View Full Version : ZK-FGA Fouga Firth of Thames accident report
Pilot in fatal crash 'breached civil aviation rules'
08 March 2006
By HANNAH LAWRENCE
The pilot of a jet which crashed in 2004 while preparing for an air show, killing both occupants, had little experience in aerobatics and breached numerous civil aviation rules, an accident report released today says.
The vintage plane, a Potez Air Fouga CM 170 Magister jet, crashed into the Firth of Thames near Kaiaua on March 19, 2004, killing pilot Chris Timms, 56, and crewmember Kerry Campbell, 57, chief executive of Aucklande's Ardmore Airport.
It was reported at the time the two men had been practising manoeuvres for the Wings and Wine Lake Taupo Airshow.
The aircraft was owned by a syndicate, including Mr Timms and Warbirds Association president Trevor Bland.
An accident report released by the Civil Aviation Authority today made a number of conclusions on the crash, including that the pilot had little or no experience performing aerobatic manoeuvres at low level in jet aircraft.
It said the manoeuvres were not authorised by the New Zealand Warbirds Association, and were performed in an area that had the potential to impact on public safety.
Both men were members of the New Zealand Warbirds Association (inc).
The report said they were conducting a flight in preparation for an air display routine when the plane was seen by witnesses to climb and enter cloud.
"A short time later, the aircraft was observed to exit cloud in a steep spiralling dive that continued until the aircraft struck the sea. Both occupants were killed on impact." it said.
The plane crashed about 200m from shore.
The objective of the flight was to be "a critique of the pilot's suitability to perform an air display" in the plane at the Taupo show scheduled for the next day.
After a 48 minute test flight the previous night the pilot, Mr Timms, declared it was the first time he had carried out low level aerobatics in the aircraft, the report said.
His most recent low level flying authorisation stipulated no aerobatics below 1500 feet and low level flypasts not below 200 feet.
The aircraft was airworthy and operating normally until the accident, the report said.
Mr Timms was appropriately licensed, rated and medically fit to fly the plane.
Crewmember Mr Campbell had not been in the aircraft before the fatal flight.
His role was to assess the flight and report to Warbirds that Mr Timms had performed as briefed.
Under Warbirds rules a prerequisite for that role was that it be carried out by a qualified flight instructor. Mr Campbell was not an instructor and was not type rated on the aircraft, but the association considered his background – including flying Skyhawks for the RNZAF– made him suited for the exercise.
"Given the speed of events, it is unlikely that the crewmember would have been able to take over and effect a recovery, regardless of flying ability or qualifications," the report said.
The report said the location of the accident exposed the general public of the Kaiaua township to unnecessary risk.
It said Mr Timms breached numerous civil aviation rules including that he was not authorised to operate below 1500 feet and perform low level aerobatics, did not ensure the safe operation of the aircraft and safety of its occupants, was not authorised by Warbirds to be at a low level in the area, violated minimum heights, did not maintain the aircraft clear of cloud and performed aerobatics too close to a town.
He was currently rated for the aircraft type, "however, 48-minutes flying in a jet aircraft after a period of five months' absence is not considered suitable preparation for a pilot intent on performing a low-level air display at an airshow," the report said.
One of the safety actions listed in the report was that the Civil Aviation Authority will review its advisory to include "flight recency requirements" and guidelines for aerobatic flight.
The Warbirds association will also review advisories and accepted a recommendation it should strengthen its control and influence over private owners of warbirds aircraft who intend to use them in air displays.
The RNZAF has launched a display flight training programme for military and civilian pilots, which will run annually over a weekend.
After the crash Mr Timms' wife, Susanne, said her husband gave all to his interests – be it yachting, flying or growing rhododendrons.
An industrial chemist by trade, he won gold for New Zealand at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics with Rex Sellars in the Tornado class of yachting. The pair then won a silver medal four years later in Seoul.
Mr Campbell, from Pakuranga, flew Skyhawks in the RNZAF before working as airport manager at Hamilton Airport and becoming chief executive at Ardmore.
