Light Aircraft Strikes Fin on Cable During PFL

[buck rodgers]

This happened with an experienced instructor and professiona pilot, who then landed in a field and inspected the damage (there was some but cannot confirm the extent) and then said instructor chose to fly aircraft back to base with his student .

I think this is questionable decision, as ground engineer should sign off the plane before it flys again after any form of collision. There could have been structural failure. But was it legal to fly and when can you take the aircraft back to base without it being released by an engineer?

I will not name the instructor or club concerned so do not ask me to, I merely wish to gather information as I think this individual is a danger and I want the club to do something as he has performed 'foolhardy' stunts in the past yet no-one will pull him up as they are scared and intimidated by him.

[Cactus99]

Ah yes Buck, I totally agree!!

It doesn't surprise me one little bit. Maybe he has gone one step too far this time. If this gets around, it may have major implications for the club and it maybe the 'straw that broke the camels back' !!

We shall wait and see:} :}

C99

[buck rodgers]

So cactus, you must know the club and instructor involved?

News travels fast.

what i think is most amaziing is he did not even offload his student/passenger.

[Cactus99]

Yes, I do indeed know who was involved, I like to keep my finger on the pulse!!:}

But seriously though, what a complete :mad:. This man is an CAA examiner, what was he thinking about?. Maybe said student would like to give his side of events on this forum!

This incident is surely an MOR, or classed as an accident and should have nessesitated an on site inspection or investigation before being allowed to move the airframe?

I cant help but think about how low the aircraft was before striking the cable, 10-14 feet agl....:eek: I wonder if the CAA know???

[buck rodgers]

Yes, it must have been extremely low. The pylons / cables perhaps sighted at the last moment and the grabbed controls to dive under. How lucky were they to miss with the prop / canopy if he still managed to strike the tail section?? It doesn't bear thinking about how tragic this event could have been.

Why was the choice of field not questioned and the cables sighted during the approach and why the heck were they so low to come into conflict with them (500' rule.)

"KEEP THE APPROACH GOING I'LL TELL YOU WHEN TO GO AROUND, I AM IN CHARGE, I AM THE CAPTAIN"

I have heard countless stories of this persons tyrany in the cockpit.....

Should CRM not become an integral part of the PPL course?

ANYONE, absolutely ANYONE can add to CRM, even as a passenger, by doing a lookout etc. It's management of the relationship during the flight that encourages and promotes this, not the sort of bullying this type lavishes on others.

[tom775257]

500' from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure. (Vertically or horizontally or a combination)

Is a cable classed legally as a structure? I assume so.

[Oktas8]

Eastern philosophical reply:
Is a cable classed legally as a structure? I assume so.
If a structure falls in a forest, but there is no-one there to hear it, what noise did it make?
Or perhaps,
If a structure is not seen or heard, can it really be a structure?

Just a bit of early Saturday a.m. humour. Don't mind me... :)
O8

[P.Pilcher]

Of course a MOR should have been filed and the aircraft not moved after landing until certified to do so by an engineer, but, due to the embarassment and inconvenience, some people will never bow to the law of the land (air) or common sense.
A good few years ago, I seem to remember of a bloke taxying his Robin and his wing contacted a mound of earth (I think) anyway, it was sufficiently serious for said pilot to get out and examine the wing. He noticed nothing untoward, just a tiny swelling on part of the underside so proceded to take off to return from whence he came.
I cannot remember now at what point of the flight his damaged main spar actually failed and whether it killed him or he got out alive. I merely noted that ANY distortion of a wooden structure is potentially extremely serious and will be investigated before such an aircraft gets airborne again.

P.P.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Close but no cigar.

The aeroplane was a Robin DR400 and the obstruction a mown bale of hay.

Short synopsis.

Aeroplane lands in a gusty crosswind and directional control not maintained. Gets from the RWY onto a grass area with big cylindrical haybales on it.

Hits one.

Aeroplane looked over by the owner prior to returnflight.

Near Filton pilot experiences control difficulty and subsequent wing seperates. Outcome fatal for the pilot (sole occupant)

Full report here: http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_500558.pdf

Back to the original posting. Without knowing all the details it is difficult to say what is what, but at face value it would seem that hitting something and flying the aeroplane back without an inspection by a qualified engineer is not best airmanship.

[P.Pilcher]

Thanks for that Flyin'Dutch, my ancient memory of the incident is now fully refreshed. When I said "investigated" in my post, I should have added "by an appropriately licenced engineer."

P.P.

[Capt_Stewart]

Back to the post.
Where ?
When ?
Who ?
& How ?
These questions all spring to mind.
I find it difficult to believe there hasn't been a bit of embellishment

However it is a good rumour

[jayteeto]

This is unusual for me, but I would like to question part of this public lynching. In the past I have slagged people off for dangerous flying and been abused by the defenders of the foolish. To fly again is terrible airmanship, but was it illegal?? Also, if nobody was about, does the 500' rule apply?? From my military helicopter days, I remember wires being strung across the strangest of places, often over huge valleys and being 100'+ agl. If you push hard to go under 10-14' wires, you will crash into the ground!!
I certainly am not condoning his actions, from those who know him he seems to be infamous, but lets judge on the facts when we question how he hit the wires.

[Capt_Stewart]

I agree.
On the face of it.
Unprofessional, Poor airmanship and illegal. :eek:
BUT

We need a few facts, may follow with a GASIL in a few months? maybe

:oh:

[SixDelta]

This also happened a few years ago at AST, Perth. Instructor was "show-boating" at low-level on a Trial Lesson (!), failed to see a telephone cable, struck it damaging the windscreen, wing root and wrapping a bit of cable round the elevator. He landed at a disused airfield by the Tay, removed the offending piece of wire, got airborne and returned to Perth claiming he had "hit something" but didn't know what it was!

There was no evidence left of the cable, so no-one was able to prove what he'd hit. He was however "done" by the CAA for landing at an unlicenced airfield on an instructional flight, with fairly severe consequences.

Sounds like almost an exact copy of this event, hope the outcome is the same. Idiot.

[buck rodgers]

I don't want this to become a public lynching, so thta's why I wont name the club or person involved. But I do want to check teh legailty of the return flight so I can bring this up with the club. I'm more interested in promoting a safe environment to fly in at the club and I think this incident is indicative of said persons arrogant manner and approach to things. He has done similar things before you know!!
Is the general belief that flight should not have taken place until an engineer inspected and released the aircraft?
As far as location and height of obstacle, lets just say they were VERY low to come into contact and i think teh 500' rule applies during a PFL...........in fact he lambasted a PPL holder during a club check-out flight for decending too much in PFL!!!

[mad_jock]

It depends what the damage is / was.

If you have say a C172 and you have a bird strike/ hit a hare off the main gear I would have a check it hadn't damaged the brakes/ wheels and also the mounting bolts for paint cracking and fly it again.

But anything to do with the main flight surfaces needs looked at.

If its the bloke I think your on about I would be very wary of creating a fuss at the club or even letting known that your not happy. Its a perfect example of what chirp is created for.

[buck rodgers]

Mad Jock

You are obviously quite intuitive.......then againthere are a few giveaway clue in the thread. My biggest concern is the safety aspect and how much worse this incident could have been. In flying, we don't leave things to chance that's why we have procedures, rules (some of it is bureacratic and out of date) but sticking to the rule book is what makes flying a safe way to travel. This incident spells out how the attitude of one individual COULD have turned out bad and how they dont play by the rules we all have to. It was also a bad example to set a student!

Im insterested why you think I shoudl not raise the issue within the club. I haven't been there very long but can see there are under currents among the members and unhappiness with this person, in and out of the cockpit. Are there politics or issues with the person/club I need to be aware of? Any help or advise up can offer, please do so or send me a PM. I feel if we ignore the issue then somethign worse could happen and we would all feel we had faield the system by not reporting or askign the club to do something about them.

[mad_jock]

The comment about being wary is more the fact that you maybe getting used by others to do their dirty work trying to get shot of him.

