Cowboys in the Sky! (ref:recent accident-series)
 

As long as there are cowboys out there that think they have to fuel their egos by flying stunts like using water as a touchdown spot or flying low over a full rugby stadion, there will always be some easy to impress youngsters/inexperienced pilots that feel it's OK to push the limit!
It also does not help that the CAA is fire and flame to support those irresponsible nutters! They should rather pull licences...http://static.pprune.org/images/icons//icon8.gif
Com'on Skully, take that 74 and fly it again out of Rand! Should be right up your alley!http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/pukey.gif
Deaths like the ones in Rand are on your consience my friend,...think about it (for once...)

(But then again, who needs to think when one is a skygod......)

My heart and thoughts go out to those who lost their lifes in the recent accidents and those who got left behind alone!http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif

Oh come on, man! Get real.

How do the actions of a pilot who is hugely experienced, capable and in control of his ego negatively influence some inexperienced guy whose ego totally outstrips his abilities??

The fault is not with the guys who CAN do it, it is the fools who would like to THINK THEY CAN! Sadly, no amount of instruction will ever teach common sense to an individual who is disrespectful of the laws of physics and common sense.

If you want to blame anyone then blame the culture of low time/questionable ability and a get them out the door mentality from instructors that is putting people out there who are hardly qualified to fly in broad daylight in some cases, let alone in any stressful environment.

Yes, the recent spate of accidents is horrible, but the fault is not with Scully and his peers who are PROFESSIONALS of SUPERB ABILITIES who think their actions through completely and rehearse thouroughly before they set out to "be irresponsible cowboys".

Take a step back and think about this again. People have always tried to emulate and outdo others regardless of the differences in experience levels between them and the results have almost always been painful or tragic.
The only difference here is that it's not a bunch of kids on bicycles or skateboards trying to outdo each other, but kids with deadly toys that kill far more people than are involved in the posturing and willy-swinging.

If you going to name people, one should be a bit more specific, I believe.
I would imagine that an empty 747 or 340, with minimal fuel on board is rather light. So, if it lost TWO engines simultaneously on the same wing, it very likely is not un-flyable, even at 2000' a.g.l.
Secondly, have a look at mentioned Skygod at the next air show. He is about the only aerobatic pilot doing a display who, if a wing sheared off at any given time, the wreckage would NOT land in the crowd, alla Ramschtein style. I am NO defender of the Skygods, but we should not use names here.

Back to the male ego. Yes, very very much the problem at hand with most of the accidents of late, I imagine/surmise, from my armchair sitting at home on the ground.
If you read "The naked pilot" you will see that (surprisingly) at the end of his book, he says that he has not even touched on the devil of "the male ego" in aviation safety.
I HASTEN to add: NOT just the male ego, but both male AND female egos of lately. 1980's onwards. [see S.Trenchpath etc etc]:}

Setron, that’s like blaming Michael Schumacher for road accidents.

A read through horrific litany of aircraft accidents in South Africa recently arises in the mind only one word - airmanship - rather lack of it. In so many of the recent disasters the question could be raised as to whether absence of airmanship is possibly the primary cause of the accident and lose of life.
Airmanship was to be a quality that had to be demonstrated by a pilot before he was either checked out as a PPL or had his two year(???) renewal check. If a trainee was not demonstrating airmanship he did not check out - even if the flying was perfekt. If this quality is now lacking in SA general aviation, it is perhaps that the instructor profession must bear much of the responsibility and that in the Flight Ops at CAA, the ultimate over seer, should ask itself if it does enough to monitor the control exercised by Grade II instructors over Grade III instructors and the dedication and maturity of those Grade II people thermselves.

Setron - your post smacks of failed SAA selections - - - maybe look at yourself harder????????? rather than blame 1 person.

I was in SA for 12 months over 20 years ago, working for a SA company flying SA req aircraft.

The thing that struck me during my time down there was a lot of pilots were damned cowboys. Beat ups seemed the norm and a lot of unauthorized low flying was witnessed. Lack of self discipline and poor airman-ship, seems to be the root of the problem, they seemed to be having THEN and it seems it has not improved, judging by the accident rate. IMHO. "Aggressive flying" has no place in civil aviation, therefore best it remains with the military.

Operational low flying can only be carried with any degree of safety, only after hours of training, practise and be current!

They published this paper with the results of an enquiry back then and new rules were implemented. Still hasn't had any impact on the accident rate.

