Light Aircraft crash at Blackbushe.
Wycombe - no doubt, but that is not my point.
I asked the question, why go there when Farnborough was so near? it has no ATC, has less separation for circuit traffic and frankly why mix with light sport VFR traffic, especially if you can't fly at the correct circuit height whilst getting involved with other circuit traffic "at the end of the downwind leg"..
[this is a continuation of another thread about joining overhead etc elsewhere]
The potential money saving doesn't seem worth it to me, because other than money there seems no logic to it.
I asked the question, why go there when Farnborough was so near? it has no ATC, has less separation for circuit traffic and frankly why mix with light sport VFR traffic, especially if you can't fly at the correct circuit height whilst getting involved with other circuit traffic "at the end of the downwind leg"..
[this is a continuation of another thread about joining overhead etc elsewhere]
The potential money saving doesn't seem worth it to me, because other than money there seems no logic to it.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wycombe, obviously larger and heavier aircraft can use the smaller, non precision runway at the 'Bushe. 4379' (from the threshold) is tight for a CL300. Obviously, those are landing without a safety factor, and probably not at all if wet.
Again, down to airmanship and mitigation of risks, as is mixing with high density light GA under no radar service when their is a viable local alternative with precision approach and decent fire services and handling.
The DA2000 has good numbers for landing, a different beast.
Again, down to airmanship and mitigation of risks, as is mixing with high density light GA under no radar service when their is a viable local alternative with precision approach and decent fire services and handling.
The DA2000 has good numbers for landing, a different beast.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mooneyboy
I agree with the point that you may be able to apply the brakes in lots of incapacitation situations in a car, but I think the risk of pilot incapacitation in a plane causing a problem because the passengers can't fly the thing, are far lower than the risk of being involved in a road traffic accident due to incapacitation of your driver or that of another road user. Just falling asleep for instance... I just think it would be overkill to stipulate no passengers in any aircraft unless you have two pilots on board, that's all.
I agree with the point that you may be able to apply the brakes in lots of incapacitation situations in a car, but I think the risk of pilot incapacitation in a plane causing a problem because the passengers can't fly the thing, are far lower than the risk of being involved in a road traffic accident due to incapacitation of your driver or that of another road user. Just falling asleep for instance... I just think it would be overkill to stipulate no passengers in any aircraft unless you have two pilots on board, that's all.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mooneyboy
S/P should be got rid of even on things like TBM700. To be honest I even think no one should be allowed to take passengers who have no flying experience even in a PA 28 if their SP. I would never take my young kids flying in any aircraft because let's face it if I die/heart attack/stroke then I've just signed their death warrant too.
S/P should be got rid of even on things like TBM700. To be honest I even think no one should be allowed to take passengers who have no flying experience even in a PA 28 if their SP. I would never take my young kids flying in any aircraft because let's face it if I die/heart attack/stroke then I've just signed their death warrant too.
everything has a risk element to it but banning something just because you are not comfortable with it is nonsense. Lets face it with your suggestion above that would just about put a stop to all general aviation.
Last edited by Above The Clouds; 13th Aug 2015 at 17:44. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Private ops in Europe can be M, VP, N, 9M etc that do not always have FTL's. No operator in their right mind operates on the G, D, EI etc reg privately. There is a long way to go yet.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Angry Pilot
Interesting post #269 by Eat My Shorts. Hearsay but nevertheless noteworthy.
I would have thought given his experience, the poor chap would have been accustomed to the sudden lack of numeracy so common to bills in that part of the world, and not gone off at a tangent. Perhaps it lends credence to the speculation that he blew a fuse. Reminds me of the Staines Trident crash all those years ago. Best not to go off in a huff.
I would have thought given his experience, the poor chap would have been accustomed to the sudden lack of numeracy so common to bills in that part of the world, and not gone off at a tangent. Perhaps it lends credence to the speculation that he blew a fuse. Reminds me of the Staines Trident crash all those years ago. Best not to go off in a huff.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawker 800
Not really...
Private ops in Europe can be M, VP, N, 9M etc that do not always have FTL's. No operator in their right mind operates on the G, D, EI etc reg privately. There is a long way to go yet.
Not really...
Private ops in Europe can be M, VP, N, 9M etc that do not always have FTL's. No operator in their right mind operates on the G, D, EI etc reg privately. There is a long way to go yet.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest you read the rules again because its coming very soon
You are correct in one way that there is a change in regulations which will require private ops to operate under CAA oversight but not at present
I think we have to register with the CAA by December and it comes into effect next year.
Again for the small outfits it will mean a lot more paperwork and pen pushing to load the pilot even further
But if as whispers are suggesting it eliminates the need for dual licensing then it may be worth it if not where is that Cirrus
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 13th Aug 2015 at 19:23.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting post #269 by Eat My Shorts. Hearsay but nevertheless noteworthy.
