Blackpool 3/2/07

[bookworm]

Perhaps you need to take some lessons in flight planning.

I do enjoy debating with you DFC. Up to this point in the discussion, there's a niggling doubt in my mind that you might come out with some obscure regulation that pulls the rug out from under my argument. Once you resort to condescension, I know I've won. ;)

[DFC]

Bookworm,

It was nothing more than an observation that you might benefir from some instruction. Not your fault. You are simply a product of a system that seems to have lost it's way.

Which part of VFR flights do not need alternates do you not understand?

Which bit of the law that requires a VFR flight to arrive at the destination with final reserve fuel as a minimum do you not understand?

Which bit of to fly VFR you need to be VMC do you not understand?

I know I've won.

Never want to get in the way of someone wishing to win the race to an accident.

---------

You seem to miss the whole point of VFR flight. It is not to emulate the IFR requirements regarding alternates etc etc it is to simply fly VFR.

Had the flight from Exeter to Blackpool complied with two basic requirements;

a) Not operated out of sight of the surface when unqualified to do so; or

b) arrived overhead blackpool with 45 minutes of fuel in the tanks; and

c) used that fuel to fly to a suitable landing area rather than to illegally fly in cloud

then we might not be having this debate.

Regards,

DFC

[421C]

Which part of VFR flights do not need alternates do you not understand?

Which bit of the law that requires a VFR flight to arrive at the destination with final reserve fuel as a minimum do you not understand?

Which bit of to fly VFR you need to be VMC do you not understand?
DFC, I am sure Bookworm understands all those bits. But he wasn't disputing them with you. His point, as I read it, is that your claim

No that is why according to the rule you have to combine both actual and forecast weather when deciding if your proposed flight will remain in VMC.

The correct answer must be that if based on the actual and forecast weather it will not be VMC then do not depart

Is simply not true. If enroute and/or destination IMC is reported and/or forecast, it does not prevent you departing VFR for that destination and attempting see if, in the actual conditions you encounter, a VFR flight is possible - as long as you maintain VMC at all times, and adequate fuel reserves to land at a suitable airport whilst maintaining VMC.

You have shifted the argument to other points, to avoid admitting you were wrong on the points Bookworm picked you up on. Sorry to drag you back to that. By "wrong", let me be clear that I understand your point to be that it is illegal to depart on a VFR flight from A to B unless VMC is forecast for the entire flight.

Bookworm, I hope
It was nothing more than an observation that you might benefir from some instruction. Not your fault. You are simply a product of a system that seems to have lost it's way.
does not leave you plagued with self-doubt and anxiety that you and the "system" have lost their way. DFC is clearly a highly experienced, qualified and current GA pilot. However, more instruction is always a good thing for any pilot.

[bookworm]

Bookworm, I hope ... does not leave you plagued with self-doubt and anxiety that you and the "system" have lost their way.

Oh but it does 421C. It hurt so much that I sobbed my way through another couple of chapters of a fine technical work on RNAV flight planning this morning. The author clearly labours under similar misconceptions to my own. ;)

[Wrong Stuff]

Despite DFC being plainly wrong on this point, perhaps he could give us a quick refresher on HPL.

What's the term for someone who has an incorrect belief and continues to cling to that belief despite clear evidence that it's wrong? I remember reading about how dangerous such a mental attitude is in the cockpit, but can't quite remember the proper name for it.

[corsair]

The one good thing about this thread is that it reminds some of us, but not all obviously, that we sometimes have to make unpopular decisions to cancel flights.

In fact in the last few days, this thread popped into my head when I was looking at a possible flight. Which in the end I cancelled, perhaps conservatively. Another pilot was involved too and we were of the same mind. Perhaps fortunately our employer has gone out of his way to ensure we had no more than self inflicted pressure to get airborne. He made is clear more than once that the flying part of the job is our responsibility and ours alone. He's not a pilot but familiar with the aviation scene. Our decision cost him money. (It cost us money too:{ )

We two are fortunate in that our boss is like that. Fortunate too that we are old enough and ugly enough to stand our ground. In all probablity we would have got away with it. But a line must be drawn somewhere.