Personally I would delete this thread. You are right being concerned. But I can guarantee you don't know the full story. The club can't do anything as the training provider is a separate entity to the club. Chirp is the method to raise your concerns. If after the report the powers that be don't do anything it really isn't your problem.

Its very unlikely for the CAA to bring a prosecution in Scotland due to the fact that they can't recover their cost like they can in England. Its not very cost effective to spend 30k on prosecuting a Pilot for only a 200 quid fine. And the PF's really ain't interested when nobody died. And they have have a 2 meter high pile of Ned's to prosecute for drugs and GBH.

MJ

[buck rodgers]

[quote=mad_jock]
But I can guarantee you don't know the full story. The club can't do anything as the training provider is a separate entity to the club.


if you can guarantee i don't know teh full story, then you obviously know the blanks that are missing so must know what teh story is?

As for the trainer being sererate entity and "the club can't do anything", that's bollox cos they fly the club planes and we know where they fly in and out of, teh club expects highest standards always.

I wont delete this thread either but that's up to the moderators if they think it's not acceptabel to be posted.

[mad_jock]

Nope neither do I want to know. Its bloody obvious that the only responce you are going to get on here is that its a daft thing to do and illegal. Might make you feel better people agreeing with you. But the result is nothing.

The club v training provider is a very complex issue which is different in every setup. Usually with all sorts of accountancy going on to decrease the tax exposure. And usually the training provider holds most of the cards including the jokers. Its very easy to setup up another club ( all they need to do is lease in a few aircraft) but it is very expensive and labour intensive requiring alot of fannying about to setup another training provider. A club can't sack a training providers employee. If its a bum fluffed faced FI no problem they can be shifted out by not giving them any work, starvation will make them leave. It is a competly different kettle of fish with an old instructor who knows the score. When a training provider left Perth it was a right pain for everyone concerned. And I know nothing about the in's and out's of why that happened.

The suggestion to delete the thread wasn't due to legal reasons or any other motive apart from to help your cause. The majority of FI's in scotland will have guessed who you are on about and a few phone calls will have been made. Most of the career/ experenced Instructors/examiners are extremly good at covering their arses, with this thread you have given the heads up that its out in the open.

By highlighting airmanship flaws/ illegal flights through this medium it basically stops any chance of the CAA doing anything about it. The person in question can cover there tracks so any impending investigation will not be able to progress to any useful conclusion.

I am sure that because of this thread that at least 2 flight ops inspectors who are very GA themselves will know about it and have guessed who your on about. But will be unable to do anything about it because the required reporting method hasn't been followed and they can't act on rumour from PPrune.

If you had chirp'd it the CAA would have been able to contact the student, the FI and an engineering inspection of the damage done. Now any case has been made 10 times harder because its in the public domain.

MJ

[buck rodgers]

well if highlighting this issue does in someway bring into the open an issue of then its a good thing its in the open as pilots and trainess can make their minds up about the risk . this gusy is supposed to be at the top of his career and to be a role model for others, thats part of my frustration of how it all happened

theres no way i would let my kids fly with this club then, if what you say about covering up and saving your own neck etc is true as the investigation will be more difficult.

But i think you are overlooking one thing, people who witnessed it including the student.

I agree about CHIRP, i only came on here to get advice about it.

Thanks

[Capt_Stewart]

Agreed with Mad Jock about the Chirp:)
Not sure about the rest:confused:

[Cactus99]

Madjock,

CHIRP- yes, the rest, No, Im not sure what all that was about, have you got the right thread??

What do you think is achieved by keeping 'mum' about the whole incident??
Answer- nothing.

I know the circumstances as does Buck Rodgers, but im not sure that you do. Why do you think that suddenly everyone knows which club it is and the instructor involved?

You stated previously, the CAA are not likely to do anything since there was no one injured, so why do you say that this thread will then prevent any legal action.

This incident should be in the public domain, so that everyone is aware of what goes on at this club, to save decent people wasting their time and money at this place.

[mad_jock]

1. Not mum but through correct reporting channels not through PPrune.

2. "I AM IN CHARGE, I AM THE CAPTAIN" h'mm doesn't take boffin to work that one out.

3. As you well know the scottish legal system is different to in England. The CAA doesn't get any of the money back which it has spent on a case. All prosecutions have to go through the PF office. Unlike England when the CAA can prosecute themselves and extract the full cost of the case from the pilot. Go and have a search on how many pilots have been through the court system in scotland. Then compare it to England.

All i am suggesting is the proccess
should have been

1. Report it ie chirp
2. No doudt the chirp chap will phone you back.
3. Wait
4. Report on PPrune for the benift of other customers.

Not
1. report on pprune letting the person in question know whats going down.
2. Chirp it.
3. Wonder why nothing has been done about it because the guy has managed to cover his tracks.

[buck rodgers]

So everyone knows, i put up the message to get other peoples ideas abotu this. I said before i hitnk this person (i think) is a bit of a bully and questioned if this could be part of the problem, I dont knwo the answer and we may never know.
Anyoene can guess who it was and draw their own conclusions. Fair play, but I'm not about starting some witch hunt or public lynching so yoru guess is just that - a guess.
I came here to establish if it was legal to do what he did, not start some guess-mongering.
Sorry if this has sparked wrong reaction.

[Cactus99]

See article in todays Scottish Sun page 35.

Quote, "2 escape as plane hits wires"

An AAIB probe has been launched.

[painter34]

Yesterdays article was full of glaring errors. I am all for constructive criticism and discussion, but you are all discussing (and making incorrect deductions) about facts, which are simply not true. The true facts are:

The aircraft did not land in a field following the fin touching the power cable.

Rule 5 of the ANO was not broken as this was a plain field with no vessel, vehicle of structure in it.

A MOR was filed within 2 hours of the event, and all notifying procedures were carried out by the book.

This instance happened 3 weeks ago, and was dealt with at the time.

The Moray Flying Club has a first class safety record with no major incidents in the last 5 years, or as far back as I can remember. How many flying schools can honestly say that?

I hope that armed with the true facts, the discussion can now get back onto the correct radial.

[high voltage]

painter34

You should provide details of the incident if you are so sure that it didn't breach rule 5 and state exaclty why you think so.

The original poster seemed to ask questions of

1) Legality of flight
2) Attitude of pilot / CRM issue
3) Club Management

Lead the way if this is what you want to talk about.

[painter34]

The breaching of rule 5 is a matter for the CAA and the AAIB, and is being delt with by them. Further discussion in this forum is therefore inappropraite. I know for a fact that the rule was not breached, and thus far have had this confirmed by the above authorities who were provided with GPS coordinates of the incident the same day it occurred.

As I said in my first post, much of the information on this forum concerning the incident is simply not correct. This happened over 3 weeks ago, and was all but put to bed until someone went to the Sun newspaper with a half baked account of the incident.

[high voltage]

I agree about the determination of breaching the rule; it is a matter for the CAA and AAIB, nonetheless I think you're being a little premature stating what one particular outcome of their enquiry will be.

And as far as not talkign about the incident here, get a grip of yourself. Do you not know what PPRUNE stands for? :E

[high voltage]

Consider this.

My boss sees I have not been at my workstation for 30 minutes. On return I advise I've been in the dummy. He says prove it. I say here are the dummy co-ordinates provided by my GPS, which I happened to note down whilst I was there. Sure enough, the co-ordinates are the dummy. Does this prove I was actually there? Or does it only prove I can provide GPS co-ordinates of a dummy? Or is it enough to prove i was not propping up the smoke shack?

Answers on a postcard.

[Capt_Stewart]

Sorry Boys.
I do not know the facts, but
If you fly low level in the RAF you have a chart to avoid the power lines.
If you hit them you are not forgiven except on occasions by God.:eek:
Lets get to Airmanship.
If you hit powerlines at 30 foot you are an idiot.
If you plan to do PFL's to 30' and you hit a Power line with a F****** :mad: Student on board you are an incompetent idiot.
PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN :O
Do not take risks with others because your hormones need a boost.
Quite straight forward really
Sack him.
End of post

[PAMCC]

Whereas discussions on safety issues are useful to us all, when it comes to the results of in incident like this, it is up to the authorities to decide matters. If they find that this instructor was at fault, then they will take the appropriate action. It will then follow that the club will do the same.