I would have thought given his experience, the poor chap would have been accustomed to the sudden lack of numeracy so common to bills in that part of the world, and not gone off at a tangent. Perhaps it lends credence to the speculation that he blew a fuse. Reminds me of the Staines Trident crash all those years ago. Best not to go off in a huff.
I would have thought given his experience, the poor chap would have been accustomed to the sudden lack of numeracy so common to bills in that part of the world, and not gone off at a tangent. Perhaps it lends credence to the speculation that he blew a fuse. Reminds me of the Staines Trident crash all those years ago. Best not to go off in a huff.
This snippet if true may be the most revealing! Using a single pilot who is fighting over invoice detail and then landing into a cheap airport sounds like pressure to do things on the cheap.
We do not know his relationship with the PAX, whether he was poorly paid or owed money by them. whether their demands were excessive.
What conversations occurred enroute with the PAX and this ties in with the fact that a normal clear headed experienced pilot would not attempt such a stunt.
One with uncontrollable stress and anger may act out of character in an explosive careless attitude venting that anger on the aircraft and PAX
It sounds like a pilot who totally lost the plot and his senses for reasons as yet unknown
Pace
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing presently holding IOM operators to FTL's. Fact.
Pace, I never see this dual licensing bolleaux ever happening. To many pressures from the well to do...
As per the OM, you guys must have put that to the IOMAR for approval? Aren't they coming out with a generic one? When BJ was the boss, he was very clear that OM's would be required but FTL's never featured.
Having flown some of the IOM's heavier metal, I would be surprised if they'd loaded us with unnecessary paperwork and regs. As much as I want FTL's, it's too good to be true.
Last edited by Hawker 800; 13th Aug 2015 at 19:58.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chronus
This snippet if true may be the most revealing! Using a single pilot who is fighting over invoice detail and then landing into a cheap airport sounds like pressure to do things on the cheap.
We do not know his relationship with the PAX, whether he was poorly paid or owed money by them. whether their demands were excessive.
What conversations occurred enroute with the PAX and this ties in with the fact that a normal clear headed experienced pilot would not attempt such a stunt.
One with uncontrollable stress and anger may act out of character in an explosive careless attitude venting that anger on the aircraft and PAX
It sounds like a pilot who totally lost the plot and his senses for reasons as yet unknown
Pace
This snippet if true may be the most revealing! Using a single pilot who is fighting over invoice detail and then landing into a cheap airport sounds like pressure to do things on the cheap.
We do not know his relationship with the PAX, whether he was poorly paid or owed money by them. whether their demands were excessive.
What conversations occurred enroute with the PAX and this ties in with the fact that a normal clear headed experienced pilot would not attempt such a stunt.
One with uncontrollable stress and anger may act out of character in an explosive careless attitude venting that anger on the aircraft and PAX
It sounds like a pilot who totally lost the plot and his senses for reasons as yet unknown
Pace
I feel his pain.
Okay let's not make a distinct rule so no non flying passengers in light aircraft can fly with a single pilot but maybe more awareness could made during PPL training about responsibilities towards your passengers. When I did my PPL wasn't mentioned once. Is it really responsible to take someone up who wouldn't have the ability or knowledge to sort something out if something happened to your one and only pilot? Emphasis should be made on briefing pax especially on how to use the radio to ask for help.
In the cruise we had a cabin crew in the flight deck and the conversation came up about double pilot incap. Highly unlikely I know but I asked her what she would do. She said straight away they were told in training to talk on the radio and someone would help. So next I said do you know where the radio is? She didn't have a clue.
Above the clouds,
The car situation I guess out of incap whilst driving probably a very small fraction are your driving one minute next your out cold. Usually there's an indication something's not right with yourself and I know for one thing I can get a car stopped a hell of a lot quicker than an aircraft on the ground.
The two extra drivers just in case, unless your in a learner car with dual controls would be fairly useless.
Admittedly I was the cause for the thread drift but getting back to the original point biz jets should not be S/P due to the points mentioned.
In the cruise we had a cabin crew in the flight deck and the conversation came up about double pilot incap. Highly unlikely I know but I asked her what she would do. She said straight away they were told in training to talk on the radio and someone would help. So next I said do you know where the radio is? She didn't have a clue.
Above the clouds,
The car situation I guess out of incap whilst driving probably a very small fraction are your driving one minute next your out cold. Usually there's an indication something's not right with yourself and I know for one thing I can get a car stopped a hell of a lot quicker than an aircraft on the ground.
The two extra drivers just in case, unless your in a learner car with dual controls would be fairly useless.
Admittedly I was the cause for the thread drift but getting back to the original point biz jets should not be S/P due to the points mentioned.
Last edited by Mooneyboy; 13th Aug 2015 at 19:59. Reason: Missed word
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay let's not make a distinct rule so no non flying passengers in light aircraft can fly with a single pilot but maybe more awareness could made during PPL training about responsibilities towards your passengers. When I did my PPL wasn't mentioned once. Is it really responsible to take someone up who wouldn't have the ability or knowledge to sort something out if something happened to your one and only pilot? Emphasis should be made on briefing pax especially on how to use the radio to ask for help.