Not everyone is that lucky as we often see.

[bookworm]

Perhaps fortunately our employer has gone out of his way to ensure we had no more than self inflicted pressure to get airborne.

There's an excellent point in there regarding the decision making process, even for PPLs who have no employer.

The stuff about command responsibility is all very well, but I've seen pilots, myself included, make poor decisions because they failed to manage the external pressures, despite knowing full well about that responsibility. If you believe you're superhuman, you merely trust yourself to make the correct decision at the time, despite those external pressures. If you believe that peer pressure, the thought of your own warm bed, the hassle of finding overnight accommodation or alternative transport, might cause you to look upon the weather or your aircraft's capabilities with rose-tinted spectacles, you can take steps to mitigate those pressures a long time before you have to make a decision. That can include managing your passengers' (and spouse's!) expectations, researching alternative transport and accommodation, or simply planning your trip with enough slack to avoid falling prey to temptation.

[martello]

others have said they have no intention of reading this whole thread - I have - and I am reluctant as always to post but I am irritated by the polarised positions people are taking.
it seems to me there are two aspects to this
a) the rather simplistic arguments of who was P1
b) the broader non aviation society concept of 'duty of care'

Aviators particularly private aviators and definitely regularposters on forums are very quick to trot out the ANO and take the position that DW was P1 therfore responsible.
It is difficult to argue against the simple rule that DW was P1 therefore totally responsible - more difficult to prove that he was or knew he was P1

Bose X - I would hate to take instruction from you as you are so black and white certain. Because you are so black and white certain you just can't comprehend how someone can come under a decision making influence from a sky god - not good for an instructor if I may say.

Life is not like that - several posters have said that they recognise when they were on the learning curve (surely we are always on it) that you can be persuaded to defer to more experience (espcially, I suggest, if they were a 'black and white assertive instructor!)

After one hours flying I had a senior instructor ridicule me for turning up for a lesson in relatively poor visibility (he had not the courtesy to phone me before to advise and cancel) There are a larger number, than we care to admit, of cavalier schools who have instructors who cannot understand what it was like to be a less than confident beginner or an out of practice PPL

Yes this case can be put to bed by saying that the pilot David Walker was P1 and made bad decisions - hopefully the coroner in answering the question 'Why?' will take a broader society based approach and look beyond the simple Pilot in command decisions and say there were organisational (and value standard) reasons contributing to the catastrophe. Note I did not say causing - may be difficult for some black and white ANO quoters to understand a complex chain of events with contributory factors.
I am not contradicting the black and white responsibility thing - indeed if that was drummed into every beginner from the moment they stepped into a cockpit then some would have the courage to challenge the sky gods.
But human beings being what they there will still be FTO bullies and still be weak P1's

Whilst the P1 "always responsible" issue should not be subordinated to the duty of care argument and, indeed in simplistic terms it is the main reason then, if we are to stop this happening again, we must expect schools to behave responsibly as some I have known do - e.g. checking the pilots decisions before he is given the keys.
I think the lawyers in the US would have a field day on duty of care on this one


One thing I have learned is you can't always trust the uniform and gold bars and at the end of the day you are on your own

[Whirlybird]

martello,

Excellent post! :ok:

I can't think of anything else to add or comment on, and that's rare for me.

[S-Works]

Bose X - I would hate to take instruction from you as you are so black and white certain. Because you are so black and white certain you just can't comprehend how someone can come under a decision making influence from a sky god - not good for an instructor if I may say.

Flattered that you have picked me out for special attention, but perhaps you would be so kind as to give me the courtesy of meeting me in person before you decide to insult me. You might be surprised at my teaching style.

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.

[Lurking123]

I've flown with Bose on a revalidation and it was well worth while. I suppose we just need to be careful not to only judge people by various fora.

