|
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn
(Post 10404892)
On a very wet day and a wet strip in weather that was not exactly VFR! Does this look wet to you? |
Originally Posted by runway30
(Post 10404900)
Pitts, it isn't a question of turning a blind eye, if everyone has a prepared statement about a mate doing a favour then there is no evidence and no prosecution.
The difference in this case is the person who paid for the flight has made a very public statement pointing fingers. He is no stranger to litigation and has started to defend himself before even being accused of anything. I might well agree some people are doing things that seem quite sharp, but on the basis this practice has been common place for at least 3 years (where the cost element shared by the pilot was reduced to 1p) then there can only be 3 options. 1) regulators are unconcerned because it isn't a problem 2) they are concerned it is a problem but required wording to change to prosecute flights they are unhappy about but failed to change the wording 3) regulators are concerned but can't be bothered to do anything until a high profile accident then they will have a look, which doesn't seem responsible either tbh |
I have received this email from Terry Holloway who is well known to many of you and MD of the Cambridge Flying Club. I have campaigned for quite some time for jockeys to use a safer means of transport locally, since I watched Franki Dettori crash. They regularly fly from the grass strip at Newmarket in all sorts of aeroplanes and I have encouraged them to use a proper local airport such as Cambridge! Rightly you raise the Haydock Park accident which you and I discussed at the time. The fact of the matter is that jockeys are not particularly well paid – unless they get a winner – and that they are looking for flying on the cheap, and I do know that Dave Henderson has been flying jockeys in that very aeroplane. My understanding is that it is not necessary to have an AOC to conduct that sort of flying. A pilot - however inexperienced – with a CPL is able, as I understand it, to transport anyone and be paid for doing so. Frankly, Dibbo with a PPL and 3700 hrs was probably much more competent, and safer, than a newly qualified CPL who only has 250 hours, and is hours building before he can get into an airline job. However, everyone has to start somewhere, but the issue for me with the jockeys is putting too much risk in the process: poor weather/inexperienced pilot/inadequate landing strips. Wingly is a different matter, and as you know I have banned its use at the Cambridge Aero club – or rather banned our members using our aeroplanes for Wingly flights. I believe the intention of the CAA was to provide opportunities for young inexperienced holders of PPLs is to gain experience by flying more - to be safer - which is why they introduced the cost sharing scheme. Unfortunately, Wingly has exploited that, and you get the ridiculous situation where a PPL holder with maybe 50 or 60 hours is taking people for what is effectively a commercial flight. It goes rather deeper than that, because Wingly pilots are also allowing their passengers to handle the controls and that is strictly forbidden unless you happen to be a flying instructor. As the holder of an ATO I can teach people to fly, but because I do not have an AOC my highly experienced instructors cannot take people for passenger/charter flights in my aeroplanes – they can only be used for training! Another idiosyncrasy in the rules, Is that the CAA has placed very clear restrictions on PPL holders taking members of the public for a charity flight - de facto a commercial flight - but then Wingly runs roughshod over that as well! The Wingly pilots are not being supervised or controlled, and there are no weather minimal in force. It’s all very dangerous Wingly needs to be stopped! |
Frankly, Dibbo with a PPL and 3700 hrs was probably much more competent, and safer, than a newly qualified CPL who only has 250 hours, and is hours building before he can get into an airline job.
I am shocked at Terry saying this. He might have had 3700 hours of take offs and landings but if he had 0 hours at night and was not qualified/current on instruments then he was dangerously negligent and I don't think a newly qualified CPL would be that stupid. |
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn
(Post 10404913)
I have received this email from Terry Holloway who is well known to many of you and MD of the Cambridge Flying Club. Further he may well speak about his highly experienced instructors and perhaps they are yet prior to AOC holders complaints over Wingly the other grumble surrounded the "Air experience" / gift flight conducted by this time inexperienced instructors! You can have a conversation around the conduct of individual flights and if they are safely done or not (i.e. handling of the controls etc) and you can argue the relevant ratings this accident pilot may or may not have had, but what I don't think you can say with much confidence is that Wingly pilots are creating lots of smoking holes and I think that actually the root of this is more likely to be found in an overly onerous and costly AOC process than in any other place. Wingly and its pilots are supervised just as any other pilot would be -the regulator has the same powers over them as anyone else? I am shocked at Terry saying this. He might have had 3700 hours of take offs and landings but if he had 0 hours at night and was not qualified/current on instruments then he was dangerously negligent and I don't think a newly qualified CPL would be that stupid. |
Pitts, it is the difference between negligence and gross negligence. It doesn’t really matter what the mistake was that sent them into the Channel, on departure the combination of ratings, experience and weather made it very likely that something would happen that would stop them reaching their destination and that is the recklessness. |
There have been many selective quotations from SERA trying to prove a point but perhaps they should be the relative quotations:
GM1 SERA.5005(c)(3)(iii) Visual flight rules NIGHT VFR ON TOP When flying in airspace classes B, C, D, E, F, or G, more than 900 m (3 000 ft) above mean sea level (MSL) or 300 m (1 000 ft) above terrain, whichever is higher, the pilot may elect to fly above a cloud layer (VFR on top). When making the decision on whether to fly above or below a cloud at night, consideration should be given at least but not limited to the following: (a) The likelihood of weather at destination allowing a descent in visual conditions; (b) Lighting conditions below and above the cloud layer; (c) The likelihood of the cloud base descending, if flight below cloud is chosen, thus resulting in terrain clearance being lost; (d) The possibility of flight above the cloud leading to flight between converging cloud layers; (e) The possibility of successfully turning back and returning to an area where continuous sight of surface can be maintained; and (f) The possibilities for the pilot to establish their location at any point of the route to be flown, taking into consideration also the terrain elevation and geographical and man-made obstacles. There is NO mention of maintaining visual contact with the ground - in fact (e) indicates that it is not necessary |
Red Plum, what you are quoting is the Guidance Material (GM) of SERA that explains, a contrario, that when above 3000 ft AMSL (or 1000 ft AGL) maintaining sight of the surface is no more required and thus VFR on top is possible.