In the cruise we had a cabin crew in the flight deck and the conversation came up about double pilot incap. Highly unlikely I know but I asked her what she would do. She said straight away they were told in training to talk on the radio and someone would help. So next I said do you know where the radio is? She didn't have a clue.
Above the clouds,
The car situation I guess out of incap whilst driving probably a very small fraction are your driving one minute next your out cold. Usually there's an indication something's not right with yourself and I know for one thing I can get a car stopped a hell of a lot quicker than an aircraft on the ground.
The two extra drivers just in case, unless your in a learner car with dual controls would be fairly useless.
Admittedly I was the cause for the thread drift but getting back to the original point biz jets should not be S/P due to the points mentioned.
In the cruise we had a cabin crew in the flight deck and the conversation came up about double pilot incap. Highly unlikely I know but I asked her what she would do. She said straight away they were told in training to talk on the radio and someone would help. So next I said do you know where the radio is? She didn't have a clue.
Above the clouds,
The car situation I guess out of incap whilst driving probably a very small fraction are your driving one minute next your out cold. Usually there's an indication something's not right with yourself and I know for one thing I can get a car stopped a hell of a lot quicker than an aircraft on the ground.
The two extra drivers just in case, unless your in a learner car with dual controls would be fairly useless.
Admittedly I was the cause for the thread drift but getting back to the original point biz jets should not be S/P due to the points mentioned.
You've not fully thought this through have you Mooneyboy?
When you took your first ever trial flight, exactly how many pilots were on board? And exactly how likely would it have been that you could've landed the thing if your pilot had suddenly carked it?
When you took your first ever trial flight, exactly how many pilots were on board? And exactly how likely would it have been that you could've landed the thing if your pilot had suddenly carked it?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mooneyboy
back to the original point biz jets should not be S/P due to the points mentioned.
back to the original point biz jets should not be S/P due to the points mentioned.
Last edited by Above The Clouds; 15th Aug 2015 at 19:09.
Rules and regulations won't stop all accidents because in the end there has to be a basic assumption that you come to the party with a basic level of skills and a mindset that has some level of self preservation.
From old blokes willing to bullsh1t an air race entry form in a cut up P-51 Mustang to two commercial pilots willing to lift and immediately destroy an AW139 in poor viz. At some point the line is drawn somewhere and if there was commercial pressure then making more piloting rules and regs isn't going to help.
From old blokes willing to bullsh1t an air race entry form in a cut up P-51 Mustang to two commercial pilots willing to lift and immediately destroy an AW139 in poor viz. At some point the line is drawn somewhere and if there was commercial pressure then making more piloting rules and regs isn't going to help.
Okay let's not make a distinct rule so no non flying passengers in light aircraft can fly with a single pilot but maybe more awareness could made during PPL training about responsibilities towards your passengers. When I did my PPL wasn't mentioned once.
Part of the individual pilot's responsibility is ensuring he/she is suitably licensed (including valid medical which is relevant in this context) and also fit in every way for the proposed flight.
Recently I had a student who has not yet soloed but did an unusually poor flight with me for his stage of training. This person runs a very successful world wide business. As we taxied in he remarked "I had a blazing row with one of my employees this morning". On the debrief I remarked that this was a good lesson for him - i.e. don't go flying if you're not in the right frame of mind - it could be fatal to do so.
A lot of this is down to risk management. If the flight is essentially "private" am not sure it is reasonable to apply the same legislation as you would apply to commercial operations except where not to do so might adversely affect others. It is indeed fortuitous in this accident that nobody on the ground was killed or seriously injured.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, dear no SP brigade, what is your solution then to dual crew accidents ?
A third CM ?
This whole no SP talk is bollocks especially with the arguments used. (I fly 2 crew and have no issue with it - just to make sure you donīt think I have a personal stake in this... )
I fact the whole health and safety culture we developed in Europe in the last few years is totally tonto.
If an individual decides to bear additional risk, its his/hers decision. Period.
And before we start exchanging arguments: you wonīt change my opinion. (its as set as yours is)
FTL - to D reg operators, anyone receiving remuneration for flying is to obey the FTL regs. Has been so for the last 30 or 40 years....
Isn`t that the case with almost every crash ?
A third CM ?
This whole no SP talk is bollocks especially with the arguments used. (I fly 2 crew and have no issue with it - just to make sure you donīt think I have a personal stake in this... )
I fact the whole health and safety culture we developed in Europe in the last few years is totally tonto.
If an individual decides to bear additional risk, its his/hers decision. Period.
And before we start exchanging arguments: you wonīt change my opinion. (its as set as yours is)
FTL - to D reg operators, anyone receiving remuneration for flying is to obey the FTL regs. Has been so for the last 30 or 40 years....
It is indeed fortuitous in this accident that nobody on the ground was killed or seriously injured.