[DFC]

Bookworm, 421C, etc

OK let me try and make this as simple as possible.

You want to fly VFR from Glasgow to Southampton.

You check the weather and there is a front across your route and based on the actual and forecast weather you determine that there is IMC from the surface to 25000ft along a large part of your route.

Are you seriously telling me that it is OK to depart for Southampton?

If you do then by your own admission you have departed on a VFR flight that will not be VFR which is illegal.

In departing you are either;

a) Unable to determine that it is IMC and think that it "might" be VMC and are going to "give it a go"; or

b) Know it is IMC and are going anyway

a) is simple a lack of knowledge / practice / training.

b) Is plain stupid and illegal.

To make a VFR flight you must have VMC.

I highlight the above which is the law because;

Some people seem to think otherwise which is a sad indication that the very thing we are discussing are deaths due to not paying attention to the above.

Perhaps there will always be a core of people who will not learn.

Regards,

DFC

[DFC]

Scooter Boy,

You said;

I have seen an old cherokee land in OVC 0100 at a non instrument airfield (in very hilly terrain) and take off with 4 big blokes in it into OVC 0050 and winds 25G35 after (believe it or not rather ironically) attending a funeral.

The "captain" was no more than 21 years old - I think the plane was at least 20 years older than him.

and later you said that you would not accuse such a pilot of illegal flying.

The above post seems to indicate that you think that the flight was reckless and dangerous which is illegal.

Seems that you would be willing to discuss the matter with an old guy at the bar but not if you knew that old guy was from the CAA eh?

Regards,

DFC

[421C]

OK let me try and make this as simple as possible.

You are not making it simple, you are dragging the debate out by shifting your argument around to avoid answering the points made in reply to you. In my prior post I said

"I understand your point to be that it is illegal to depart on a VFR flight from A to B unless VMC is forecast for the entire flight."

Am I right that this is your point? If so, it isn't true.

Nevertheless, I will try and answer your most recent points.

In your Glasgow to Southampton example, you have chosen the most extreme case - one in which there is little or no uncertainty about the weather, and in which plainly a VFR flight is not going to get to Southampton. Nevertheless, I do not believe it is illegal to depart Glasgow on a VFR flight (if in VMC) aiming to fly VFR to Southampton as long as you
(a) you plan for the forecast weather - which, in this case, means plan on not getting very far enroute and needing to return
(b) ensure you maintain VMC and can maintain for a safe return

Clearly such a flight would be pointless and inefficient. You carefully use the phrase "ok" in
Are you seriously telling me that it is OK to depart for Southampton?

If by "ok" you mean "legal" then yes, I believe it is legal to depart in VMC on such a flight.

However, you then say

If you do then by your own admission you have departed on a VFR flight that will not be VFR which is illegal.

Which is nonsense. Where does it say that a VFR flight must have a weather forecast that says "it will be VFR" in order for it to be legal? You must depart in and maintain VMC to be legal, but, after departure, VMC is evaluated as an in-flight condition - not a determination before a flight has even departed that it is illegal in principle because IMC is forecast enroute or at the intended destination.

Weather forecasts are inherently unpredictable and imprecise. The "legal point" you have invented would be unworkable and unreasonable in almost any scenario other than one of certainty of IMC along any possible route and level. The sensible thing, given this uncertainty, is how aviation law actually works
- you have to get the weather forecasts and determine what kind of conditions you may encoutner
- you have to maintain VMC in flight
- you have to ensure adequate fuel reserves to land safely maintaining VMC
This means it is legal to depart and see if a VFR flight can be completed in the actual conditions that prevail, as long as VMC and adequate fuel reserves can be met.

I am not debating what is wise, or ok, or prudent etc. You wrote "illegal" in the last quote above from your post, and that is all I am debating.


a) is simple a lack of knowledge / practice / training.

b) Is plain stupid and illegal.