Until people who get licenses, realize that aircraft, as with all motor vehicles are lethal if you fool about in them, the accident rate will remain high. It may take a generation for it to improve. It is the impromptu display that will take out people and their innocent passengers as much as anything else. Resist that temptation!

In my view airshows should not be banned, as most displays are carried out by competent pilots after hours of practise and who are current and remain so.

If any pilot needs to get his/her rocks off, and play the fool in an aircraft do this and you may survive. 1/ get someone to show you how to do a bet up properly. 2/ Then, if you haven't got it out of your system do it miles away from anywhere on your own. If you screw it up at least you wont have taken out an innocent passenger or bystander with you. You of course will not have an audience, so not really worth it, is it?

Yes I have made mistakes throughout my career, so learn from others as you will not live long enough to make all the mistakes yourself. I started learning 40 years ago. You will notice I said started learning because I still am learning. We learn from our mistakes.

I think it is a good thing for instructors to take their students to see the aircraft that have been involved in fatal accidents. It ain't a pretty sight believe me and it if makes just one student think twice before doing something stupid, it is worth while.

No but look - only can gain opinion from reading what is published but the recent accidents are not as much to do with being a cowboy as they are straigh forward lack of common sense and airmanship.........
Without being in judgment but statement of facts..........

It is not clever to retracrt flap while on runway or while moving.
A Baron conversion instructor should point out differences in models of switch position.
On a summer morning on Rwy 35 ast Rand, not much is safelyairborne with six people on or with one engine.
Etc and on and on.....
There is something wrong here at the grass roots!

Airmanship, Cowboys...........................???????...........



Don't you think we need to find out the causes of some of the accidents before we point fingers. I have heard that a wing came off one of the planes but that is not confirmed. Another a turbo was lost on take off.

Lets get the facts. Too many accidents.

Still not a good situation. :ugh::ugh:

Weird Salt - your observations from over 20 years ago show a trend?

I think that you missed what happened inbetween.

:confused:

I must agree with some of the posters that the problem has a deep grounding in a lack of basic Airmanship.
How to address it and fix it once the "uneducated" have been passed off as qualified is for someone much higher up the foodchain than me to figure out, but it is a serious issue that needs addressing.

One of the big challenges to this is that you cannot teach common sense. The best is to try and hammer on the thought processes that will lead to forethought rather than hindsight.

Setron, Setron, Setron,

You are such a misguided, vindictive, little personality. And then to add the pretentious, OTT little emotional bit at the end of your post... Pathetic.

Stand by for an interesting development fairly soon after this... You're gonna be sooooo surprised.

With absolutely no respect at all,

P&F

Unstable Load,

Good post!

Cheers,

P&F

Instructors must not teach flying alone but also airmanship. It is like flying in alps. Many different things to watch out for there. You cannot see the dangers always. You must be tought to anticipate the problem before it comes to you.
Airmanship can be -ingested? But the instructor has to awaken a chain of lateral thought process in the student. It is then the responsibility of the examining instructor-CAA? to ensure that this process has been done, possible he has to invent scenarios and ask questions, on taxi out for test for example, to see if the training process has lit the fire of airmanship thinking. Airmanship in the past is a subject in its own right. Is it still? You could pass a flight test for skill but fail it because of lack of airmanship - so should it be. But it takes a strong CAA to enforce a regime where one can be failed for attitude!

Someting is wrong in the state of SA Aviation...
 

Thanks to all the posts, the well founded (for good thoughts)and and the plain stupid (for a good laugh)!
Also this is in my view not a laughing matter!!!
Lets go:
Puff & Fart - as usual not very constructive and way of the subject!
unstable load - quite correct, airmanship plays a big factor, but I recon if one is a ass on the highway, then you won't change when you strap wings to your bum. It's a culture thing.
exjet - things have changed (for the better) but not far enough!
CJ 750 - Of course we have to find out what happened in the "Rand" case to make it saver for all. Every accident should help to save lifes later but the rootproblem is not metalfatique...
DaH - " There is something wrong here at the grass roots! " :ok:
It has become much easyer to get your instructor and this shows now. CAA has lost it and the people pay for it. There is no room for empowerment in Aviation if you have to lower standards of safety to achieve it!
weido_salt - 20 years ago Nelson was still reshaping stones; Things do change over time, it's just a matter of Hdg & Speed!
biggestboy - Wrong; never wanted to be a Train-driver so never applied. I find it rather strange to get your salary payed out of your own pocket:confused:
oompilot - I don't see Michael Schumacher driving or for that matter Sean Tucker flying around as a busdriver with 275odd paying passengers behind him! Some things just don't go together if you want to be professional in several.
308GT4 - Point taken, but if someone craves the public admiration then he should also stand for critisism if it arises out of his actions. It's like the movie star, that likes the attention and his picture in the papers but hates the paparazi who put him there!:confused:
The immediate effect might be "wow!", but the consequences (not immediate apparent) might be devastating.
I am sure the Ramstein-guys did not plan to have an accident or fly afterwards into the crowd. So, unless he, who's name must not be mentioned, has a cape and flies without an a/c, is just as mortal as anybody else.
You are treading the same dangerous path mentioned by supporting monkeybusiness, 308GT4!
unstable load - Correct, the fault not only rests with the Skully's of this world but also with a low-experience CAA, that tries to make up for mistakes in the past by quick-bleech actions that put low-experienced, not mature enough people out there to do things they are not ready for.