The actual SERA requirement states that, below 3000 ft AMSL (or 1000 ft AGL), keeping sight of the surface is mandatory.
Originally Posted by SERA.5005(a)(iii)
(iii) in airspace classes B, C, D, E, F and G, at and below 900 m (3 000 ft) AMSL or 300 m (1 000 ft) above terrain, whichever is the higher, the pilot shall maintain continuous sight of the surface; and’;
Sera regulation writers have played the same game as FAR authors : what is not explicitly forbidden is permitted. |
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
(Post 10404934)
Come on - it may not suit the current mood of outrage but I can give you dozens of CPL/ATPLs that make mistakes, even with all the associated ratings.
|
The Legal Aspects
It would appear this particular accident has a similar theme to the death of the distinguished lawyer, Sir Ian Brownlie QC and his daughter Rebecca In January 2010, Lady Brownlie with her husband Sir Brownlie were on holiday in Egypt, staying at the Four Seasons Hotel Cairo at Nile Plaza. On a previous visit to the hotel, she had picked up a leaflet published by the hotel advertising safari tours which it provided. Before leaving England on the subsequent trip, she telephoned the hotel and booked with the concierge an excursion to Fayoum in a hired chauffeur-driven car. The excursion took place on 3 January, and ended in tragedy. The car left the road and crashed. The passengers, in addition to Sir Ian and Lady Brownlie, were his daughter Rebecca, and Rebecca’s two children. Sir Ian and Rebecca were killed. Lady Brownlie and the two children were seriously injured. The full text of the Supreme Court`s decision may be found at : https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...5-judgment.pdf The Appeal Court`s earlier decision is more detailed and can be found at : 1 Chancery Lane | Court of Appeal Judgment - Brownlie -v- Four Seasons Holdings Inc |
Originally Posted by beamer
(Post 10405065)
It seems that some people are falling into the old trap of equating flying hours with capability. A thousand hours of teaching circuits does not make a good aerobatic pilot, ten thousand hours in the rhs of a heavy four jet does not necessarily mean the same pilot will make a good commander, twenty thousand hours in multi-engine aircraft does not automatically mean that a pilot is anything more than competent in GA; in each scenario it might but no guarantee. It would be wrong to speculate too much into the Malibu incident but I get the sense that a chain of events took place which put the pilot into a corner from which he felt the simplest way out was to complete the flight. Perhaps there were ample opportunites to break that chain but none was taken resulting in tragedy. |
Originally Posted by vanHorck
(Post 10405093)
The corner started only AFTER he accepted the flight, despite not being licensed to execute. Also Sala knew and texted he wanted to return in the evening. We are all told to avoid get-home-ites. By accepting a commercial flight he put himself in the corner. I agree with you on the CPL/PPL thing.
|
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
(Post 10404934)
I think that actually the root of this is more likely to be found in an overly onerous and costly AOC process than in any other place
|
@ sense re your #1620... indeed, I have encountered DYKWIA in ATC, to the extent that I filed an official Report against one of our locally-based Captains. Pressures can be applied from all quarters, and it requires a bit of balls to tell those up the food chain to go away. |
I think the biggest surprise most Wingly PPLs will get is when confronted by an aggressive cost sharing passenger who demands what he paid for whilst saying, "it looks alright to me" ...... I'd like to think he's learned something since |
Originally Posted by oggers
(Post 10405188)
I see what you are saying but I think the outrage is fuelled more by the clear culture of non-compliance around this operation than any yet to be established pilot error.
If that flight had been flown by a commercial pilot, planning and making the flight professionally but making a stupid mistake during the approach and crashing the aircraft, this whole discussion would have been reduced to: "very sad, but it can happen to everyone to make deadly mistakes". |
No pilot is immune from making an in-flight error. The difference with this Sala accident is that critical errors were made on the ground, even before the engine was started.
|
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
(Post 10404879)
How many accidents can you recall that would satisfy the terms of illegal "grey flying" which let me push you to suggest that were such flying to be illegal then given the duty of the CAA there would surely follow a prosecution. I can think of just 1, the recently prosecuted PA28 / Manchester pilot.
Unless I am oblivious to a heap more then either one must conclude it either doesn't happen or the CAA turn a blind eye? On arrival there were the two men in blazers, stripey ties and clipboards who checked the docs and, at my insistence, looked at the performance figures. I then pointed to the Bandierante parked next to the Otter (and which had no chance of operating legally from the short grass strip) and asked if they were going to check his performance figures. They pointed to the Irish registration and said they had no authority to inspect foreign registered aircraft, so no. I guess that would still apply to N reg a/c. |
Regarding the observation that at one stage CAA Flight Operations and Air Taxi Operations Inspectors did not have authority to board and inspect foreign registered aircraft, this is quite correct. When I was granted a CAA Flight Operations Inspector's Authority and Certificate of Appointment in February 1986 the relevant text began:
"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN The Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland certifies that the holder of this certificate is a Flight Operations Inspector appointed to inspect in the interests of aviation safety the operation of aircraft registered in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern ireland, wherever they may be." Then in December 1994 an additional sentence was inserted so as to continue the previous text thus, " and the operation of aircraft not so registered whilst they are within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." |
Originally Posted by VerdunLuck
(Post 10405314)
They pointed to the Irish registration and said they had no authority to inspect foreign registered aircraft, so no. I guess that would still apply to N reg a/c.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:55. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.