Before you tell us again why it is illegal, and since you are so vociferous on the subject, please show us the legal reference. You say Bookworm needs more training (probably I do to). Fine, imagine we do and want to learn VFR aviation law and flight planning the DFC way. Where is the reference that will educate us? I don't even need an ANO paragraph, even a line in a flight training book or publication that says "it is illegal to depart on a VFR flight unless VFR is forecast for the entire intended route".

You won't, because there is no such reference.

If you want to make points about good practice in VFR flight planning and the risks of inadvertent VFR into IMC flight (or even worse, deliberate VFR into IMC) then please do. There are very many important points to be made. I suspect I probably would agree with them. But they don't need the added confusion you create by making up aviation laws. Sorry, this provokes the forum debater in me.

[bookworm]

You are not making it simple, you are dragging the debate out by shifting your argument around to avoid answering the points made in reply to you.

For some reason I'm reminded of the elephant joke. (Tom Nichols has been kind enough to write it into a WWW page from which I extract this part.)

A Soviet joke of mid-1970s vintage, aimed at Leonid Brezhnev's legendary state of denial about the condition of the USSR and his inability to accept responsibility for it, told of an elephant hunt. After a summit, Brezhnev, Gerald Ford, and other world leaders take a break and go on a safari, where they manage to catch a live elephant. They make up an elaborate schedule for guarding the beast, but when Brezhnev's turn comes he gets drunk and falls asleep, and the elephant trots away. The next morning, when asked about their catch, Brezhnev guilelessly says, "What elephant?" Astonished, Ford then grills him: didn't we agree to hunt an elephant? Yes, Brezhnev says, we did indeed. Didn't we catch one? Oh yes, we did, a fine one. And didn't we agree to guard it? Of course, we all did. "So," Ford fumes, "where's the elephant, damn it?" Brezhnev nods thoughtfully for a moment and asks, "What elephant?"

[DFC]

"I understand your point to be that it is illegal to depart on a VFR flight from A to B unless VMC is forecast for the entire flight."


No.

I said that it is illegal (and stupid) to depart on a VFR flight from A to B when you have determined by reference to a combination of actual and forecast weather information available to you that IMC conditions will or are likely to exist along the planned route.

The Rules of the Air are your reference for that.

The important issue is that you have to determine (you are pilot in command after all) what to do based on both actual and forecast conditions. Thus your argument about forecasts being not accurate enough falls down because you have tyo check actual conditions also.

The Rules of the air are quite specific in that they do permit you to depart (to have a look see) if you can not obtain the weather information pre-flight.

----------

When reading commnets about the accuracy of forecasts, I wonder if you are being confused by the idea of who determines if IMC exists. It is the PIC that makes the determination. It is not the met-office forecaster - they simply provide the information. The PIC uses the information available to decide. Forecasts these days rarely fall outside the prescribed limits of accuracy and when they do they are amended.

Are you guys saying that you can't make that decision? or are you saying that you are go minded despite the information showing that this is not a good plan and you sometimes get lucky and other times have to turn back but you will always go anyway and only turn back when you have to?

What did they teach you during PPL training?

Would an instructor ever let a student off on a crosscountry if they determined that IMC existed on the route? Would the instructor say - ah just take an extra hour's fuel and have a look and see?

The problem I have with this is that you see nothing wrong with what was done on the flight from Exeter to Blackpool right up until the point where the flight went IMC. You say that it is OK to depart Exeter on a flight planned in accordance with the requirements for a VFR flight but to a destination that is IMC and is forecast to remain so.

----------

IFR pilots kept killing themselves or nearly so by having a "look see" on approaches when the weather was well below limits. Then we had the approach ban - that will stop them from pushing the limits..........but it didn't so we have the approach ban and the absolute minima system to catch those that ignore the approach ban.

To me this simply says that many pilots will never learn.

Regards,

DFC

[gasax]

Two long threads.....

A lot of passionately stated opinions. I'm wondering why I'm posting...