Puhhh, that was long, but I did not want to leave anybody out.

It is always good to have an idol to follow, but always remember:
It's OK to take a risk if you are the only one who is paying for it!

S (not Superman!:))

Possible then that much of what is wrong with aviation attitude in SA lies as a example direct at door of those who argue that commercial licence holders fly as command and/or single crew on B1900?

Setron,

Pasted from your opening post:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Com'on Skully, take that 74 and fly it again out of Rand! Should be right up your alley!
Deaths like the ones in Rand are on your consience my friend,...think about it (for once...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Way off the subject? ... You're quite simply wrong chap, and require a serious ACK. I'll be only too happy to administer the corrective action... PM me if you have the courage to take me up on the offer. By the way, Scully is spelt with a "c". How well can you possibly know someone if you can't even spell his name?

The rest of the posts (by others) make for constructive, thought provoking reading. Der Absolute Hammer's theory on teaching airmanship makes particularly good sense, and may just lie at the root of all these accidents lately. Airmanship was a major Pass/ Fail aspect in the SAAF, and most reputable airlines (operators) assess "attitude and bearing" during training and checking.

P&F, I agree. Setron, you are way out of your (or anybody else's) league. Airmanship and discipline usually are major contributory factors in most aviation accidents.
PS. Setron, pleeze lurn too spel.

I think the remark made about Scully flying the B742 out of Rand was a bit unfair. I seem to recall it was Dennis Spence who landed the a/c at Rand and not Scully. The flight and landing was conducted by an all-SAA crew after a lot of planning and also done on SAA's insurance who must've been happy it was safe to do otherwise they would not have insured the a/c for this particular flight. I have met Scully and spoken with him quite a few times and he always came across as a first-rate gentleman with a passion for flying second to none. I think it is very harsh and unfair to vilify said gentleman on a public forum and not at all what one would expect from a professional pilot. We pilots are all on the same side (or should be) and we should be singing off the same hymn sheet and looking out for one another. Go read "We band of brothers" by Ernest Gann to see what I mean and dont let envy of a truly professional pilot eat you up.:=

If you speak of the Lebombo - it is DS and SL and PP who fly it to Rand.
Not at all a risky thing to do and probably shows a fine degree of airmanship.

I am so ashamed of myself and now I am very afraid too, PF.
As you use scare-tactics you must be working for SAA!
You have won! I will have to leave the country and... hang on,what am I talking about? I have already left, and unless you spend your free ticket on a trip up north that clap for you will have to wait.

What I am really sorry for is that I had to use S.L.'s name to get you guys thinking. The fact is that he is a good pilot and is sure to draw some attention...q.e.d.
It's only a shame he is working for SAA.

With the knowledge, that the problem is rooted deep in the training, now in the open, I leave it to you boys and gals to do what is necessary to safe the reputation of the SA-licence-standard.
Got to go now and put another lock on my door...;)

Setron,
That may well prove to be more difficult than anyone thinks. Sadly the CAA is now a typical Guvmunt department with the same personnel issues as all the others, all thanks to AA and our old nemess BEE. Consequently, the long time serving white guys have taken packages or retired, leaving a new generation whose sole "passion" is a job in government with all the associated pension, health etc benefits and only a very secondary interest in their jobs. Once most of them got this plum post, I'm sure they were horrified to realise that they actually were expected to put some effort in and that they had to make decisions too:sad:.