He was operations manager at Hamilton Airport for four years until 1997.
tinpis
8th Mar 2006, 06:13
Take one PPL with large cheque book.
Add one small fast plane.
Results?
A lot of broken hearts.
How many more?
AerocatS2A
8th Mar 2006, 07:32
A better question might be, what do you need to add to one PPL with a large cheque book and a small fast plane to equal one safe operation?
Or,
Safe operation - small fast plane - well off PPL = ?
More training?
More thorough oversight from the Warbirds community?
More oversight from CAA?
Or do we already have adequate protection in place, and was this one man just an unfortunate blip in the system? After all, PPLs have been operating warbirds for sometime and they don't all plunge into the sea.
Healey 3000
8th Mar 2006, 07:37
Aah, tinpis
You don't know haow much truth you speak!!
PitterPatter
9th Mar 2006, 22:12
Self made multimillionaire Michael Erceg.............
Take one PPL with large cheque book.
Add one small fast plane.
Results?
A lot of broken hearts.
How many more?
The answer is "lots". There have been lots, and there will be lots more.
Personally I am amazed that the CAA allow it, but then the CAA have little interest in accident prevention. Not to mention the somewhat incestuous activities of their own staff.
maybe Helen should make the Skyhawks available to PPLs. She could make a fortune out of millionaire thrillseekers.
lostpianoplayer
13th Mar 2006, 09:16
Um. Am I reading this right? You people are seriously suggesting that PPLs who fly high performance aircraft are, by definition, a safety hazard? Forget training, forget experience, forget attitude...if you can afford a high performance aircraft but don't need a CPL cos you don't fly commercially, you're automatically dangerous? I seem to recall an awful lot of accidents occuring in the CPL environment too, actually. And some pretty dumb accidents, as well as the less easily explicable. Not to mention PPLs in more conventional aircraft. Course, it's easy just to let the old green eyed monster take over eh boys?
AerocatS2A
13th Mar 2006, 12:06
Agreed lostpianoplayer, anyone can crash high performance single engine aircraft. Very experienced warbird pilots with ATPLs are quite capable of pranging one, you don't need a PPL to do it.
Runaway Gun
13th Mar 2006, 20:25
I've had the honour of flying with Kerry and Chris, and I was more than impressed with their flying, and in particular their safety practices. They were not trying to impress me, but their discipline did.
It is unfortunate that this Fouga flight turned out the way it did. However these men were not reckless types. It was an accident, and these things happen.
I have seen a few CPL, ATPL holders and Military Pilots fly much more dangerously than the majority of PPL holders. The actual licence (or hours) that a pilot holds does not automaticaly equate to his/her professionality or safety.
If the report is correct, the pilot exhibited neither discipline nor professionalism, and no more than cursory safety practices. In fact, they essentially laughed at the rules and just did their own thing. The pilot was EXTREMELY reckless in his actions.
It may be that you can class it as an "accident", but it was an accident caused by the failure of the pilot to operate safely and inside his skill level, in other words it was basically his own fault.
A PPL may be able to fly to the same standard as a higher licence holder, however they have never elected to prove their ability by gaining the higher licences. This is because a lot of them are just thrillseekers who want to indulge their hobby with the minimum of interference from the CAA.
In some ways this accident is not surprising, as the pilot exhibited a complete lack of self-discipline, something far less likely in an airline-level pilot (which is why airliners don't crash that often).
Anybody flying high-performance jet fighters (or even a Fouga) should have to vigorously prove their fitness to be allowed that privilege, and that should include at least a CPL.
AerocatS2A
14th Mar 2006, 00:58
MOR, I'm afraid that having a CPL teaches you jack about flying safe low level aeros, you also don't need to be any more "professional" to get one. The CPL test is a simple skill test, and any old clown can do it. All an ATPL shows is that you can muddle through a few more exams and hold down a job long enough to get the required hours.