Bose X - yep legally the correct analysis. PIC is responsible. Who is/was the PIC - well in this case it is not clear cut from my viewpoint. With low hours I certainly did not have the 'authority' to question let alone contradict CFIs and the like.
To an extent that is the problem with the whole semi-militaristic approach that flight training has. And I cannot help but comment on DFC's the 'rules' approach - blindness personified.

If pilots are taught to make good decisions then the vast majority of 'the law' is completely irrelevant - which may upset DFC but would hopefully mean we would not have incidents like this to discuss.

It is a side issue but I'm increasingly concerned by the A to B thinking that so many posters exhibit. I' m a vanilla PPL, no IMC or IR. I tour VFR and I take pot luck on the weather. The idea of A to B is a desired result, flying to a schedule or absolute end point is fine for IRs and bluntly a vain hope otherwise.

I have no doubt that Mr Walker was strongly influenced by the CFI and his companians. They all it seems had this idea that regardless of the conditions all this would be possible. That, events have shown was apallingly bad decision making. To an extent I'm still baffled by those decisions. Mr Walker I can see would defer to his more experienced companians - but what were they on? How on earth did they think this plan would work?

To an extent that brings it all down to the very small group - the four who set out, the CFI and ??
A lot of the suggestions from posters - PPLs authorised by CFIs? Obviously will not work - look what happened here! The rules say XYZ so you can only do XYZ when some other condition prevails - never going to work. How many of us break the speed limits? - all of us! - because we assess what is genuinely required and when it is not required we break those blind and dumb rules. It's part of being human.

The answer is not rules or authorisations. It's learning decision making and how not to get pushed into a corner. I'd like to think that from this incident many pilots would learn those lessons.

[DFC]

If pilots are taught to make good decisions then the vast majority of 'the law' is completely irrelevant - which may upset DFC but would hopefully mean we would not have incidents like this to discuss.

Not at all. If we could rely on pilots to comply with the minimum standards then we would not need laws to try to force them to. i.e. If you could rely on drivers driving at 70mph or less on a motorway then your would not need a legal speed limit and traffic cops - but unfortunately you can't.

It is a side issue but I'm increasingly concerned by the A to B thinking that so many posters exhibit. I' m a vanilla PPL, no IMC or IR. I tour VFR and I take pot luck on the weather. The idea of A to B is a desired result, flying to a schedule or absolute end point is fine for IRs and bluntly a vain hope otherwise.

I hope that you don't really mean that. You are saying that you depart without knowing that you will be able to land safely again at a destination or that the weather will be VMC and depart without having a clue as to what the minimum fuel requirement is????

Even if you depart A to wander aimlessly round the southern UK for an hour or two and then land at A you have a departure, destination and route / area combined with time to give you a minimum fuel requirement. You may not do the sums to the nearest litre but I bet you decide how much fuel you will use, how much reserve you want and make sure you have this or more in the aircraft. Without a departure, route and destination you can not even decide how much fuel you need never mind what the weather is going to be like.

You might mid-flight change your mind and decide to land at X. But that decision will be based on a new plan taking into account fuel, weather, PPR, wife complaining about you being late back etc etc.

Perhaps you are making many of the decisions without realising, however;

I bet you will not go flying aimlessly round the UK if the forecast and actuals say that much is IMC and the rest will be within the next few hours!

I also bet that if you take off from A on a bimble round the countryside and return to A before the approaching front arives, you will not mid-flight decide to land at z airfield for a cup of tea if you think that the weather will overtake you and you will be socked in.

Well I hope not. :eek:

Regards,

DFC

[421C]

I said that it is illegal (and stupid) to depart on a VFR flight from A to B when you have determined by reference to a combination of actual and forecast weather information available to you that IMC conditions will or are likely to exist along the planned route.

The Rules of the Air are your reference for that.

I'll keeping asking for it until you either stop claiming the "illegal" bit or until you actually provide the reference.