The recent spate of accidents IMO is confirmation to me that my theory is valid. Our new "system" is supposey based on the JAR in order to facilitate commonality and maybe in the wishful future to allow for inclusion, but had anyone upstairs actually known what they were doing they would have realised that having a bunch of manuals and regulations in place was the easiest part of it all.
The difficult part of it is having the vision to forsee and plan for eventualities and knowing how to implement those changes effectively.

Another stumbling block I feel is the lack of control of the system. In the "old days" I had my then DCA inspector walk into my hangar completely unannounced for a "quick look-around" and that kept me on my toes. Since the revolution the element of surprise is over, the CAA guys insist on the operators buying their tickets (business class), booking hotels (3 star minimum) and per diems, all carefully arranged in advance so the element of surprise is long gone.

Add to this the perception that the CAA has APPARENTLY become available to the highest bidder as far as accountability/enforcement/exam papers is concerned and you have a system teetering on the brink of collapse and subsequent ridicule in the international arena.

I'm thinking of setting the words "Cowboys in the sky" as lyrics to the track "Riders of the Storm"

Edited for spelling...I'm drunk

Any place other than Africa its called bribery.

Gatties,

Not so loud, mate! You know how sensetive they are to that word.....;)

Setron
You have gone from saying a certain individual had the deaths at Rand on his conscience to " he is a great pilot and you used his name to get attention. Now that's a backtrack if I ever heard one. Obviously an "error" because english is not your first language.

To get to the topic at hand (some good posts). I am not an instructor, but could the following two points perhaps have bearing on the spate of accidents:

1. We have just come out of a very cold winter into a few vicious heat spells and some pretty strong winds. For the whole winter a mindset could have developed of not bothering about density altitude. Suddenly the massive weather change means ignore density altitude at your peril. This would affect a light a/c up here through all phases of flight, takeoff, landing and upper air work. Once again the traps of routine and complacency pose real threats.

2. Two things in forced landings after t/o were always drummed into me, speed into height and pick a field within 30 to 45 deg ahead of you, no turnbacks (density altitude will also bite here, as well as strong winds). The SAAF always said never pick a field unless you can make keypoint 1 (3000' overhead) ,keypoint 2 (2000' downwind) or keypoint 3 (1000' base leg) and aim for one of those keypoints.

Just a few points, are these aspects still taught or is there a gap in the training? Are the Threat and error aspects of guarding against routine ,complacency and time pressure emphasised in CRM training?

millertime - not a backtrack, rather a calming down to normal levels.
Like with salary matters you must aim high to get a normal level.
Only a hothead like Pussy&Fanny would have taken the allegations serious.
Isn't it funny, that as long as PFy is not interrupting the thread, the comments are continuously interesting and mostly founded?
People that know Scully (with a "c";), am rather surprised PFy picked that up!) know of his value and would have understood!
Language, oh yes, I am juggling 3+1/2 at the moment incl. a very "throaty" one, so thats maybe why. If duds like Doodlebug2 are more into spelling then the meaning, then they must just f-off and go to : www.spellingbee.com/ or www.gamequarium.com/spelling.html
Should be more "up their alley":)
unstable load - I recon we all miss the good old day's when things were more "stable"!
When Zimbos start running the show at the SACAA, then one starts wondering what is generally happening in SA...
I think the privatisation of the CAA was a big mistake in regards of safety!
Once something is down the drain, it's rather messy to get it right again!
The CAA quick-bleech of instructors will not help the situation.
I wish Scully would spend more time in that department, cause thats were his experience is needed the most in these darkening times to turn the tide!

(PS: There are still some good people in the CAA, but sadly just a few, a happy few, a band of brothers...)

...and now everybody: da, da, di, da, daaaaah...:cool:

Sentron

This is a prof pilots network. You clearly have nothing to contribute here. If you are willing to throw Capt Levin's name around then I suggest you put your own name on the post.

DH

PS. Can you please show on some B747 graphs what was unsafe about flying over a stadium or landing at Rand. Please provide only facts and not your opinion which you have proved to be worthless.

Good old Setron. What a fine, well spoken, keen-minded, upstanding chap you are.

Both "Acts" (Water-Skiing & Stadium... The latter having been commanded by Laurie Kay actually) were fully authorised, seriously rehearsed, expertly conducted, and drew acclaim from around the world.