In the meantime I would like to add my penny worth. I have been involved with this club for around 7 years. I know the instructor well and have been on the recieving end of his instruction. He is thorough and forthright. He will give praise when it is due. At no time have I felt in any way intimidated by him. I have found him very professional and I know many in the club who have been there as long if not longer than me who feel the same.

The club is small, but many who have learnt to fly there with him as of of their instructors, have gone on to either instruct themsleves or further into the airlines. This is due to the encouragement of ALL the instructors and staff who run the club. I doubt that many clubs have such a high percentage record of successes amongst their members.

Over 37 years in aviation I have rarely come across a club that is run with such dedication to the customer and I have been a member of quite a lot of clubs.

The aircraft did not land. It did not break rule 5 and all the proper procedures were followed. Now lets stop the character assasination and wait for the results from the authorities.

[Capt_Stewart]

There has been no assasination but perhaps there should be:}
Lets start with the righteous.
BUT
As nobody has any facts lets leave it be.:zzz:

[high voltage]

Painter wanted to get the safety discussion back on track, but he seems to have brushed off. Now PAMCC is the expert declaring there was no breach, but also wants us to wait for the outcome of the enquiry. I agree.

If you want to practise PFL's to such a low level then pick a grass strip and do it there.

[PAMCC]

It would be so useful if there was always a grass strip handy when there was an engine failure. Just as it would also be useful to have an RAF low flying chart with power lines marked on it AND the time to consult it on these occaions. :) However, in the real world..........

I'm no expert, just have a lot of time and experience in aviation. However, because I know the club well, I also know the facts.

I repeat, the aircraft did not land in the field, there was no breach of rule 5 and all the proper reporting procedures were followed.

That's really all there is to it. All rumour and conjecture can end.

[Capt_Stewart]

How do you vote on this, can somebody do the techy bit?
Forget the Guy , the Club & Rule 5, vote on these points
1) Only an idiot goes down to 20' for a PFL unless he knows the field. :}
2) Even if you know the field you are still an idiot :mad:
3) I wish I had balls that big. :{
4) I wish my instructor had balls that big :=
5) I know my instructor has big balls :ok:

[high voltage]

How can you be DELIBERATELY be flying low enough to hit a power line but not be in breach of rule 5. It states 500' from any vehicle, person or structure. Is a cable a structure? Or what about the pylons that hold it up?

From what I've heard there are other 'incidents' that have taken place.

[Sir Max]

Worrying incident which needs to be investigated. Could have had serious repurcussions. I cannot believe a professional instructor would have flown on after a fuselage strike like this. It happens - but we all need to abide by flight safety rules. I'd love to know which club was involved - so I can steer clear! Does little to instill confidence in the captain, let alone what it might have done for the PUT!

[incubus]

From what I've heard there are other 'incidents' that have taken place.

Pylons may well be considered a structure, but what about telegraph poles or similar? Harder to see, lower, more frequent and probably not marked on mil charts.

[high voltage]

SIR MAX - According to the Sun newspaper it was The Moray Flying Club from Kinloss who were involved.

INCUBUS - Valid point about telegraph poles being hard to see which makes me think it's a bl**dy poor decision to fly low enough to bring an aircraft in conflcit with potential hazards.

[Sir Max]

Wait a minute. Moray Flying Club? If I'm not mistaken MFC is based at RAF Kinloss. This makes the incident all the more serious. Did the a/c return to a major RAF base after a mid-air strike without checking damage? Good Lord, that's incredible. What has the RAF done about this - or is there an in-house element to this story which the rest of us are not hearing about?

I see someone asked how many flying clubs can boast a good safety record. Quite a few. I was a member of one Scottish club from 1971 to 1982 which had no accidents, no serious incidents and no reportable breaches. Why? Great CFI with his head screwed on properly, no macho tendancies and not out to impress. Just a good pilot who died of natural causes.

Whatever the facts are it seems there is no smoke without fire. Everyone, including the captain of this a/c should take what happened as a serious lesson and act appropriately. We have nothing in light aviation without safety

If the a'c strike a cable, as it appears to have done, then it should have been reported. It would have also been prudent to land asap to check damage. Assumining it was a 150 or similar that should not have been much of a problem over open ground - or was it all festooned with cables?

[DB6]

Sir Max, are you seriously suggesting it is safer to land a possibly damaged aircraft in a field rather than at an RAF base with all the crash/fire/first aid facilities the latter offers? Would you like to try that one again?

[Sir Max]

Easy to say DB6, but having allegedly struck and damaged the aircraft the prudent thing would have been to land asap and examine the airframe. That's what I was taught nearly 40 years ago - maybe things have changed? There are many fields where a damaged aircraft could be put down rather than fly on and risk flight control limitation or structural failure. In the 70's I had a bird strike and had to do just that near Nairn - Brackla. It was what I was told I should do after an incident.

[Sir Max]

DB6, had you struck a wire in flight at low level would you have flown on? I don't think we should make too many assumptions here, but basic flight safety appears to have been compromised. I would like to know why. Disregard for potential airframe damge is unacceptable under any circumstance. Did the pilot/pilots make a PAN call after the strike before they flew blissfully on?

[high voltage]

I can understand returning to a base with all the services on standby should you need them, presuming you made a PAN so they were ready for you but as we are talking about a small 2 seater, a precautionary forced landing might also be the prefered option.

I think i would want to land pronto, close to a good pub to steady the old nerves.

[Sir Max]

High Voltage, good plan - would also give you time to get your story straight!

The whole point about this thread is to underline flight safety. It's the lack of it which is the one constant in light aviation accidents. We've all made mistakes I'm sure - the big thing is to hold up your hand and admit them and hope you and others learn as a result.

[navoff]

I find the high and mighty attitude adopted by some on this post amazing. There is a distinct lack of factual information available to proffer such opinions. The instructor involved may have reacted after the incident in a very very professional manner, better than most here offering advice, who knows? We have all made mistakes in aeroplanes that is how we learn. Buck Rodgers has started a thread entirely based on false information and some have jumped on the bandwagon. I know the club, the instructor and of the incident and you are all wide of the mark with the exception of PAMCC. The club is excellent as is the instructor!
SirMax, landing in a field to inspect the damage is excellent advice, but when the airfield is the practically the next field what would you honestly do? Facts are needed to help this debate not conjecture.

Navoff

[Sir Max]

Navoff, thanks for the advice. Denegrating opinions won't change a situation, but you seem to have answers. Maybe you can answer these? How far away was the field? Was the RAF base notified of the incident and decision to fly on? Was it prudent so to do after a cable strike? I understand your protective posture, quite natural. But we're talking about an instructor, a PUT and an inexplicable decision. There seems to be enough concern to have the matter examined - let's hope the powers that be do just that. I don't want to see anyone grounded - just proof that the right decision was taken and that if it was wrong, that it does not happen again. I've never flown with MFC, I've never visited them, I don't know them apart from what I've been told. But one day I may be walking my dogs underneath one of their a/c and want to know it's safe.

[navoff]

Sir Max

I do not not feel that I am in a position to explain, in detail, this flight. A MOR has been passed to the CAA. We will all be able to read this in due course. The only point I would make, is based on the post incident report. I personally would be amazed if he can be criticised for the events following the cable strike. There are obvious things here for discussion, ie how low do you go on a PFL. However, many students I fly with elect to land in a field the size of the airfield they fly from. It does sometimes need proving that tiny fields, when no other choice is available, are viable. I maintain this instructor is both experienced and excellent. His only fault is that he wants the best from his students. Once again, everybody makes mistakes, lets, please, not hang him without the facts.