"immediately before an aircraft flies the commander of the aircraft shall examine the current reports and forecasts of the weather conditions on the proposed flight path, in order to determine whether Instrument Meteorological Conditions prevail, or are likely to prevail, during any part of the flight."
is the law, and is eminently sensible. However, it is not the law you clearly want it to be or believe it is, because it does not say that it is illegal to "depart on a VFR flight from A to B when you have determined by reference to a combination of actual and forecast weather information available to you that IMC conditions will or are likely to exist along the planned route."

The important issue is that you have to determine (you are pilot in command after all) what to do based on both actual and forecast conditions. Of course, we are not arguing over this. We are only debating whether it is illegal, having determined as PIC that some IMC is likely enroute, to depart on a VFR flight on a "stay VMC, maintain adequate fuel reserves, see how it turns out" basis.
Thus your argument about forecasts being not accurate enough falls down because you have tyo check actual conditions also.
No DFC, your point is that you may not depart on such a flight. At the time of departure, the actual reports may be hours before you reach the enroute or destination point in question, hence the uncertainty of forecasts is relevant.


The Rules of the air are quite specific in that they do permit you to depart (to have a look see) if you can not obtain the weather information pre-flight.
Agreed. But please show me where they say you may not depart if you can obtain the weather information preflight and it indicates IMC enroute or at destination. It only says you have to determine whether IMC is/is likely to prevail - not that you may not depart if this is the case.

Are you guys saying that you can't make that decision?
No. We are saying that if you make the decsion, based on the forecast/actual weather, that IMC is likely to be encountered enroute it does not make it illegal to depart VFR. I've repeated what we are saying often enough that you don't need to conjecture other things we might be saying.
....or are you saying that you are go minded despite the information showing that this is not a good plan and you sometimes get lucky and other times have to turn back but you will always go anyway and only turn back when you have to?

I am saying it is not illegal and that you are wrong to claim it is illegal. There may be circumstances in which it is stupid and dangerous, and circumstances in which a VFR "give it a try" flight, despite forecasts that suggest it won't be successful, may be safe as long as the contingencies are planned properly. But we are no debating that. We are debating your made-up claim about the legality.

What did they teach you during PPL training?
They taught me aviation law. Where did they teach you to make up your own aviation law?


Would an instructor ever let a student off on a crosscountry if they determined that IMC existed on the route? Would the instructor say - ah just take an extra hour's fuel and have a look and see?

How is that relevant to your claim on what conditions make a VFR departure illegal? We are not debating what an instructor would or should do, because that isn't what you claimed. We are debating the aviation law that governs VFR departures. Telling me things that would be wrong, even though permitted by aviation law, doesn't support your claims about aviation law.


The problem I have with this is that you see nothing wrong with what was done on the flight from Exeter to Blackpool right up until the point where the flight went IMC. You say that it is OK to depart Exeter on a flight planned in accordance with the requirements for a VFR flight but to a destination that is IMC and is forecast to remain so.


I didn't say anything about what I thought was or wasn't "wrong" on this flight, or what I thought was or wasn't "ok". If you had expressed your views in terms of what was "wrong" or "ok", we wouldn't be having this debate. However, you have said it is illegal to depart on a VFR flight to a destination that has forecast IMC, and I have said there is no such legal prohibition on a VFR departure as long as you stay VMC and have fuel reserves to stay VMC and land safely.

DFC, you can make up as many examples of good or bad things as you like. We are not debating what is good or bad or wrong or ok. We are debating your claim about the legal prohibition on a VFR departure.


IFR pilots kept killing themselves or nearly so by having a "look see" on approaches when the weather was well below limits. Then we had the approach ban - that will stop them from pushing the limits..........but it didn't so we have the approach ban and the absolute minima system to catch those that ignore the approach ban.


True. But the existence of the approach ban in aviaiton law does not support the existence of the VFR departure ban you claim. Quite the opposite - we are all familiar with this explicit prohibition of when a pilot may not legally attempt a "look and see" and we are not familiar with an analogous legal prohibition of VFR departure on a "look and see" basis, because it doesn't exist.

