system' and common sense that lost him his life.
Stringfellow:
I don't believe the mine was barely viable; as you said in the same sentence, it made him a millionaire. He could have afforded the certified 'legal' components if he'd wanted to.
I imagine the main benefit of a certified component is that its provenance has been authenticated. A non-certified part may have a dubious provenance that could ultimately manifest itself in a catastrophic failure. I appreciate that the AAIB believed it found nothing on Mark's Gazelle that had a material effect on its airworthiness, however, there wasn't a lot left of the aircraft to check and there are several people who can recall stories of Mark's cavalier 'that'll be alright' attitude to his flying. The reality of this situation, is that although illegal, the aircraft was probably safe and it was the pilot's decision making process and attitude that was unsafe. Even though Mark was popular as a lively maverick, it was this attitude to 'the system' and common sense that lost him his life.
Stringfellow:
The mine mark ran existed right on the line of economic viability and making it pay meant not necessarily cutting corners but constantly asking 'do i really need this....??' We all talk about this qualification and that qualification but mark had no formal qualification in business yet became a millionaire.