Having an ATPL does at least show that you probably have worked commercially so you MAY have learned some self discipline. But not necessarily. I have seen highly respected ATPL holders do some quite stupid things in the heat of the moment. And quite frankly there are some ATPL holders that should never be allowed into any aircraft away from the company imposed SOPs of their airline flying.
Class of licence is a poor measure of a pilot's skills and self discipline.
As I said before, crashing high performance single engine fighters and trainers is not just the domain of the PPL.
I quite agree with you, but by the same token allowing PPLs to fly fighter jets with little or no supervision, minimal oversight, and no formal training in the operation of these aircraft, is highly dangerous. In the absence of a proper display licence, having a CPL would at least imply a much better understanding of aerodynamics and so forth than a PPL does, which is such a laughably simple exam that you hardly need to know anything to pass it.
Even the acquistion of higher licences indicates a higher level of self-discipline and motivation to be as aware as possible of the risks involved.
If it was me, I wouldn't allow these clowns near warbirds until they had a CPL, at least 5000 hours, and a clear demonstration of skill (plus being current on type).
AerocatS2A
14th Mar 2006, 04:13
Yes, you make good points.
I'd probably drop the 5000 hours in favour of strict training and assessment criteria (your "clear demonstration of skill".) I think 1000 of the right hours is more beneficial than 5000 arbitary hours (after all, look at the chaps who get to skoot around in the RAAF's F18s, not much hours, but very good training.)
The New Zealand Warbirds Association certainly has the experience available to give adequate training. Until the CAA step in, it comes down to whether Joe Bloggs has the ability to recognise his or her limitations, and seek the training.
The 5000 hours is just to ensure that the pilot has had exposure to lots of different weather conditions and other factors. If the training is good, it is irrelevant, but how good is PPL training? Pretty average, I would say. Nothing like what you would get in the Air Force, where the penalties for breaking the rules are somewhat more drastic.
I agree it is up to the individual to recognise his or her limits and act accordingly, but in this case, the pilot exhibited a complete lack of character and self-discipline, and look at the results.
I have known four other people who were rich warbird owners, and they were all complete cowboys. Fast aircraft seem to attract them.
It would be a different matter if the CAA did it's job. Maybe if the Warbirds people were a bit more pro-active as well.
Sum Yung Guy
14th Mar 2006, 12:32
As far as flying high performance jets is concerned, it is not about the licence but all about the training. Chris was definitely a ppl with low time and multiple ratings an Kerry hadn't flown Skyhawks for some 20 years and harvards don't count for neither. Both were out of there depths as shown.
The whole incident never needed to happen and the pressure of up and coming events didn't help.
Wonder how Gavin and Trevor sleep at the moment.
S.Y Guy
Wombat35
14th Mar 2006, 17:53
Gentlemen,
I realise that your primary focus is on the qualifications of the crew and that if they had of been more qualified then this accident would of somehow been avoidable however I would like to raise a point.
I have flown single engine jets and performed aerobatics with the RAAF before moving to NZ and from my aspect there are two factors involved here. The first is that yes the got themselves in trouble doing a vertical'ish manoeuvre which lead to a possible disorientation in cloud and yes I agree that more experience might have prevented this from occurring, however jets can sometimes do strange things at low speeds and high AoA that given the height they were at would have been non-recoverable.
Part of our aerobatic sequence was stall turning and the Hoovers being old and bent would often exhibit non standard responses. A case in point was a student practicing aerobatics for his wings test at a safety height of 8000ft began a stall turn which ended up in an inverted spin 16,000ft, this spin was non-recoverable and he ejected passing through 10,000ft, a luxury that these men did not have.
My point, doing these manoeuvres has an inherent risk of the aircraft not behaving in an appropriate manner and without ejection seats, even with the best training and proper recovery techniques their fate was sealed.
Consequently, be careful and always assess your risk (Weather/Currency/Safety height) on the ground before going flying, modify your routine appropriately.
RIP
Speeds high
14th Mar 2006, 21:00
In some ways this accident is not surprising, as the pilot exhibited a complete lack of self-discipline, something far less likely in an airline-level pilot (which is why airliners don't crash that often).