The reason we don't have (except in DFC's legal imagination) a prohibition on "look and see" VFR flight is that it would be impractical and impossible or excessively restrictive. The approach ban is based on the very determinsitic circumstances of an actual visibility report. A similar level of determinism can not practically apply to determining whether a VFR flight departure is legal in DFC's sense, which is why (I guess) it doesn't exist.

By the way, what is "the absolute minima system to catch those that ignore the approach ban"?

[mad_jock]

As usual DFC has a ball hair of being correct with some obscure bit of crap which is no doudt contadicted in another bit of publication.

To be fair I think a few have the rules wrong with the approach ban.

There are a few exceptions where you can ignore it.

Anyone want to have a guess were its perfectly legal to have a shot when the tower is saying it RVR 100m and O001? The fact that they might go in a sulk and park the birdy in the middle of the runway doesn't count.

[Whirlybird]

Anyone want to have a guess were its perfectly legal to have a shot when the tower is saying it RVR 100m and O001?

In a helicopter, for starters. :ok::O

[rojread]

Irrespective of whether the w/x at B (or in Andrew Walker's case, Exeter), was within limits, I am still trying to get my head round him being allowed to take off into conditions that were below minima for a normal VFR circuit. Added to which the aircraft was well below IFR capability.

Did the ATC duty controller at Blackpool have no say in the matter or was the pilot iactually informed of cloudbase RVR etc?

[mad_jock]

Have a look at the differences between airports with controlled airspace and those that don't.

And also the difference between runways with a published Instrument approach and those that don't.

[foxtrot-oscar]

I think that lots of us ( and the AAIB) are being very unfair on young Andrew Walker. Try to cast your mind back to the stage of training he was at, he had yet to leave the nest -as it were- and was still hiring aircraft from the company that taught him how to fly. I remember when I was at that stage, I attempted to depart Biggin to Blackbush on a quite marginal day. As I was taxing out the tower asked me to change to company frequency and the company told me to abandon the idea of departing in the prevailing weather. Later, once I had left the nest and started owning a share and making my own decisions, I wouldn’t even countenance trying to take off in the conditions that applied that day.

Here is a young lad, -told by the school he trained at- that it is okay to go, a minder would be there with him and he must have assumed the minder to be a qualified instructor otherwise the flight would be illegal and this school that had taught him every thing he knows about aviation would surely never condone anything illegal. It is quite clear to me that he thought he was there as a PUT capacity, and there but for the grace of God go a lot of us.

[DFC]

I can hear the argument with the CAA now;

-"You are planning to fly from A to B"

-"Yes"

-"But the actual and forecast weather incicate that it will be IMC on that flight"

-"I know"

-"You can not legally do that unless you have an IR or IMC"

-"I know"

-"So You are not going to fly from A to B then?"

-"Yes I am - I am going to remain VMC at all times"

-"How can you do that in IMC?"

-"I am going to fly in VMC until I have to turn back"

-"OK so your are departing flying down the road turning round and flying back" Yes that is OK because that planned route is VMC.

OK that is a different plan then. Never plan to fly in IMC unless you are qualified and the aircraft appropriate.

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

LOL, he keeps on wriggling but won't answer the question.....
:D:ugh::)

[Supersport]

LOL, he keeps on wriggling but won't answer the question.....
:D:ugh::)

He's certainly trying his best! Don't think any amount of wriggling will get him out of this hole...

Come on DFC... admit defeat! :O

Come on say it... say it out loud :O hahaha.

[Lurking123]

DFC, for once you've hit the nail on the head. The CAA wouldn't give two hoots until you broke a rule/regulation (Well, maybe some kind gentleman in the GA side of the house would put a salutary message in Gasil). They may well have a look at the ANO and ponder for a while, but unless you did something that contravened the ANO, they would gleefully let you go on your way. Anyway, I've had a look at the ANO and can't find your reference source.

