Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

Bad landing = negligence

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

Bad landing = negligence

Old 25th Mar 2021, 09:19
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Bridgwater
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR View Post
I see it differently: He said that he never saw the ferris wheel, which is hard to accept, as he is reported as doing a flyby/touch and go before the accident pass. If the pilot could do a flyby/touch and go, and not be aware that the ferris wheel was there at all, that's negligent.
The question is, where was his focus at each stage of the landing, touch and go, go around? He might have seen the Ferris Wheel, physically, on his first touch and go, but was not truly aware of it because his mind was focussed elsewhere - and I believe that pilots have different levels of mental capacity. Maybe you and I would have seen and been aware of the Ferris Wheel but to call him negligent because he possibly lacked the mental capacity to understand the implications of it's positioning is, I feel, a little harsh. The second time, he went around, was nose high and bang - smacked into the Ferris Wheel without knowing what he hit.
FullMetalJackass is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2021, 12:11
  #22 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 4,845
I'm not expert in the definition of negligent. But, in my opinion, if you've flown a pass to assess the aerodrome environment, seen a hazard proximate to the approach or departure path, and then continue to land, forget it's there, and hit it minutes later, it's hard to argue against some level of negligence...
Pilot DAR is online now  
Old 25th Mar 2021, 15:12
  #23 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 60
Posts: 1,411
If you read the case you will see that the "negligence" finding for the pilot related to the fact that he landed late, not that he hit the Ferris Wheel, or didn't see it.

Basically, this case means that in law a pilot who finds themselves on finals "hot & high" but tries anyway is "negligent".
John R81 is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2021, 19:40
  #24 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 4,845
Basically, this case means that in law a pilot who finds themselves on finals "hot & high" but tries anyway is "negligent".
Yes, that, is a worrying legal interpretation situation....
Pilot DAR is online now  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 02:14
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,787
if you've flown a pass to assess the aerodrome environment, seen a hazard proximate to the approach or departure path, and then continue to land, forget it's there, and hit it minutes later, it's hard to argue against some level of negligence
Yet the Yak thread shows if you don't assess the landing strip for hazards and run into something, despite the obstacle being an intruder, the court will find in your favour.
megan is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 12:09
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 978
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR View Post
Yes, that, is a worrying legal interpretation situation....
What is worrying about that? In commercial aviation the concept of a "stabilized approach" has been in use since 60 (!) years. If your approach is not stable at a specific height above the threshold (i.e. you must be on centreline and glidepath, configured for landing and flying at Vref +/- a set margin) you have to go around. Continuing an unstable approach is not only negligent but constitues a violation with all possible consequences, especially in case of an accident or incident.
Flying according this concept is not beyond the capabilities of a recreational pilot, and every flying school for which I have been instructing during the past 30 years has implemented this concept to some degree. Here is an excellent writeup from IATA regarding this subject: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/b...nd-edition.pdf
what next is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 17:47
  #27 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 4,845
Continuing an unstable approach is not only negligent but constitues a violation with all possible consequences,
I agree that in an employee/employer relationship, a pilot must fly the plane the way the company procedures state, and doing otherwise is negligent - corporately. If company procedures say "on centreline and glidepath, configured for landing and flying at Vref +/- a set margin", then that's the standard. However, I'm not aware of a legal standard (in Canada, anyway) for a stabilized approach/touchdown. Yes, there could be a "negligent" approach and landing (probably a crash), but there's a wide grey zone between the on centerline, on glideslope on speed approach, and the assured to crash approach.

I can think of many examples where the only things stable during the approach are the rate of turn to final approach, the rate of descent and the rate of deceleration. I've done a number of landings, both to runway and to water, where topography precluded a straight in approach for more than short final. If you crossed the fence at the right speed, altitude, and lateral position, it was most likely not a negligent approach, and a decent landing is possible - though could still be botched too I suppose... On the other hand, I've flown beautiful, well set up approaches, to have Tower ask me to keep the speed up as long as possible. I had four times the runway length I needed for a landing, so it was not a problem to cross the threshold at"cruise" speed, and essentially, start my approach from there.