Some of the most undisiplined cowboys i have had the misfortune to have to ride along with were so-called professional airline pilots. I thought airliners didn't crash that often because the modern airliner, and perhapes airline takes the idiot factor out of the equation; a little different to a two seat (wannabe) jet.
I do agree however some extra qualification is required to fly such an airplane, dont think the CPL quite cuts it, maybe it should have been part of the first jet type rating? Lets not go overboard though.
Can i also add that some of the few most disciplined persons flying airplanes, that taught me some, were doing so on PPL's.
SH <--- (Wannabe jet pilot scum of earth)
Before this degenerates into a "my licence is better than yours" pissing contest, let's at least be clear that how an individual behaves has nothing to do with qualification per se. However, it is true that higher qualifications tend to encourage better behaviour, and they always equip the individual better as they require a greater depth of knowledge.
Yes, there are some very wise PPLs out there, but they are rare. Yes, there are some airline pilot cowboys out there, but they too are rare - the check and training system of most airlines sees to that.
The real issue is rich men buying fast, quirky jets and trying to operate them with the lowest possible qualifications and the least possible training.
I don't agree that "jets can sometimes do strange things at low speeds and high AoA that given the height they were at would have been non-recoverable" is a good excuse. It is up to the pilot to know EXACTLY what could happen during such manoeuvers, and plan accordingly. If he is uncertain, he shouldn't be attempting the manoeuver in the first place. There is certainly no excuse for entering cloud during an aerobatic manoeuver - if the wx isn't good enough, don't try it, or try it at an appropriate altitude.
The conclusions of this report positively scream "unprofessional" and "undisciplined". Trying to cover that up, or excuse it, is reprehensible.
Wombat35
15th Mar 2006, 00:37
MOR have you ever flown a jet that is capable of flying these types of manoeuvres?
If not, I wouldn't be quite so quick with your emphatic opinion.
It's very easy given the large amounts of sky that these manoeuvres take to inadvertently enter cloud generally at low airspeed and high AoA.
My point, doing these manoeuvres has an inherent risk of the aircraft not behaving in an appropriate manner and without ejection seats, even with the best training and proper recovery techniques their fate was sealed.
Consequently I do not agree that there was anything "unprofessional" and "undisciplined" about it, rather that they accepted the risk and that the jet went out of control at an altitude below which recovery could be guaranteed.
Does a MiG 21 count?
It isn't easy to "inadvertently enter cloud" if you practice on a day when there isn't any.
The risk that they accepted was several orders of magnitude greater than it needed to be. Read the report for a list of rules that they broke, and silly things that they did (not least of which was attempting aeros that he wasn't approved for, in a place where he shouldn't have been doing them, when not current on type).
If you read the report, and then conclude that they acted professionally, responsibly and in a disciplined manner, all I can say is that you have a very odd understanding of those three words.
Capt W E Johns
15th Mar 2006, 09:05
Rating ≠ ability
Wombat35
15th Mar 2006, 17:40
Does a MiG 21 count?
Well it depends if you have flown it, or flown "in" it.
So how many hours do you have flying a MiG 21 and how much did it involve ACM?
The reason I'm asking is that I really don't care that they were undisciplined/unprofessional as all it does is add to the risk, men are men and if they want to do a high risk exercise then as along as they do it over a safe area (I realise that this is a contentions point however they did crash over water so I'll give them that) then good luck to them.
I'd like to try and understand why you don't seem to accept or believe that and I feel that the report was written by people who also believe that the accident could have been avoided completely, by meeting the CAA criteria.
I don't agree with that, I think that the accident could have happened to you or me if the aircraft had of been placed into the same situation, which could have happened without any grossly incorrect handling.
I believe that, based off a similar accident in OZ that I described before, with a fully qualified pilot, current , "professional" and "disciplined" pilot at the controls were essentially the same thing happened and he was saved by ejecting.
As for questioning my understanding of the those words, if you knew me and I'm not hard to track down, you might reconsider that opinion. :ok:
About 20 and yes. It was a tandem version, so I had help!
