This is part of the AAIB report into the accident leading to the case being heard at Leeds Crown Court this week.
The absence, however, of documents that might be expected to exist, principally the aircraft technical log, instructor’s logbook and training notes, raised further concern about the standard of operation of the RTF and removed the opportunity to confirm which flights had actually been undertaken. The evidence that does exist indicates that the pilot did not complete sufficient training hours and it is unlikely that the full syllabus was completed adequately in this time. Inconsistencies were also identified concerning the Skills Test the pilot undertook and, as a result, the investigation could not reliably ascertain the pilot’s flying ability at the time of the accident.
The flights were all recorded as being flown on the same aircraft, HA‑L FM, and with the same instructor as named in the RTF application, totalling 25 hours dual instruction and 10 hours 6 minutes supervised solo flying. Of the solo time recorded, up to 6 hours 36 minutes was recorded as having been spent on navigation exercises.
A document subsequently provided by a member of the pilot’s family was presented as an apparent record of the pilot’s actual flying hours. The first flight date recorded on this document was 20 August 2007 and the last flight recorded was 12 December 2007. Between these dates the sheets recorded the pilot as having flown 25 hours 24 minutes dual instruction, and 8 hours 36 minutes solo. Of these hours, two hours were flown when undertaking the Skills Test and there is evidence that one hour was undertaken in a rear seat, flying as a passenger, whilst another pilot was receiving training. The document would thus indicate the pilot having undertaken 22 hours and 24 minutes dual training and 8 hours 36 minutes supervised solo flying between the dates recorded.
The pilot’s logbook recorded all the training flights as originating from Beverley Airfield, although there was no supporting evidence that this was the case. The aircraft was based at Breighton Airfield and the pilot would not have been able to log the transit time between Breighton and Beverley towards his flying training hours.
As the unofficial flight time record maintained by the pilot appears to have recorded the total flight times, rather than just training hours, had the training actually been conducted from Beverley Airfield then it follows that his actual training hours might have been less than the total recorded.
The last entry in the pilot’s logbook was for a flight on 5 December 2007, this time from Breighton Airfield, with the same instructor who had conducted his PPL training on the Gazelle. The takeoff and landing times indicated the flight took place at night and lasted one hour, although it had been recorded claiming one hour of dual day flying and an additional 42 minutes of dual night flying.
Enquiries into inconsistencies in the pilot’s logbook revealed that he had, in fact, commenced flying training on HA-LFM prior to 19 November 2007. The instructor stated there had been delays in getting the RTF issued and so he had begun training with two of the three trainee pilots prior to its issue, although he was unable to say exactly when that was. It had been decided that, in order to satisfy the requirements of the CAA, none of these training flights would be logged, but instead entries would be made in the pilot’s logbook indicating that all the training flights post-dated the granting of the RTF. The instructor was not able to produce training records or other supporting evidence to show which flights had actually been conducted by the pilot fatally injured in the accident. In addition, the owner of HA-LFM stated that there were no technical records kept for flights undertaken by the aircraft that might have provided a record of the flights undertaken. The only corroborating evidence available for any of the training flights logged by the pilot on HA-LFM was the cross-country flight certificate for a flight logged on the 29 November 2007.
The instructor, whilst unable to provide supporting evidence, stated that the pilot had nevertheless completed all the necessary flying training. He also stated that the pilot had completed all the ground school training required and had passed his technical exam with a mark of 100%. This ground school training had also included a brief on the effects of a loss of tail rotor effectiveness although there were no questions on this in the exam.
An application was made on 12 December 2007 for the pilot to take the Skills Test in order to gain his PPL(H). This application stated that the pilot had flown a total of 45 hours 18 minutes on helicopters, 10 hours 6 minutes solo and 35 hours 12 minutes dual.
The form was certified by the RTF’s instructor that the pilot had completed the necessary training and that the instructor had checked the pilot’s logbook to ensure the entries met the flying experience requirements. The logbook, however, contained no record of exercises 23, 25 and 26 of the syllabus having been flown. When interviewed, the instructor stated these exercises had been completed but, in error, had not been recorded in the logbook.
During the investigation it became apparent that, on one previous occasion, on 14 September 2007, the examiner had flown with the pilot at Breighton Airfield to demonstrate autorotations. The flight had been undertaken with one of the other pilots being trained under the RTF on HA-LFM, the two pilots flying for approximately one hour each, spending the other hour observing from the rear seat. The examiner stated that he had pointed out that these hours could not be included towards their flight training as the RTF had not been issued. These flights were included in the unofficial record maintained by the pilot.
He passed the pilot on all elements of the test, assessing him as well above average ability. The examiner stated that the pilot had, however, allowed the aircraft to weathercock during a spot turn, requiring him to repeat the exercise. The pilot had, however, been able to control the weathercocking without intervention and had repeated the exercise to a satisfactorary standard. The examiner stated that the pilot was ‘level headed and capable’ and he considered that he had flown to the same standard expected of a pilot undergoing a commercial Skills Test.
Subsequent analysis of radar data identified the Skills Test flight and indicated discrepancies between the route and the timings of the test and those recorded on the examination paperwork.
The examiner was known to the instructor and had been included in paperwork supporting the setting up of the RTF. It is also known that he had flown with the pilot on at least one occasion prior to his Skills Test. The current system, whereby examiners are selected, and paid for, by those being tested, creates the potential for a conflict of interest and examiners for such tests should be allocated by the CAA.
Safety Recommendation 2009-087
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority allocate examiners for the conduct of PPL Skills Tests.