PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Glasgow Accident Inquiry Findings
View Single Post
Old 26th Sep 2002, 10:11
  #23 (permalink)  
Pilot Pete
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's a lot of ill informed speculation being pandered around on this board over this accident. Read the definitive accident report from the AAIB. I was involved as a pilot for the said company at the time of the accident and John Easson was my boss and Chief Pilot.

I was also called as a witness to the fatal accident enquiry, sat around for two days and then sent home without giving evidence. The FAI is a strange element of Scottish Law, where someone not expert in the field passes his/her judgement on the causes of an accident and gives recommendations.

The AAIB did not come to the conclusion of pilot error. In fact they said that John Easson was left in the 'unenviable position' of losing height with little time to react and conflicting information. If the AAIB cannot and do not pin the blame on John Easson then I fail to see how any of us can with our sweeping 'it's as simple as that' statements. It plainly was not as simple as that.

The aircraft was certified for single crew operation and the airline insisted on a second crew member. They were made aware of the lack of legal requirement for this second crew member but wanted one just the same.

activewaypoint;
The company used to dress up various individuals as pilots and put them in the right seat in the guise of professional co-pilot.
Wrong again. They placed licence holding pilots in the right hand seat within the law and at the behest of the customer. The operation was single crew and the pilots were trained for that so there was no requirement for that second pilot to be there at all, so as for the accident being a breakdown in crm or lack of input from the guy in the rhs then again, not relevant in this case (twistedenginestarter). If the customer requested another line pilot from EAC to sit in the rhs, again this would have been pointless as the a/c was certified for single crew operation and crews were not trained to fly two crew. If you ask me it shows a lack of understanding of the realities of piston twins with marginal performance. I would have prefered to have flown these flights with one less person on board rather than a colleague to 'help with the radio'. Remember the 'customer' rules.

You are also wrong about crews not being positioned in the UK in these aircraft as already pointed out. Air2000 still do it occassionally as did jmc last summer (I had the pleasure of going to Newcastle in a Ravenair Aztec).

For once I find myself agreing with 411A's comments, except that you will also find that the AAIB report found that all the maintenance requirements had been followed to the letter. We had a very close relationship to the in house engineering firm who were Cessna Concessionaires and extremely competent and skilled. One thing John Easson would not have is corners cut, especially on maintenance. The Chief Engineer had an open cheque book with regard to the fleet maintenance and they were all a pleasure to fly.

Max Angle. You will find that the aircraft can (or could then) be flown by a CPL holder, again, if you read the report you will see that is the licence that John Easson held. That is all he needed to hold for the operation he had and who are we to question it? Would him studying the ATPL groundschool have made him any better a pilot? No. He had no need to get an ATPL and was a very busy, successful businessman who could not afford the time. What I agree with you on Max is that I always felt it a lot better if one of the positioning pilots sat up front (on other jobs). It was always interesting for them and good for us too.

So, I know this is a rumour board but let's try and be informative with our view points......especially as the definitive document (the AAIB report) is out there for all to read. In my opinion the Fatal Accident Inquiry is a total waste of tax payers money, especially when they are drawing conclusions that the experts in the field did not draw and are recommending changes which they can not back up with technical reasoning (which they are not qualified to give). They put me in a hotel and paid me expenses for 2 days and sat me in a room and then didn't even bother to ask me any questions..............................facade.

Rest in peace, good friends.

PP
Pilot Pete is offline