Navoff

[DB6]

Sir Max, 6 posts in total, all on this thread? Some may draw the wrong conclusions from that.
To expand on my previous post: you've just struck a wire, the aircraft's still flying. Do you a) climb to a safe height and first of all see how the aircraft handles at low speed in the landing configuration, then having confirmed that it will in fact make a safe approach make a Pan call and divert to the nearest suitable airfield (which in this case sounds like it was home base anyway) or b) immediately land in a field, flipping inverted just before landing because one flap is damaged and they deploy asymmetrically or if that doesn't happen, nosing over as the burst nosewheel tyre digs into the unseen rabbit hole? Now which decision is inexplicable?
I don't know any of the parties involved but I do see holier-than-thou posts from people who would seem to have axes to grind, and knowing that Moray Flying Club operates from an RAF base suspect that it will have high standards and good instructors. I could be wrong but I would imagine that whatever could have been done was done, and correctly.

[navoff]

DB6

Well said! It is actually surprising the amount of first time posters on this topic. It may suggest more about the posters than of the incident. There are obviously a few out there with a serious axe to grind. Buck Rodgers would you like to comment now there are a few more facts available?

Navoff

[Sir Max]

Navoff/DB6. Take your points. I fell into this thread after it was brought to my attention by a BA colleague. Too many posts? Sorry, didn't realise first-timers should know their place. Now who's jumping to conclusions? Paranoia is unhelpful in situations like this. However my interest is genuinely from a safety point. I have no 'axe to grind', do not know the instructor or PUT - just what I've heard and read. However there does seem to be a sinister ring of protection building up around the incident. That's not good. If there's nothing to the event then fine. Let's have it out in the open, examined and move on.
Two RAF friends and a civilian colleague have been involved in light a/c power failure incidents in the past 30 years - two resulted in fatalities in the Scotland and Ireland. THAT'S why I am concerned with this kind of safety subject.
I'm as hungry as anyone for the facts but they appear to being kept under wraps. Blame is not an issue - safety and getting it right every time is! Especially where an instructor/student is involved in an odd incident.
But as we appear to be getting into a slagging match why not button it here and hope the powers that be deal with the incident?

[navoff]

SirMax and all

I take your point, but there is no sinister cover up. Unfortunately this thread started with a completely made up story. So it has been difficult to get back to an even, balanced discussion. The simple facts as I understand them are, 5 minutes out from Kinloss a demonstration of a PFL without power was given into a small field. The power line was not visible to either person on board and the posts obscured. During the go-around the cable was struck. A visual assessment and handling check was carried out and the aircraft returned the 5 minute journey back, via every available landing area, without further incident. All the appropriate authorities were informed and an MOR raised. There is nothing further to add to the incident.

We all have something to learn from this, but we can only learn when the facts are presented. Indeed, the flying club has already changed its flying order book and has detailed precisely what can and cannot be done on a PFL.

No doubt the instructor involved is reading this and has read the rubbish produced in the Sun newspaper. Calling for him to be sacked, stupid, etc - this really isn't helpful. This instructor has an excellent track record and is extremely professional. He has guided, encouraged and cajoled me through every stage of my pilot career, he is not the irresponsible demon some here have tried to make out. So for those that have been involved in an element of character assination you are simply wrong.

I do believe there is something to discuss though - how low is too low to prove to a student he can get into a field? All too often when the student says he can get into a field, he can't.

Hope this helps

Navoff

[Sir Max]

Navoff, excellent reply. Now I have some reasonable facts. Lessons to be learned for all.

How low debate is an interesting one. RN instructor I had in the late 60s used to say on PFLs: "If your ass is wiping the grass, you're too low!" Macho, but not very helpful. My own experience is to strike that happy balance. If you can pre-select a good field the instructor knows and conditions are right, take it low - that takes the student into the critical territory of ground proximity where things can get difficult in a real PF situation. Of course there are risks, but properly configured, known field, good conditions and prudent instructor, it delivers valuable experience. In all other circumstances get power on well clear of all known ground obstructions. I think it is that latter point which triggered this thread - was the obstruction seen? It appears not to have been in this case.

It's all about safety chaps. Let's hope all our PF's are practice ones and all CFIs and PUTs keep a good prudent lookout during exercises!

[high voltage]

Like I said in an earlier post if you want to practise PFL's to this level, which I agree is a good idea for demostrating high-key / low-key and how adherance to this profile this will get you in, it should best be done at a grass strip. This is how I was taught and still practise today, so maybe this is something we can learn from.

If this flight was part of a training syllabus, it would have been planned and briefed for. My point is quite simple, to descend low enough that contact was made with the cable, then it was a very poor decision.

That's not a holier-than-thou statement. Its my opinion.

I can understand people who will defend the club and individual, I would do the same, but I don't think you should kid yourself on the high potential that existed for this to have been a very serious and nasty accident.

[navoff]

High Voltage

At least we are now talking in terms of what can be learned. I think that those of us around the club are all too aware of what could have happened. As such we will all thoroughly examine our own procedures and thoughts on PFLs.

I have a question though - If you practise on the same grass strip, with the same student does this give the student genuine confidence in a PFL situation without power? How, when you simulate the failure, do you agree which field the student intends to approach without inhibiting his thought process and field selection. A predetermined field removes a major problem from the student. Excellent for building confidence as you state, but you surely have to move on from this, to a failure in not so well placed a position?

The problem I believe exists when a student states with confidence he can actually glide into the selected field when you know only too well that he can't. Approaching a preselected grass strip would certainly help, but does it replicate an emergency well enough? Similarly, the student tends to go for a massive field (all very good if one exists), but if he doesn't see one he tends to let the situation dictate to him.

I only ask, because I don't know.

Navoff

[FlyingForFun]

Without reference to the specific incident, because I know nothing about it, I thought I'd make some general points.

The way I teach PFLs is to allow the student to pick a field, and carry out the PFL to a safe height, after which I instruct him to go around. What constitutes a "safe height" varies from field to field, depending on the undershoot and overshoot, the legality (is there anything near the field which would cause the 500' rule to come into play), and how good the student's approach is. But I always aim to let the student carry on the PFL to such an extent that we can both agree whether he would have made it into the field or not.

The final stages of the approach and landing, I practice in the circuit when we do glide approaches. I ensure that the student is briefed on the relationship between the glide approach and the PFL, so that they understand not just how to accomplish the glide approach exercise, but also its purpose.

As mentioned, this does raise some issues regarding realism, but with a bit of lateral thinking they can be easily addressed. For example, I've recently discovered Google Earth - a fantastic piece of software! So when one of my students commented that he wasn't sure most of the fields around us were long enough for him to land in, we went back to our home airfield and carried out a glide approach to a complete stop, and noted the position at which we'd stopped. We then loaded Google Earth, zoomed in a picture of our airfield, and used the "measure" tool to measure the distance into our runway which we'd come to a complete stop. Then you can use the same "measure" tool to find the length of the fields we were looking at earlier and compare them.

On a completely different subject, this thread has got me thinking about what I'd do, in a general case and without reference the incident concerned, if my aircraft was struck in flight (by a cable, another aircraft, etc.) After a lot of thought, I came to the conclusion that I don't know. I think there is a lot of merit in climbing to a safe height, exploring the controls and finding out what works and what doesn't, then returing to an airfield where help can be given. But there are obviously cases where an immediate landing would be better - clear signs of structural failure which might deteriorate, severe control problems, etc. And what about at night, or underneath a low cloud base, when you might not be happy to explore the controls before returning home? Without knowing all of the facts, I decided that I can't really decide

I have found this thread extremely thought-provoking once I've filtered out the accusations relating to a specific incident!

FFF
--------------

[high voltage]

NAVOFF

I think in the early stages of teaching PFL's it is important to cover procedures and get the technique firmly bedded in until it becomes second nature. That's why using a grass strip is useful, but as FFF says he demonstrated using a glide at their home airport and I think that's a great idea.

You are right NAV and as soon as you go from the strip to a field you lose the comfort zone and performance can deteriorate. But unless panic sets in, you will still remember the emergency drills and checks and have an idea of what the approach picture looks like, the high key and low key positions. Sure, different height and different topography must all be covered to give the student as much real practise as possible.

I think getting the technique sussed and building confidence are most important first of all.
When this is sound try engine out from different heights, different fields and fine tune the decision and selection process.

I just don't think anyone should be taking any unnecessary risks and going as low as this does concern me.