I'd like to try and understand why you don't seem to accept or believe that
I do accept and believe that "men are men" and if they do dangerous stuff in a safe area, so be it. My point is that this is not a desirable justification, because such men will inevitably end up hurting someone if they don't kill themselves first. Sadly, it is also the sort of ethos that leads to these accidents, because it reinforces the "give it death" mentality that these people seem to thrive on. It seems to come from the organisations concerned, tacitly supported by the CAA.
I don't agree with that, I think that the accident could have happened to you or me if the aircraft had of been placed into the same situation, which could have happened without any grossly incorrect handling.
The difference is that I (and hopefully you) would never place ourselves in that situation, ie where any departure of the aircraft would inevitably lead to death. It isn't wartime, there is absolutely no need for that kind of risk-taking, and it proves nothing (other than the much-mentioned quality of the pilot, or lack thereof).
essentially the same thing happened and he was saved by ejecting.
... an option not open to the Fouga guy... so why take the risk, with no safety net?
Really a little too busy to try and track you down, just PM your real name and what you think those words mean... ;)
Wombat35
16th Mar 2006, 00:02
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate your time and promise not to rabbit on much more.
For me I think I understand your point of view, however just because you wouldn’t be prepared to take those risks (and for the record, neither would I without a bang seat) doesn’t mean that you are an unprofessional or ill-disciplined pilot, however I gather that not much is going to make you change your mind so let me leave you with this.
I fly a warbird, the biggest one, will be a Wanaka this year as I was at Omarka last year, I teach at Adrmore and have the odd drink on a Sunday afternoon at the bar with the "give it death" people.
From my direct experience, you are wrong with your assumptions about them.
As a relatively experienced professional aviator, I always respect my environment, machinery, assess my risks and encourage all my students to do the same so please take comfort in that.
Cheers Wombat
eagle 86
16th Mar 2006, 01:40
The majority of fixed wing accidents in Oz involving lighties and "warbirds" are caused by pilot error - a lot are weather related and most of the others are because the pilot has got outside of his capability box re aircraft handling. Invariably the pilot is described by his peers/family/friends as extremely careful/"professional" (wtftm) etc - crap! Yes I've met a number of PPL holders (I was one once - it frightens me now years later how much I didn't know) who clearly know their limits but I've met others who are accidents waiting to happen. Before someone can own/operate a high performance (any ex-mil jet) aircraft that person should demonstrate that he has a lot more going for him than just the funds to acquire it.
I would add that CAA/CASA et al probably don't want to know until the day someone ploughs into the middle of an airshow crowd.
GAGS
E86
just because you wouldn’t be prepared to take those risks (and for the record, neither would I without a bang seat) doesn’t mean that you are an unprofessional or ill-disciplined pilot
Ummm are you SURE that is what you meant to say... :}
The question of risk is very subjective. When I go blasting down the road on my big Japanese sports bike, I feel perfectly in control, however many people would label those bikes intrinsically dangerous. If that bike does depart, I'm going to get hurt, and yet I ride the thing and enjoy going fast on it - although I don't take stupid risks. I guess many emergency room doctors wish those bikes didn't exist.
When flying aircraft, I always take the approach that you can't be too careful/disciplined/professional, because the consequences of a lapse are apt to hurt you. Fly by the SOPs as much as you possibly can, and when you aren't, act to the highest standards of professionalism. So I guess there is a bit of a paradox there.
Most of my exposure to warbirds and display flying was in the UK - I spent a bit of time flying a B25 over there. My take on the display pilot scene was that it was sharply divided between the extremely competent and professional (the Ray/Mark Hannas of this world), and those who had enormous piles of cash, bought the aircraft, and then proceeded to show off in them. They wouldn't let other pilots fly them, so if you wanted to see them displayed, they were going to do it. Having seen two Spitfires destroyed at airshows, as well as a Hurricane very nearly destroyed at Old Warden, I wish somebody would stop the carnage. There aren't that many of these aircraft left.
