Force landing, and they all walked away.

[treadigraph]

I can't find an AAIB report either - can't think that publication would have been delayed?

[Mike Flynn]

Originally Posted by treadigraph

I can't find an AAIB report either - can't think that publication would have been delayed?

Is it possible the AAIB were never informed?

Where no one is hurt it is usually down to the pilot to submit a report by post.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Mike Flynn

Is it possible the AAIB were never informed?

Where no one is hurt it is usually down to the pilot to submit a report by post.

Injuries were sustained, including broken ribs - see the link in your earlier post - and the accident is the subject of both AAIB and CAA investigations.

[jolihokistix]

Quote: "Murgatroyd will be sentenced on March 15, and was granted bail".

Ah, so obviously no risk of flight, then.

[Mike Flynn]

Originally Posted by jolihokistix

Quote: "Murgatroyd will be sentenced on March 15, and was granted bail".

Ah, so obviously no risk of flight, then.

His bail conditions prevent him flying.

....prohibited from piloting or co-piloting any aircraft. He was also ordered to live and sleep at his given address.

Given his previous and the judges comments it is safe to say this wayward bird will have his wings clipped and be caged for some time.

[happybiker]

He is a serial offender and in this case has been found guilty on all counts. From the CPS website:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/north-west/ne...mercial-flight

Notes to editors

• Robert Murgatroyd (DOB: 19 May 1966) was convicted of the following charges:
  • Endangering the safety of an aircraft
  • Endangering the safety of a person
  • Illegal public Transport
  • Flying otherwise than in accordance with a licence
  • Flying otherwise than in accordance with any conditions/limitations contained in the aircraft flight manual
  • Failure to comply with the insurance regulation
  • Flying without the aircraft flight manual

[uncle dickie]

The lack of any obvious AAIB involvement in this crash landing is somewhat strange given the non fatal injuries sustained. Perhaps RM did notify the AAIB?

Police & CAA according to reports carried out the investigation & interviews. AAIB behind the scenes must be a distinct possibility?

No doubt once the dust has settled after 15 March, an explanation will be provided by the authorities and an AAIB report will be published.
The dots will eventually be joined up....

[Mike Flynn]

Originally Posted by uncle dickie

The lack of any obvious AAIB involvement in this crash landing is somewhat strange given the non fatal injuries sustained. Perhaps RM did notify the AAIB?

Police & CAA according to reports carried out the investigation & interviews. AAIB behind the scenes must be a distinct possibility?

No doubt once the dust has settled after 15 March, an explanation will be provided by the authorities and an AAIB report will be published.
The dots will eventually be joined up....

My understanding is that the police recovered the aircraft and held in possession as evidence.Given their detailed investigation I imagine that will provide all the necessary for the AAIB report.

There are quite a few rogues in GA!

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by uncle dickie

The lack of any obvious AAIB involvement in this crash landing is somewhat strange given the non fatal injuries sustained.

Most of the AAIB's investigations (other than high-profile ones that involve on-site presence) do not come into the public domain until the report is published, usually in one of their monthly bulletins.

While this one has taken longer to emerge than most, that's probably a by-product of the police involvement and the court case.

[The Old Fat One]

Hands up if you think the current application of "cost sharing" rules will shortly be taken out, dusted down and subjected to the same sort of compliance standards that are de rigueur in many other industries.

[Hot 'n' High]

Originally Posted by The Old Fat One

Hands up if you think the current application of "cost sharing" rules will shortly be taken out, dusted down and subjected to the same sort of compliance standards that are de rigueur in many other industries.

Quite how it has been allowed to get to this position is beyond me. Or maybe certain "influencers" with their hands in the honey pot? But then I'm a confirmed cynic!

[Chris Royle]

Was this a Wingly flight?

[The Old Fat One]

Was this a Wingly flight?

I don't think so???

Plenty of info in the PF forum on another thread. Point is with two flights now splashed all over the media re "cost sharing", I suspect the CAA will have no choice but to wake up and get real. Once they have sorted out brexit, that is.

Quite how it has been allowed to get to this position is beyond me.

Quite. Although, I think I would be looking at the archaic relationship between flying clubs and flying schools, added to the commercial need for bucket-loads of lo-cost pilots, were I to be researching the current regulatory mish mash.

[Maoraigh1]

Does the CAA have any responsibility for the current cost-sharing rules? I thought they were EASA rules.

[Global_Global]

Originally Posted by Maoraigh1

Does the CAA have any responsibility for the current cost-sharing rules? I thought they were EASA rules.

EASA creates the rules with all the stakeholders like the NAA's and other parties that want to have a say like AOPA, unions, etc. The delegated authority, reads in this case the UK CAA, is responsible for enforcement.

[Good Business Sense]

Originally Posted by Global_Global

EASA creates the rules with all the stakeholders like the NAA's and other parties that want to have a say like AOPA, unions, etc. The delegated authority, reads in this case the UK CAA, is responsible for enforcement.

EASA are also supposed to do a financial impact analysis - try and get a copy of that - whilst you're there ask for a list of the AOC Holders, flying clubs and insurers that thought that "cost sharing", in it's current form, was a good idea.

The consultation was flawed in many ways - I didn't respond to the consultation because the "cost sharing" rule change was proposed to allow fellow pilots, club members and friends to share costs (nothing wrong with that I thought). The CAA wrote a great deal during the consultation and even well after the law was passed emphasising the "cost sharing" rules that I've just mentioned (I've got screenshots of all) - Suddenly, third party agents such as Wingly etc appeared employing PPLs to fly the general public who had bought flights and gift cards from their website - Gift cards can also be bought and given to people/third parties who had no idea (probably the same as the purchaser) what Cost sharing, PPLs etc etc all means. So like SALA they were unable to assess the safety aspects of the flight accurately for themselves i.e. whether they wished to take the risk associated with flying with someone who has 55 hours total time or with a commercially licensed AOC operation.

Sadly, it wasn't long before the CAA did a complete 180 by removing the advised restrictions and towing the EASA party line.

[The AvgasDinosaur]

Originally Posted by snchater

Robert Murgatroyd is the owner of the Pa-28 involved in the Barton incident.

Google 'G-BBBK' and 'G-BBEF' for details of two previous fatal accidents to aircraft owned by Murgatroyd - he doesn't come across as a particularly responsible operator.

if my memory is correct one of his ‘Flying School’ aircraft crashed at Caernarfon, the pilot was shocked and dismayed to find the aircraft was not insured. This earned a ban from operating from Blackpool and forced his move to Barton. One can only wonder why Peel Holdings didn’t make diligent enquiries as to why he was evicted from Blackpool before allowing him to set up shop at Barton, sorry Manchester City Airport!!
Be lucky
David

[Whopity]

I thought they were EASA rules.

There are no EASA Rules. All Regulations came from the EC now the EU. Whilst changes to the rules can be acheived through the NPA process, the time taken to do so is excessive with 3-5 years being fairly normal and the end product often bears no resemblance to the initial proposal. DTOs being just one example.

[elmorejames]

Norman Stanley Murgatroyd, you have been found guilty of the charges brought by this court, and it is now my duty to pass sentence. You are an habitual criminal, who accepts crashing an aircraft as an occupational hazard, and presumably accepts imprisonment in the same casual manner. We therefore feel constrained to commit you for the maximum term allowed for these offences. You will go to prison for......(fill in the blank tomorrow)

[PENNINE BOY]

Murgatroyd

Sentenced today for 3 1/2 years