[Capt_Stewart]

FACTS
PFL's are useful
They are even more useful practiced down to the ground
If you do not check your field before hand and go to 20' agl you may hit something, you may die, you may also kill your student.

DEBATE
It is sensible to go to 20' agl on a PFL if you haven't checked it throughly before hand (? walked it,if you are really planning a touch down)
A high voltage cable is / isn't a structure. ?
What is a structure?
Instructors who go to 20' agl, have Big Ones, Small Ones or both?
All students should be taken to 20'agl & the CAA should make allowances on the grounds of flight safety, this could also cover EFATO's.

OTHER debates (if you can be bothered)
If you stifle debate at club level and try to dumb down debate on pprune people response accordingly.
Barrel Rolls.
Taxying incidents
E-mails to members claiming this was a minor incident
Landing at a major SAR base with a potentially crippled a/c that may have blacked the Deck when other options were available.
People should only contribute to Debate the Principles rather than go on about specific clubs or people.
This is true both ways

[high voltage]

Captain Stewart

I have always maintained descending this low to strike a cable was very poor airmanship. As far as rule 5 goes, I think yo can go down to scuff the grass, provided you are 500' from a structure etc etc etc so reclassifying the legislation is not necessary.

Whether a cable and it's associated telegraph poles or pylons is a structure remains to be proven.

[high voltage]

The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 states

"serious incident" means an incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.

therefore it might not be classify this as being minor incident.

[navoff]

There have been some excellent points made on this subject recently. Ones that I will certainly consider and use when demonstrating PFLs. However, I may have missed something here, who, initially, said it was described as a minor incident by the club? There have been no emails to my knowledge describing this event in such a manner.

Navoff

[PAMCC]

I'm curious to know just how many writing on this thread and making suggestions about how PFLs should be taught have actually had an engine failure.

I was taught to make sure I could get into the field that I had chosen. If this meant going low then going low it was. In many years of flying I never had a check flight that included a pre chosen field by my instructor.

This came into very good use when I actually had an engine failure. I was confident that I would and I did get into my field without mis-hap.

I agree that it could be a good idea to initially practise PFLs at a known location to build up confidence, but this has limited use further in training.

I'm glad to see that the real information is now being discussed and agree with Nav that there is no 'cover-up' with those of us who have posted in support of the club involved here. It is by far, one of the most professionally run clubs I have come across and doesn't deserve some of the mis-information that has occured on this thread.

[FlyingForFun]

Pamcc,

Well done on surviving your engine failure.

You are quite correct in your assumtpion that I have not had an engine failure (I can't speak for the others on this forum). Modern engines are very reliable, and failures very rare, which is probably why so few of us have experienced them.

They are not so rare that it is not important to train for them, of course, and that training should be as realistic as possible, including the selection of a field (which, in my experience, is the area where many students and PPLs struggle the most, especially if they are spoilt for choice).

But when an event is as rare as engine failures are nowadays, it is also important that the risks involved in training for the failure are not greater than the risks associated with the real failure. Everyone has their own personal view of risk, based on their own experiences, but for me, there is a level below which I will not go on a PFL (which, as I said, varies from field to field, and with other factors too). Going below this level will certainly make the PFL more realistic, but I don't feel the risk is worth it is possible to see from a safe height whether the approach would have been successful or not, and when it is possible to practice the final stages of the approach in a safe environment, i.e. at an airfield.

Others' view of the risk involved might well be different to mine, but the risks must at the very least be carefully considered before deciding whether they should be taken or not.

FFF
--------------

[high voltage]

I was writing in response to a previous post which states the club had called it a minor incident hence my post and follow up quote from the AAIB guidlines.

[Had Enough 77]

I think that this thread is in danger of causing a lot more problems than it is solving. I fly out of this club and know the people in question but also know that there is a segment of the membership who really want their own flying club at an RAF base, very cheap!
I do not agree with the actions taken by the pilot in an airmanship capacity but i have also seen and heard good things about the club and person in question. There seems to be too many people ready to stick the knife in without checking the facts, wait for the results of the enquiry then you can have your say.
If said person is exonnerated will certain members of this thread apologise for some of their comments, i dont expect so!
My hope is that this will not put off people using the club as many people at Kinloss have started their aviation careers there and would probably not have if it was not there?
As for the story in the sun the journalist in question has the credability of a wet kipper, he was the one that got the name of one of the crew of the tornado shot down by the american patriot battery wrong!

[sk8erboi]

An interesting thread developing.
I learned at Moray. I have may good things to say, but the one bad thing was the stifling attitude of the CFI to safety. I know you can't be 'too safe'. but there does come a point where a qualified CPL or even PPL should be able to go flying without having their planning scrutinised by instructors.
As an aside, all those defending him I would ask: are you somehow justifying an instructor striking a power cable in a normal flight?

[high voltage]

It's interesting you say that sk8erboi because the thread was started by someone who made suggestions of CRM issues etc but then did not return to answer their critics. I joined to discuss the issue of PFL's with regards to the PPL syllabus, I also felt that some were trying to prevent the discussion taking place - quite obviously people who are colleagues and friends of the instructor.

Above all there is much to be learned from this incident, I don't think people are defending the actions of the instructor more they see him as a skilled and highly proficient aviator. It's very unfortuante for this incident to occur and more unfortunate for the status of the instrutor concerned but we should learn from it and move forward.

[high voltage]

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/march_2006/reims_cessna_fa152__g_mpbh.cfm

[Sir Max]

Having just caught up with this thread after some time surfing the air over foreign lands I was interested to read the AAIB report on the cable strike. I think the conclusion says all that needs to be said - 20 feet is too low.
It is reckless in the extreme to assume too much in aviation - you may think something's safe but the reality is often different. Safety is what is paramount.
Scapegoat searches are often driven by a desire to get one's own back - I detected that here. But there are disturbing issues in the defence shown by some club/RAF members - let's have the truth out in the open to see what can be done to improve things for EVERYONE. If all can learn from what happened at this club, knuckles gently wrapped and practices changed for the better then we should all be happy.
That will leave Moray FC to continue with their remarkably cheap flying (only for RAF members I believe) at this major RAF front line airbase.
Nice to know my taxes are being spent so wisely and fairly keeping so many in the air who may not otherwise want to afford the pleasure.

[buck rodgers]

the guy in charge if the club called it a MINOR INCIDENT. the guy who hit the wire also did a barrel roll in the circuit. defend that. dont call me a a fool for bringing the subject up, i am allowed to as it is reasonable to do so. Heard in the pub a PAN was not declared, buth that might just be a pprumour.

[Keep it straight]

in my ppl flighttest i was 500 feet and told the testing bloke ye i get in allright, wich i did believe. and tought righto thats the forced landing bit out off the way. he replyed is that so? you better show me. so we decent and decent. when i tought that my weels were bruching the maize crop he told me to go around. when we were back at 500 feet he said righto you did get in. BUT you would have totaly F:mad: d the plane. and most likely anded up with some insuries. so we went up and he showed me and next time i got in ok. and i learned a lot from that. The testing bloke DID know the aerea really well tough. so we were not unsave. and he wanted to prove a point. in my cpl training i had a top instructor who pulled the power a few times near strips and we did get in ok.
come cpl test we anded up arguing with old mate wich bloody paddock i had picked. since i had to go around at 500 feet because that is the rule. let alone being able to tell wether i got in ok.
I think an instructor should know the area, and the wires and other traps, but than let the student go as low as he can prefble in a strip he hasnt been before so they get used to being that low and knowing for sure they can get in when they do things right and all goes a bit silent up front.
i think this would be a comfort boster for when it goes wrong.
just make sure they dont do it on there own!!!

[Sir Max]

My goodness chaps! What's happened to the English language?

[mad_jock]

To be honest the debate which I think is long over due on PFL's is getting spoiled by the internal politics of the club which I might add have been going on for years.

The incident which has been described will have happened many times before but luckly for the FI they have managed to have ball left in the bag of luck and got away with it.

In my days as a FI I felt my duty of care meant I had to teach and make sure that a student could get a PFL in. This wasn't really a duty of care to the student. It was a duty of care to all the unqualified people who would put there trust in the system that the person was able to fly when they go flying with them. And I believe that most if not all PPL examiners are the same. Which is why they tend to take it to the deck.