Anyway... which is bigger, the Catalina or the Dak?
AerocatS2A
16th Mar 2006, 02:19
Wombat35, how long have you been doing the Wanaka Airshow? I worked there (for Biplane Adventures) for about 4 years up till 2000, might have seen you around.
WITCH
16th Mar 2006, 02:24
NZ CAA Advisory Circular 91-1 Aviation Events (19 January 2006) makes interesting reading. It's only one acceptable means of compliance with Part 91 but it answers some of the points made on this thread.
You can't regulate against ego or wealth.
tinpis
16th Mar 2006, 02:46
You can't regulate against ego or wealth.
Or bull**** :}
In an industry that thrives on it (Aeroclubs, flying schools etc) dare I suggest Ardmore produces more than its fair share of unadulterated bull****/****ters? :rolleyes:
Track Direct
16th Mar 2006, 03:35
Low timers with fat cheque book & big ego don't equal safety.:ugh:
Experience & Training sure do !:ok:
troppo
16th Mar 2006, 04:04
Fat cheque books lead to...
the fouga, the eurocopter, the navajo out of fielding, the 182 into the sea off canterbury, the first catalina attempt, that TV interviewer/personality, the NBR rich list member that wrote his squirrel off at mechanics bay about 10years ago
Tarq57
16th Mar 2006, 08:19
Don't forget that guy who's bingled his Stearman. More than once.:8
WITCH
16th Mar 2006, 09:32
Exactly. Now how do you Regulate against that? MOR would know?
No, I don't, but it is a relatively simple philosophical decision on the part of the CAA. They can either adopt their usual hands-off, safety-is-the-operators-responsibility stance, or they can start to insist on higher standards. The warbirds guys may all be jolly fine chaps and snappy dressers, but they clearly have difficulty self-regulating, which is hardly surprising.
If it was me, I would insist that pilots are checked out by someone qualified to do so - and by that, I mean somebody who is qualified, and at least reasonably current, on type. It may be necessary to give these people temporary CAA validations to allow them to fly here, as they will probably all be based overseas, but at least then the local pilots are being checked by people who actually know the aircraft.
The basis of the "check" being carried out when this accident happened is absolutely laughable. One guy, not familiar with the aircraft and having not flown fast jets for many years, checking a guy who is not current on type but is nevertheless conducting low-level aeros. It could probably only happen in NZ...
lostpianoplayer
1st Apr 2006, 04:42
This thread is a little old, and possibly of no interest to anyone but me. But it is of intense interest to me, cos I'm a PPL who has been smiled on by Lady Luck, so I can afford high performance aircraft, and I am getting into flying jets. Safely flying jets. Much of the comment here has been along the lines of PPLs with the money for serious aircraft are, ipso facto, dangerous. The issue has been on my mind for some time, as I fly a high performance aircraft already - a Harmon Rocket - (yeah, there goes my anonymity, but whatever. Dunno why we PPRUNERS hide behind pseudonyms anyway, to tell you the truth. I think it encourages an immoderate tone in these discussions, although I guess those of us with aviation jobs need to be careful). I have also had some flying accidents and incidents in my time, which may have resulted from errors of judgement, but I don't think it would be fair to say that they resulted from a lack of discipline. While I do believe that it is easy to BUY more aircraft than you can FLY, I thought some here, especially MOR, may be interested to know that I am right now at a major jet warbird training facility in the US, and it has been very educational. Today we flew sorties in a Fouga, and an L-39. My instructor, who has decades of experience in training "rich boys and their toys" is very, very serious about safety, and we spent much of the day discussing this issue. He said that, on form to date, the most dangerous people by far in the jet warbird world are not, in fact, PPLs with fat wallets - they are ex military pilots, and ex airline pilots, with many thousands of hours flying very high performance aircraft in a highly regulated environment. (Being either military regs or airline SOPs) And often not so fat wallets. He suggested I look up the NTSB reports for jet warbird crashes. I have done so, and he appears to be absolutely correct. Most jet warbird crashes, in the US anyway, appear to be ill disiplined CFIT accidents, where very experienced and highly qualified pilots doing silly stuff fly perfectly good aircraft into the ground. I'm sure we've all met PPLs who take their flying very seriously. In drawing simple conclusions from incidents such as the Fouga accident, the recent helicopter crash in Raglan, and so on, I wonder if MOR and co are overlooking some basic statistics? How many PPLs with high performance aircraft are NOT crashing? My instructor went further in saying that, in his opinion, PPLs are often far MORE careful than the pros, because they are used to a far less regulated environment, have to make complex decisions throughout their flying career, and are aware that they don't have people looking over their shoulder so much. Arguably, we PPLs are subject more to the laws of physics than the laws of man, and I'm not sure it's very sensible to try and bend the former one iota.