Now we have somebody, who (appears) to have a serious chip on his shoulder, trying to wage a war about all things SA and SAA. Nothing is out of limits. Names, organisations, and general slander are liberally, and inappropriately employed in this ridiculous vendetta. Thing is... A great deal of what you are writing is factually incorrect, and thus not even applicable to your campaign. A bit like giving yourself an F (for Fail) assessment. How many more times are you going to backtrack in a pathetically unsuccessful attempt to weasel your way out of your slanderous jottings.

Come on chap, get over yourself and stop this rubbish. Your "Save South African Aviation" campaign is a farce, and a front for your very obvious bitterness. You left SA for what you must have believed was a good reason. Good on you. Now live with your decision, and stop trying stir from behind your computer screen.

Here is Dennis own commentary from Pprune, March 7th, 2004. Prtined from a post by Gunship.....

The aircraft empty weight was 164 000kg and we had 20 000kg fuel on board. The aircraft was TOTALLY airworthy and every component was serviceable, it even has toilet paper in all the toilets!!!!!

We had a snag before start with the PMS (Performance Management Computer) so one was ordered from stores and it was fitted before we departed.

Take-off weight was 183 000 kg and the V1/VR speed was 125 kts. Max thrust was 1.6 EPR but we de-rated to 1.55.

We applied nearly max thrust on the brakes and it had acceleration that made the M3 drivers look like they were standing still.

We rotated just after intersection Lima, some 3000 ft from the beginning of 03 Left, and climbed away with a body angle of nearly 30°.

We were given vectors for Rand from the west, but because of some cloud we only became visual too late to commence the approach, so we were re-vectored and approached from the south.

We joined right-hand downwind for 11 and got the gear and flap 30, landing flap out early. As there is no approach aids on 11, we plotted an ideal path using the DME at RAV. The threshold height of 11 is 5500 ft AMSL at 0,7 DME RAV, so by the simple rule of 300 ft per nautical mile, we had our path plotted.

3,7 DME : 6400 ft
2.7 DME: 6100 ft
1.7 DME: 5800 ft

We did not want to touch early, because of the "lip" on the approach to 11, so we had a chalk line at 50m (150 ft) drawn across the runway to ensure that this would not happen, because of the visual illusion of such a narrow runway ( 15m wide compared to 60m wide at JNB).

The distance from the nose of the aircraft to the rear of the gear is 114 ft, so we would not want to touch down before the nose was at this line.

Also, the demonstrated landing distance from the flight performance manuals, and computed by the performance engineers at SAA is 3000 ft.

This is using ONLY brakes and NO thrust reverse, but we must remember that this is for a new aircraft with new brakes, not one with 107 000 flying hours on it !!!!

To ensure that we minimized the possibility of an over-run of 11, we then put another chalk line at 3600 ft from the end of R/W 29, so if we were not on the ground by this mark, we would go-around and have another attempt. In the Simulator we tried various scenario's using JNB 30L , NO aids, except for the 300 ft/NM [plot, a 5 kt crosswind and a 5 kt tail wind, NO reverse thrust, and every time we managed to stop before intersection Lima.

Well it worked at Rand, and we did NOT scratch the paint !!!

I managed to keep it on the centre line and touch down at the point we wanted - Bug speed at the weight of 178 000kg was 118 kts, but on short final with the wind at 070/08 I elected to fly it at 115 kts.

When Dennis Mc Dermot, our Flight Engineer called 20 ft on the radio altimeter, I closed the thrust levers and planted it firmly onto the runway, aircraft carrier style.

Well most of our energy dissipated rapidly, and by using medium auto-brakes, until I lowered the nose wheel, we managed to stop just before the intersection of 11/35. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Stew just "cracked" the reversers, in case we need them, but because the engines will be removed and used again, we did not want to ingest any debris, as ALL the engines were overhanging the runway. The brake temperatures did not move higher than the mid green range.


Regards,

Dennis

Please leave flying aircraft of which some here seem to know nothing to those that do! Also same for Scully - professional pilots are not responsible for sickening attitudes which must be prevailing in SA general aviation to cause so many accidents. I hope foreign pilots looking to train in SA are reading this thread and determining for themselves by rapid deduction the fact that something may be rotten in the state of some SA flight schools. Maybe it is that fewer cash pupils will lead to greater self regulation in matters of safety,
How can a pilot land on the wrong runway and then try to take off again?
He would stop quicker on the runway than running along up to the take off speed? If that is what really happened-has a licence been pulled-subject to enquiry? Bloody amateures pretending to be pilots!