The problem with PFL's is that after very few go's most can do the circuit, deal with the checks and get it somewhere near the field at 500ft. The real work occured below this level. And the last 20 ft to be honest is not only the most dangerous to those involved but also the place where all the small mistakes earlier are exposed. The student then also has to deal with ground rush of fences getting nearer, trees and all those other things people don't generally have next to runways, low level wind changes etc . A very common fault is to pull the control stick back to keep away from the ground prolonging the glide with the resulting problem with a high drag stall to spin. Now how to expose the students to that situation without going below 50ft? You don't want them to experence it on there first engine failure.

And if you think doing PFL's is dangerous go and watch some helo's doing auto's there accident rate is far worse than the fixed wing PFL's exercises.

There is (or wasn't in my day) no set guidelines for PFL's, if the CAA stated that all examiners have to knock PFL's off at 500ft its no problem thats what they will be done to, with the resulting hole in the training for the student. Currently examiners and FI's are trying to train you to the best that they can within a very loose set of guidlines which leave much to the individual.

[BongleBear]

Right, the 500' rule is that you must always be at least 500' from any person, vehicle, vessel or structure. The only other comments on rule 5 say that above a populated area (ie. flying over a large town or city) you must be at least 1000' and be able to glide to safety in the event of loss of power. Now, with that said, as long as you are at least 500' from any person, vehicle, vessel or structure (pylons not included) you can fly at 1' above the ground. Whether that's good airmanship is another matter. Going around from a PFL at 500' AGL is sometimes not a great exercise, it can be hard to judge whether you'd make it in from that height, and remember what a PFL is- it's an exercise to practice forced landings, what's the point in practising the approach only to find that you're not judging it properly the whole time?

All I'd say about this case is that the captain (and the student - and even more so if he/she is indeed a license holder) showed poor judgement and poor lookout capabilities in not seeing the pylon/cables.

(nb. thanks Radar for pointing out the update, it seems it changed april last year so I have no excuses!)

[PPRuNe Radar]

BongleBear

You need to revise your view of Rule 5 for congested areas :ok:

It's now 1000', not 1500'.

[painter34]

Buck rodgers,

You started this thread, and I can't say that there hasn't been some useful discussion, because there has. Nevertheless, you made some striking statements at the start, which not surprisingly prompted some vicious discussion. Your original assertion about landing in a field turned out to be complete nonsense. You disappeared for a while, and then returned to a forum which in your absence is having a reasonably fair and balanced discussion.

You maintained throughout that your aim was only to promote safe flying, however on more than one occasion you used words such as 'bully' to describe this individual. On 2 separate occasions you said that you do not want a public lynching, however your repeated assertion of this point indicates two things:

1. That you do in fact want a public lynching. (In verbal terms at least)

2. That your goal is not as honourable as you would suggest, and that in fact you simply don't like this person and have siezed on an opportunity to kick him when down.

Some day it might be you who is down, and I hope that your enemies are more gracious than you have been here.

[BongleBear]

well said painter








was it you?!

[scotavia]

I have just joined Prune and found this thread,I am a member of the club.
My background includes 22 years working in flight safety. The incident has been fully investigated by the relevant authority who will issue their own report.
I have no problems with the instructor or the well run club. I do have a huge problem with a small number of stirrers who are having a vendetta against the CFI and his wife who also works at the club.This incident has been used to stir up more ill feeling. And of course the stirrers refuse to be out in the open.They have even sent round robin emails full of lies.

It is a shame because the club has a superb attitude to safety issues.

[scotavia]

Oh FYI Sir Max, the Moray Flying Club does admit civvy members, I am one. Hence the many trainees who have gone on to work in airlines.

[Sir Max]

Ah yes, Scotavia.

I do realise that - but if my Nimrod aircrew contacts are correct the "cheaper" element of flying is only available to serving RAF personnel. Is that correct?

It would be interesting to know what the cost differntials are and how the "cheaper" RAF personnel rates are funded.

Perhaps as a civilian member you can tell us?

[high voltage]

[quote=painter34]

[ You maintained throughout that your aim was only to promote safe flying, however on more than one occasion you used words such as 'bully' to describe this individual. ]

If somone is a bit of a bully does that make the other party less likely to challenge their actions decisions or authority? I would say so. And this has been a contributory factor in past accidents and incidents. So layoff painter, get someone else's playground crisps :ok:

[mad_jock]

Would the lot of you get a grip.

The person I feel sorry for is the poor sod that has got the secondary duty of over seeing this sorry mess.

I have never been and will never be a member of the club. And most will have met me and spoken to me if they have been on the pigeon trophy over the last few years (the fat tall good looking instructor flipping burgers, instead of short fat ugly looking instructor or thin instructors)

This crap has been going on for years. Every time you speak to someone you hear "well we have got him this time" be it VAT or kiting out an aircraft or whatever. And the other stuff which I am not going to repeat on PPrune. And to be honest I don't think its solely due to the club members there are alot of other people in the area who would like to see his down fall.

If the RAF chaps really don't want civi club members and don't want perm staff members, deal with it and make your views known to the powers that be. Its your club your airfield your pack of cards.

The civi's wind your bloody knecks in and shut up. Your are there under sufferance if you create to much hassel the whole lot could be chucked.

[Sir Max]

Kind of agree with you Mad Jock. But let's not forget the underying issue - safety.
Thirty years ago there was a Dyce (Aberdeen) instructor who was renowned both for his skill and his cavalier disregard for safety when it came to showing off. To his credit he was a good pilot who got away with it. But to my knowledge two of his students didn't. Both hung on the instructor's every 'gung-ho' word and subscribed to the "it won't happen to me" school of thought. One creamed the ground trying to fly under a power line near Dyce and the other wrapped a 172. It put one chap in hospital for many months.
Point here is to learn from disasters and near disasters. The more people read this link - both good and bad bits - the better. They might think twice about getting too low unecessarily and that might make the sky, and the ground for that matter, a lot safer for all of us.

And to hell with civis shutting up in respect of the RAF club - from what I know of similar clubs I've been in while in the Service they NEED the civis as part of their constitution to be able to operate, to be seen to be 'inclusive' and get the permission they need and the funding they obviously receive. Service clubs do pretty well as it is - I know I've been there!

MFC was not operational when I used to land at Kinloss but I hope they continue. It's great to have a light aviation club on an RAF base - but Service members should not get carried away with their 'rights'. Their 'rights' actually belong to all of us - them and the rest of us taxpayers.

[scotavia]

Get a grip mad Jock says, phew thats a lot coming from some one who sits shouting from the side lines. Before I was a civvy I served at Kinloss, so do know a lot about the club and its genesis. The ethos of the RAF is safe operation ,even the title of this forum originates from a wartime flight safety publication. So you can be certain that any flying club operating as part of RAF adventure activities comes under far more scrutiny than a civvy club. There is even a need to adhere to an RAF flying order book. I have visited about ten civvy clubs over the past twenty years and only found one that took safety as keenly as MFC.With 22 years working in Air traffic I have witnessed some awful airmanship from other flying club aircraft who should have known better. If the MFC screwed up bigtime they would be off the airfield.

The secondary duty officer I C has an affinity withn the club and like me wishes that the stirrers would speak up in person instead of waffling on with ill informed gossip.

Club fees do vary for full(RAF) members and associates(civvy) not by a huge amount. Civvy members are needed to keep the club in business. Contrary to belief a lot of the serving RAF want nothing to do with aircraft when they are off duty.Hourly rates are lower than some clubs this is mostly because you have to do a lot of the work yourself, not just drive up and fly off.Its certainly not a case of the taxpayer paying a subsidy.

[Sir Max]

Scotavia - your final point is inaccurate. No one mentioned 'subsidy'. Facilities like air traffic are being used by MFC and I would be very surprised if they are billed directly for this or any airfield facilities provided. If I'm wrong please provide the evidence. There's no doubt that MFC benefits greatly (RAF and civilian members) from being on an RAF airfield and that should be acknowledged. How else are fees kept low? And don't waffle about doing the work yourselves - every service and civilian club I have been connected with in more tha 30 years of commercial and light aviation has involved a considerable amount of "self work" from dedicated bands. That's how it should be.