Professionals, on the other hand, have professional flight planners, despatchers, engineers, and superior officers or managers to report to. He says some of these people, when they get the freedom that private flying offers, "go crazy". I think the truth is, as usual, far more complex than a simple analysis might imply. Fat wallet + PPL = risk factor. Yes. Said risk can be managed, with the right attitude. Less wallet + huge hours of professional experience ALSO = risk factor. Which also needs to be managed. ALL flying is risky in some way, and ALL the risks need to be acknowledged and appropriately managed.
PPLs bad, CPLs good? I really don't see the evidence to support that. (And I think if PPLs with day jobs got CPLs, we'd still basically be a PPLs, cos we don't fly commercially) Does proving a high level of TECHNICAL skill prevent JUDGEMENT errors? I doubt it. And it certainly doesn't change character, discipline, and so on.
Fat wallets bad? Nope. Not fair, not true. Anyway, I think it's the first part of P of F, isn't it? What is the main factor in generating lift?
Money :)
PPLs with tighter budgets, it would seem to me, might not be able to afford to stay current, if they don't own their own aircraft, or if they do, might be tempted to skimp on maintenance. I believe this is why CAA tries to keep an eye on professional organsations that aren't making much money. Too tempting to ignore an expensive, 'minor', problem for a while, if fixing it means you can't pay the rent for the month.
MOR, if you're in NZ or Australia, shoot me an email sometime. (I'd suggest PM but I have no idea how it works.) It's
[email protected], and my name is Andrew. Maybe we'll discuss this over coffee some time? I'll buy :)
Hmmmm. Maybe the anonymity thing is so you don't get torn apart in a public forum by the 'anonynyms'. I guess we'll see!!
The real tragedy of this accident apart from the loss of two lives was the quality of the accident report.
It was compiled by an underqualified inexperienced investigator. I suspect the guy might have had a ppl at one time but he certainly has no aerobatic experience. The accident report fails some of the basic standards of accident reporting. It paints a picture of carelessness and recklessness which is completely false. It draws conclusions not supported by facts and relies heavily on eyewitness accounts from non aviation people. Both pilots were well respected and flew regularly. Chris and Kerry had every reason to believe they were properly authorised by Warbirds and had gone to some trouble to ensure that they were.
The author of the report stated that the crew had endangered the lives of people on the ground near the township of Kaiaua because they were carrying out aerobatics near there. Yet the CAA placed an aerobatic training area with it's southern boundary right on the edge of the township shortly after the accident.
The accident report did not discuss a number of altenate scenarios that might have caused the accident
Chris Timms was wealthy. He won an olympic gold medal in yachting when he had no money... tell me how you do that without discipline while being reckless. He had well over a thousand hours. At least half of those hours were gained in Warbirds aircraft flying aerobatics. He spent an awful lot of money seeking out the most qualified people in Warbirds to give him instruction and guidance to ensure he flew safely. He flew regularly. The reason that he had not flown the Fouga for approx six months was the aircraft was on maintenance.
The list of rules he alledgedly broke is a joke... not one of them would have prevented this accident.
The truth is nobody (including the author of the report) knows why this aircraft crashed. At best it is poorly compiled speculation