OK so I am a lowly chopper jock

have been for 27 years now. .....I dont' know everything but I do Know if I was starting up my own operation tomorrow.... a lot of posters here would get a job tomorrow.

Setron - with your attitude, your backsatbbing, your vindictiveness, your sarcasm, your brilliant "Psychoanalytical" bull****.

I wouldn't hire you to make our coffee. We need TEAM PLAYERS.:yuk: People that go forward in life because they are good, not because they look good by making other people look bad.

Setron your reply about my first comment is unfounded. None of the 'stunts' by Scully and Laurie, were carried out with fair paying passengers on board.
Thank goodness you said you've headed north. You say Pitch&Fan has poor CRM. The temperament of your replies are horrendous. Good like to who ever shares a cockpit with you.:uhoh:

I dont think guys like Scully are the problem. They are not beyond reproach, but highly competant. All you have to do is look at these small regional airshows and manifestations of piloting idiocy like CC Pocock to see where ego and complacency collide. Cowboys beget cowboys, its the South African way. Ego and testosterone, hell of a combination. Take the Barberton airshow recently, if knocking over your safety officer with the leading edge of your C172's wing is not a metaphor for SA's aviation probelms then I dont know what is! As a keen, conservative and low hour (206) hour PPL, Im keen to learn as much as possible from you more experienced guys out there. keep the discussions coming and keep them frank!

Well if I ever jump into an aero commander I think I can guarantee you won't be seeing me balancing glasses of water on the dash and barrel rolling, but that doesn't mean I don't respect and admire Bob Hoover.

I love to watch experts in their field perform expert shows that please the crowd, and blaming them for the actions of idiots is like criminals blaming tv shows.

1st class not business class.
 

Unstable Load.

I see you are quick to jump up and down about Setron and his weird views, (which I actually think he was just setting people up for an argument, which he succeeded), but in the same breath, you have lots to chirp about the "useless CAA inspectors", who you basically call uneducated and love jollies around the world at your expense, travelling business class and living in 3 star hotels...oh, and asking for their S&T's before they leave.

Pray do tell me, that even when these dumb, stupid, uneducated inspectors arrive at the out - station, they find a string of non-compliances even though the sure up-standing operator has known of their pending visit for a couple of weeks.

Have you ever gone thru yr own files and checked to see whether yr pilots are using a generic empty weight or are they using the legit aircraft empty weight.
The fuel that is in the aircraft is what is written on the nav log......and is the same fuel used for the load sheet. (load-sheeet signed with lic number).

Have you checked that yr pilots have signed the autho sheet and actually read what they have signed......(just check that yr AIP supplements are up to date before you answer that question).

When was the last time that yr pilots did a quizz on the op's manual.

I could go on and on....but then again yr company has got zero non-compliances...(and I am the tooth fairy).

Please..before you throw stones at some other guy about what he has written, make sure your own doorstep is clear.

I am willing to put my ears on a block, that after chatting to guys in the Flight ops department at CAA that you change yr views very quickly after you battle to answer some of their technical questions. (and that is from guys all cultures in that office).

Unfortunately, the guys travell cattle class.
I dont see anything wrong in asking for a 3 star hotel.
Most pilots get their S&T's before they depart....is the CAA any different?.

Goffel...sitting on the beach, AGAIN:cool:

CJ 750 - Of course we have to find out what happened in the "Rand" case to make it saver for all. Every accident should help to save lifes later but the rootproblem is not metalfatique...

How can you say something like this??
I forgot that if a wing breaks off in mid air, it obviously isnt the root problem.. Its purely pilot error...

I have nothing to do with the discussion, but...
Well, you know... it´s possible to know a lot about someone even not spelling his/her name the correct way.
Like my father, who can´t spell my name right even though I´m already 21. :hmm:

Just a remark.

Purely pilot error..from what I hear they started to get turb and requested a return to the field..it was also an experimental aircraft so what about where and how it was built and maintained..so who U just to remark it was purely pilot error..I attended the funeral today and and doubt he would have intentionally wanted his wife and kids standing next to a coffin today..:(

One Day 21

Wing braking off is pilot error..................Please explain:confused:

Regarding previous post
 

there is some confusion to what i meant:
I am ashamed to what Sentron said regarding the incident, it was a sarcastic remark stating it was pilot error.
I took it that he implied it was pilot error, i was a friend of the instructor in mention and am fully aware of his capabulities, without a wing he had no control of that aircraft.
i apologise for any confusion due to my grammatic error.