I take your comments on standards very seriously - I too have had to oversee similar operations. And that is why this thread appears to have generated so much heat. Safety is paramount - and even more so on an RAF, or other Service, station.

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of this particular situation I and any other sensible aviator knows that 20 ft alg is far too low to be safe for an exercise when the likehood of being 'surprised' by a power line exists. That's what has to be tackled and steps taken to ensure it never happens again. I hope for the sake of MFC this has been taken to heart and they can continue to hold their heads high knowing they meet the highest levels of professionalism and safety consciousness.

[high voltage]

To Scotavia and the likes I think your pompous spat stating how wonderful RAF Clubs safety record is with the extra discipline and rules required, while implying Civilian Clubs are less competent, less safe, less able is utterly distasteful and NOT PROVEN

Our club prides itself on follwing rules to the dot, who are you to say we don't scrutinise our own operations! :mad:

[Sir Max]

Scotavia - well said.

[buck rodgers]

never has been answered has it, question of NOT making a pan or mayday after the strike, Or about doing a barrel roll in the CIRCUIT

good questions that should be answered yet totally ignoed by the fools who seem more intent on sucking up to those in power than making a sensible judgement,

good questions that should be answered :mad:

[Met Man]

buck rogers.

are you going to appologise to those concerned for starting a thread which has now been shown to be slanderous through the publication of the facts in the aaib report?

or are you a pussy?

perhaps you should be a man and confront whomever with whatever axe you have to grind directly instead of spreading sensationalist lies through the anonyminty of this forum.

:D

[Sir Max]

Grow up Met Man - issues were raised and needed to be answered. Buck Rogers did well to start the thread so we could all get a clear picture of what actually happened.

Clowns like you are typical of the gung ho brigade who litter the light aviation world.

What was important here was safety. It's been discussed, it's been examined and those in authority have reported.

Let's hope lessons have been learned all round

The idea that it's wrong to ask questions and point fingers about those in authority is right wing nonsense. Instructors need to be head and shoulders above the rest. Squeaky clean.

[Met Man]

[quote=buck rodgers]This happened with an experienced instructor and professiona pilot, who then landed in a field and inspected the damage (there was some but cannot confirm the extent) and then said instructor chose to fly aircraft back to base with his student .

the above quote is from the first posting on the thread, posted by Buck Rogers.

if you've read the aaib report you'll know that the initial claims made by Buck Rogers were hearsay, or worse, lies, so what was actually discussed initially was not what actually happened.

like you say sir max, "What was important here was safety. It's been discussed, it's been examined and those in authority have reported." any recomendations from the report sir max?? flight safety must be based on facts, not slanderous rumours. having read the report i consider it to have been good airmanship shown by the instructor concerned in view of the fact that he couldn't land ahead.

sir max, i am not a clown nor am i gungho, in fact your wrong on all counts. perhaps you are letting your assumtions of your fellow aviators cloud your judgement.

i have never said that it is wrong to point fingers or ask questions, but it's wrong in anyones book to make accusations about someone in a public forum which are then proven to be false and not appologise for doing so. perhaps you never understood my initial post sir max.

i say again:

buck rogers

are you going to appologise to those concerned for starting a thread which has now been shown to be slanderous through the publication of the facts in the aaib report?

[high voltage]

Met Man - have you missed the point of PPRUNE? It's a forum to write and discuss all things aviation. So you're agrieved that your club and incident have been brought up on these forums? Well that's too bad, no appologies for sticking a giant pin in your ego but you can't pull rank here :=.

Makign childish remarks to others on these forums is poor conduct :suspect:

I have read the report and note the swift amendment of your flying operating rules so PFL's are not continued below 100' AGL. Sensible amendment if you ask me and others should read and consider this practise too.

[Met Man]

dont think i have high voltage. its a forum to discuss rumours and news, not lies. you are wrong. i am not agrieved that this club or incident has been discussed here, i dont have a particularly large ego but it is intact with no pins stuck in it, and i am not pulling rank since i have no rank to pull. i merely have morals.

i think it is you who has missed the point of my posts. i have made no childish remarks, and we both know that it is poor conduct to start a thread with lies and not appologising when proven to be lies. to make it clear, i think that buck rodger should appologise to the club publicly for starting this slanderous thread with lies. its not a difficult concept to grasp.

its obvious from some of the posts on this thread that some are not concerned with safety but have an alterior motive. any discussion about safety needs to be based on facts, not slanderous misleading sensationalist lies.

i have to agree that the ammendment to the club flying order book is a good thing to come out of this incident, and would be a good order to be implemented in other flying order books.

i say again, again:

buck rodgers,

are you going to appologise to those concerned for starting a thread which has now been shown to be slanderous through the publication of the facts in the aaib report.

[high voltage]

quote [or are you a pussy]

that IS a childish remark.

[Met Man]

in retrospect, you are right high voltage. "or are you a pussy?" does read a bit childish which is not how i meant it to read, for which i appologise to Buck Rodgers.

i should of asked "or are you affraid?" and i actually meant to ask it after
"perhaps you should be a man and confront whomever with whatever axe you have to grind directly instead of spreading sensationalist lies through the anonyminty of this forum."

to clarify my original post:

buck rogers.

are you going to appologise to those concerned for starting a thread which has now been shown to be slanderous through the publication of the facts in the aaib report?

perhaps you should be a man and confront whomever with whatever axe you have to grind directly instead of spreading sensationalist lies through the anonyminty of this forum.

or are you affraid?

[unfazed]

Guys

Sounds like a fist fight might well be the best way to sort things out !

As for the discussion sounds like the accident report is the definitive conclusion and the case should now be closed

No axe to grind and don't know the club or the people involved

[high voltage]

I've enjoyed the PFL discussion here but must add the aggressive posturing from certain participants can only lead me to believe there is something else to be debated, allthough not necessarily here on PPRUNE, and preferably without resorting to a fist-fight as suggested by Unfazed.

I would say this to you Metman, you joined this thread late on and have simply demanded an appology for what you call lies and sensationalism. I am presuming you represent or are from the club - why else come on here and take such a line? The truth is one of your aircraft was involved in quite a sensational incident and this will attract attention from all the airmchair critics out there, which I would add include myself. I doubt you will get your appology and I also doubt some of the other points posed will receive a response either. Nonetheless I dislike people like yourselve who come on here and attempt to intimidate other users, by making mindless and childlike statements which are more akin to playground politics than intellectual debate.

Perhaps all parties should now draw a close on this one.

[Met Man]

i have made no demands high voltage. only asked if buck rodgers is going to appologise, not to me, but to the club and the instructor involved. for the record, i am no representative of the club, merely a member.

i think sensible discussion, genuinely about flight safety, armed with the facts of the incident is a good thing, and have never once thought otherwise, however we all now know that facts were not what was initially discussed. it appears to me that the thread was started by someone with an alterior motive, spreading misleading lies to achieve his own objectives whatever they may be, which has mislead a lot of the armchair critics on this forum.

perhaps there is something left to debate, and not on pprune as you said. that is why i also said to buck rodgers, "perhaps you should be a man and confront whomever with whatever axe you have to grind directly instead of spreading sensationalist lies through the anonyminty of this forum." in my original post.

i am sorry if you think of me as aggressive, i think i am straight to the point but that's just a difference of oppinions. the points i have raised were not mindless but well aimed at buck rodgers which you seem to have taken offense to, and i have already appologised for appearing as childish which was not how i intended to come across. if you read back through the thread you will see that the "playground politics" started with the begining of this thread. i merely think an appology is due from buck rodgers.

i agree that we should now draw this to a close as you seem to be misunderstanding me with every post i make.

unless buck rodgers has anything further to say?

MetMan out.:)

[baronvonsticnkehoffe]

A few mixed up FACTS here, various REAL events. SO to clarify:

Wire strike is as the AAIB.