Negligence will be very hard to qualify for a landing, as what one pilot botches horribly, another pilot could probably make work quite neatly...
Pilot DAR is online now  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 20:36
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moray,Scotland,U.K.
Posts: 1,578
Landing a low inertia wood-and-fabric tailwheel aircraft with a gusting crosswind, do not consider the approach stable until two tiedowns are secured, or the aircraft is partly in the hangar.
Especially on tarmac, and when the crosswind element is above the manufacturer's demonstrated limit.
The stabilised approach is a high inertia procedure.
Maoraigh1 is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 21:28
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 978
Originally Posted by Maoraigh1 View Post
Landing a low inertia wood-and-fabric tailwheel aircraft with a gusting crosswind, do not consider the approach stable until two tiedowns are secured, or the aircraft is partly in the hangar.
Especially on tarmac, and when the crosswind element is above the manufacturer's demonstrated limit.
The stabilised approach is a high inertia procedure.
Basically yes. But there was no gusting crosswind involved in this accident. And a gusting crosswind is also a factor when landing a tranport category aircraft. If the approach is not stabilised at 1000, 500 or 200 feet (whatever one's "gate" is set at) it will not result in a safe landing. Some kind of landing maybe, but a good landing is always the result of a good approach (don't know who said that, but it could have been the Wright brothers).
Anyway, in the end the verdict is spoken by a judge and jury who base it on testimonials from experts (among them pilots and other aviation professionals as in this case). Therefore we must never forget that the aircraft we operate, be it for work or leisure, can pose a substantial risk to innocent bystanders at any time. Which means that we have to apply more than "normal" care all the time when we fly. It can not be that others have to suffer the rest of their lives because of our passion. If I would have called as an expert to testify before this court I would then have said exactly what that ex 747 captain did. If you are fast and high you go around. You don't fly into Ferris wheels instead. If "negligence" ever had a meaning then it is exactly that.
what next is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 22:37
  #30 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 4,845
It can not be that others have to suffer the rest of their lives because of our passion.
Absolutely true! We pilots have chosen to fly, and in doing so, allow the risk of an airplane in motion to exist. We have no right to increase the risk to someone else of being hit by it, because we chose to fly. This goes to the heart of my point, as a responsible pilot, we do whatever it takes to be aware of hazards and collision risks, so we prevent a collision. If you're not aware of an obvious risk, why not? If you're aware, and you allow your piloting to increase the risk, why?
Pilot DAR is online now  
Old 3rd Apr 2021, 07:10
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 2,817
I'm pretty impressed with the construction of the Ferris Wheel - I'd have guessed it would go right over from such an impact
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2021, 07:48
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: LHBS
Posts: 245
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
I'm pretty impressed with the construction of the Ferris Wheel - I'd have guessed it would go right over from such an impact
I am impressed how it caught the aircraft like a safety net!
This was a 1 in a milliion chance to survive from the aircraft occupant's point of view.
Hitting obstacles durng a climb hardly ever produces such a lucky outcome.
rnzoli is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2021, 08:22
  #33 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 13,124
This discussion is just going round and round.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 12:06
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: La Rochelle.
Age: 45
Posts: 515
But speaking as a person who was ejected through the windshield, into the water, by my student, woke up four days later, and then spent three months in hospital, I immediately decided for myself, and was vigorously mentored, to get over it and get on with my life,
A shocking occurrence and an admirable attitude for moving on with life. However, I'm not sure your experience as a flying instructor (and all that entails) can necessarily be equated to that of a 13 year-old kid out for a day's fun. Going by the video, she had to endure being stuck up there for well over an hour and, as you would expect from an older child, being in fear for her life all that time.
clareprop is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 13:41
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 126
Remember that this is just NSW, and not a binding precedent anywhere else.

At para 107 of the ruling, once can smell the evidence pointing to pilot error and negligence:

In other words, the process undertaken by the Pilot was one which, on any reasonable basis, could not identify risks involved in the landing or take-off of the aircraft, namely, obstacles on the Airstrip (albeit in the very small area that was obscured by the aircraft) and in the splay to the south of the Airstrip. Further, to the extent that the Pilot discerned colours, as he said in evidence, but could not ascertain the height and nature of the coloured item, this demanded further investigation.

The judge went on to say that the pilot had no claim against the Council for the placing of the Ferris Wheel, as the pilot was engaging in an inherently dangerous activity (i.e flying recreationally).

Had this happened in the UK or Ireland, then the pilot would be held strictly liable, without any need or proof of negligence, for the damages to the claimant. (Section 76 (2), Civil Aviation Act 1982 - e.g. Shoreham Airshow accident). The ruling would have been half the length...


Swiss Cheese is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 22:08
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moray,Scotland,U.K.
Posts: 1,578
"Had this happened in the UK or Ireland, then the pilot would be held strictly liable, without any need or proof of negligence, for the damages to the claimant"
Are you sure? The Shoreham Airshow crash was very different - not performing a standard manoeuvre at an airfield.
Was the Ferris Wheel NOTAM'd?
An English Local Authority erected a marker post in the middle of a private strip, after a pilot took off, and he hit it landing into the low sun on return. The pilot was not criticised
I agree the girl was an innocent victim deserving compensation.
But whoever sanctioned the wheel position should pay. They knew about the airfield.

Maoraigh1 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2021, 10:55
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 978
Originally Posted by Maoraigh1 View Post
But whoever sanctioned the wheel position should pay.
If you read the court proceedings you will see that indeed, they do have to pay. Two thirds. And the pilot (or rather his insurance) has to pay one third.
what next is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2021, 18:41
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 126
100% sure. Read S 76 (2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to understand the strict liability regime applicable in such circumstances. It matters not whether it is a T7 doing aerobatics at a commercial show, or an ultralight at a private strip. For the insomniacs amongst us, the Section is repeated below:

Section 76 Liability of aircraft in respect of trespass, nuisance and surface damage.(1)No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order and of any orders under section 62 above have been duly complied with F1....

(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, where material loss or damage is caused to any person or property on land or water by, or by a person in, or an article, animal or person falling from, an aircraft while in flight, taking off or landing, then unless the loss or damage was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the person by whom it was suffered, damages in respect of the loss or damage shall be recoverable without proof of negligence or intention or other cause of action, as if the loss or damage had been caused by the wilful act, neglect, or default of the owner of the aircraft.

(3)Where material loss or damage is caused as aforesaid in circumstances in which—

(a)damages are recoverable in respect of the said loss or damage by virtue only of subsection (2) above, and

(b)a legal liability is created in some person other than the owner to pay damages in respect of the said loss or damage,

the owner shall be entitled to be indemnified by that other person against any claim in respect of the said loss or damage.

(4)Where the aircraft concerned has been bona fide demised, let or hired out for any period exceeding fourteen days to any other person by the owner thereof, and no pilot, commander, navigator or operative member of the crew of the aircraft is in the employment of the owner, this section shall have effect as if for references to the owner there were substituted references to the person to whom the aircraft has been so demised, let or hired out.
Swiss Cheese is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.