The one where the instructor allegedly hit an object and flew off was when taxi-ing they allegedly contacted with parked aircraft and went flying anyway, after allegedly inspecting damage :eek: AND deciding to carry on flight.

A pan was NOT made after this wire strike. Why?:( Remember concorde hitting FOD on runway. Plane returns with structural and control damage, risk of FOD but no PAN declared? Very strange. Light signals could be used if no radio, remember the basics.

Barrel roll in the circuit was done as a celebration of flights hours completed - not a lie or slanderous rumour but another FACTS.

DONT START YOUR CRAP ABOUT SPREADING LIES METMAN, IF PEOPLE WANT TO DISCUSS FACTS THEN THEY ARE FREE TO DO SO. these are facts!

NO AXE TO GRIND EXCEPT WHEN PEOPLE MAKE THREATS TO DISCOURAGE FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO DEBATE FACTS.

NO PUNCH UP REQUIRED, THESE ARE FACTS OF REAL EVENTS

Its on paper, they called it a minor incident. Another fact.

Send a PM to discuss if required but dont waste your time with futile threats.

[Met Man]

Quote baronvonsticnkehoffe

"The one where the instructor allegedly hit an object and flew off was when taxi-ing they allegedly contacted with parked aircraft and went flying anyway, after allegedly inspecting damage :eek: AND deciding to carry on flight."

This is yet another sensationalist lie, the same as the one that started this thread. I was there when this incident happened and i can assure you that this is sensationalist lies blowing everything out of proportion and painting the instructor in a wrong light!

i now question the validity of the rest of your "facts" in your post.

Contrary to what your post implies I have nothing against discussing the facts. If you would please refer to my previous posts you will see this, but that is not what is being discussed here.

You will also see that I have made no threats whatsoever so what's your beef baron?

Rather than conduct a discussion in private through PM's perhaps you can enlighten us all by telling us what paper you refer to.

[Cactus99]

unless buck rodgers has anything further to say?

MetMan out.:)


Ah ha, it seems not!! :ugh:

[Met Man]

Damn! You've caught me out cactus!:)

[high voltage]

MetMan

Why don't you sort the wheat from the chaff? Are we to believe these other events being discussed are total lies, perhaps an attempt to smear the club concerned and there is not a modicum of truth amongst it all? Or is there indeed an element of truth that you have carefully failed to answer, or have you purposefully chosen not to engage?

[Met Man]

hi high voltage.

certainly nothing that i have "carefully failed to answer". i have been full and frank with all my posts, i can assure you of that.

the report on the pfl incident says it all. it proves that some of the earlier posts on this thread are wrong.

"The one where the instructor allegedly hit an object and flew off was when taxi-ing they allegedly contacted with parked aircraft and went flying anyway, after allegedly inspecting damage :eek: AND deciding to carry on flight."

the above i know to be slanderous lies and a non event. as an incident it's not even worth discussing. this, as you say, leads me to believe that the "barrel roll in the circuit" claim is a lie as well.
i hadn't even heard of this till i read this thread.

some of the posters on this thread are definitely trying to smear the club and have a hidden agenda.

Met Man

[high voltage]

Hello again Metman

It sounds as though you need to get your house in order and I hope then the barrel roll story is smear and that it did not occurr. What an audacious act that would have been.

Presumably your whip will be getting the back-benchers in line for causing this furore.

[DB6]

What's wrong with barrel rolling in the circuit? It's an excellent method of widening or tightening your circuit (depending on which way you roll) and you can regain or lose 100' or so too if you've wandered off your datums while still looking exceedingly flash - providing of course that you don't dish or plummet on exit :ok: :E :E :E

[baronvonsticnkehoffe]

Hey Met, its YOUR behaviour that is slanderous lies - stickin your head in the sand for too long obviously!

I'm not lie-ing and you know it but you are in DENIAL of the truth, i can prove all I say and ve got all have the emails of correspondence and witnesses to back up. Not even you can pour rain on all of that!!

So go back to the silver cloud, your man screwed up (AGAIN) and you got some bad publicity out of it this time.

"I do not recall the event. I do not recall the conversation. I do not recall the event. I do not recall the conversation. I do not recall the event. I do not recall the conversation. I do not recall the event. I do not recall the conversation. I do not recall the event. I do not recall the conversation. I do not recall the event. I do not recall the conversation. I do not recall the event. I do not recall the conversation."

yeah yeah, seen that tactic before, wont work here. you'll get dragged away y men in white coats before that sh*t starts to stick

[bergkamp1]

out of interest:

when i take my ppl skills test, if during the pfl section i feel continuing the approach will take us within 500ft of a person, vessel, vehicle or structure what should my course of action be?

[BEagle]

State your concern and go around.

[Met Man]

"Hey Met, its YOUR behaviour that is slanderous lies - stickin your head in the sand for too long obviously!"

where have i slandered anyone? i can assure you baron, it's not me who is spreading lies.

as previously stated, i know that what you claim regarding at least one of the incidents is a lie. i was there when it happened and know what you wrote is well off the mark, so don't say that i am sticking my head in the sand.

if you really feel that you have anything to prove baron take it up with those concerned. bring it up at a committee meeting instead of bitching about it here. or vote with your pocket and leave the club.

i for one am perfectly happy with moray flying club and will be staying.

[mfc.concerns]

Yes it was me who stirred the pot way back in 2001:}

THE RED MIST IS BEGINNING TO DESCEND

So to summarise for those poor b*******s who are reading this.


Back in the good old days MFC was a friendly cheap club, thriving one could say.
3 A/c, £50/hr ish, Instructors flying for fun.
Sounds to good to be true:ok: but it was. I was a member.

Now let it not be said Tthat a good opportunity is ever missed by a willing management.

1) So along come the management.
(lets increase my hours, via the back door)
2) Lets install a new CFI (Husband) who flys for vastly more. (old ones were fine, in fact very good)
3) Now lets take control & piss off the old crew. If they leave there will be more work for us.

4) Remember that the RAF boys can't challenge or it goes down the line.
5) Lets get a twin & pay for the costs of the training/paper work (Thats a good business plan)
6) Even better lets bring our own A/c over and lease it (despite not enough flying hrs and instructors as they are all pissed off now)
6) Cost going up boys (less flying boys, costs going up boys)
7) Slight challenge to this way of thinking (one in the gut for yu boy)

8) Anonymous e-mail sent to Officier in Charge OIC (No response)
9) E-mail sent to all members of MFC (iT HEATS UP A BIT NOW:mad: )
10) Stalin's purge begins on the 'USUAL' suspects (Look inward:* boys & girl)

11) Some normal guys piss off to Highland
(Members down, flying down costs up)

12) Lets pay for the old guy to get a aerobatics cert.
13) I've got a good idea, lets sell the MFC A/c and get them to buy ours. :p
14) Good idea, lets put around that the PA28 is a load of boll**ks and it isn't up to the Job. :ok: Lets not replace the adf or prop until we need to sell it. I know that the 172's engine is almost time expired but nobody will notice.

15) Flying hours down and costs up boys
16) I think we need more members :eek:

17) Other issues (accounts not transparent, chat behind peoples backs, unable to get the instructor you want or any at times, Booking via Management only, refusal to repair adf or prop on PA28) list goes on.
18)If you put your head out of line you or other suspects are shot.:sad:

So really a long standing resentment, am I bitter? not really as I am having fun and they are still going on and on about the same old things

I am not a member any more from choice and circumstances and I have kept my peace for a long time now as I really have better things to do than squabble.

HOWEVER
I was staggered to see the number of posts relating to this over the last few years and the number of hits.
I guess it reflects the nature of the beast that this has been kept simmering.

Those of you who defend chopping your tail off or taxying into somebodies prop really don't know what you are talking about.

There are many other issues here, take it or leave it and I know what I did.:yuk:

MFC is now in demise from its formal self, it will no doubt recover at some stage.
Well done to that OIC that has dragged its good name into PRUNE the SUN and idle gossip. There are still many good members still at MFC and I am sorry it is now in such poor shape wish you (the good guys and girls) well

CONCERNS

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

OK that's enough folks.