However, it is very important to differentiate between the rules and common sense. Getting back to the Blackpool crash, there doesn't seem to have been bucket loads of common sense being used that day. I think we can all agree about that.

PS. In HPL parlance, I think there is some "Excessive self-esteem" kicking around. Not good.

[Whirlybird]

-"You are planning to fly from A to B"

-"Yes"

-"But the actual and forecast weather indicate that it will be IMC on that flight"

-"I know"

-"You can not legally do that unless you have an IR or IMC"

-"I know"

-"So You are not going to fly from A to B then?"

-"Yes I am - I am going to remain VMC at all times"


"How?"

"Because I'm psychic, and I have a strong feeling that the weather will change, and the forecast will be wrong.

"And if there isn't?"

"Then - and only then - I'll change my plans".

Stupid and unrealistic? Very probably. Pilot is missing a screw or two? Maybe. But illegal? NO!!!!!

Unless, as so many of us have requested, DFC, you tell us precisely where this is stated to be against the law.

[bookworm]

-"You are planning to fly from A to B"

-"Yes"

-"But the actual and forecast weather indicate that it will be below AOM at the destination"

-"I know"

-"You can not legally land there"

-"I know"

-"So You are not going to fly from A to B then?"

-"Yes I am - I am going to remain 1000 ft above the destination unless at least the minimum RVR for the approach is reported"

-"How can you do that if the weather is below minima"

-"I am going to fly there and I'm going to divert to C or D if the RVR is below minimum"

-"OK so your are departing flying to B, then flying to C or D to make an approach" Yes that is OK because C and D are above alternate minima.

Is that a "different plan" from flying from A to B, DFC? If you think so, I think you might need to send a lot of AOC-holders on your flight planning classes. ;)

[421C]

I can hear the argument with the CAA now;
Hmmm, since you can't quote actual references, you are quoting imaginery voices. Amusing, but no cigar.


"You can not legally do that unless you have an IR or IMC"

They wouldn't say this, because the "that" is your claim about the legal prohibition on a VFR departure with IMC in the planned route. They might say "You can not legally fly in IMC unless you have an IR or IMC" but that is different from your claim.

Your imaginery conversation is just a restatement of your claim. It's completely circular. If I claimed heavier-than-air flight was illegal but couldn't find a reference, how would inserting the claim into an imaginery conversation help?

You also only construct examples where there is utter certainty that IMC conditions will prevail enroute or at the destination. A VFR flight departure in such circumstances is pointless, but not illegal. In reality of course, pilots are usually confronted with forecasts that suggest completing a VFR flight as intended is anything from "very likely" to "very unlikely" and everything in between. So more meaningful illustration would be
Pilot "I am departing VFR from A to B. The current forecast for B indicates that a VFR arrival will not be possible, but C and D nearby are forecasting VMC. There is also an enroute forecast that suggests I may have to turn back to A. I have enough fuel to maintain VMC and land safely in any of these outcomes, and I am willing to depart to see whether conditions turn out to be better than forecast."

DFC:"Stop, do not depart, that is illegal"

Pilot: "Where do you make this stuff up DFC? Of course it is legal"

I am not saying that the scenario I describe is good/bad, desirable or undesirable. I am saying that your claim that it is illegal to depart VFR in such a scenario is spurious.

[Supersport]

Pilot "I am departing VFR from A to B. The current forecast for B indicates that a VFR arrival will not be possible, but C and D nearby are forecasting VMC. There is also an enroute forecast that suggests I may have to turn back to A. I have enough fuel to maintain VMC and land safely in any of these outcomes, and I am willing to depart to see whether conditions turn out to be better than forecast."

DFC:"Stop, do not depart, that is illegal"

Pilot: "Where do you make this stuff up DFC? Of course it is legal"




:DFantastic! :D

[AllyPally]

I have looked through this thread with interest. Whilst in some peoples mind there may be confusion about who was P1 surely that would be cleared up by looking at who signed the Tech Log accepting the a/c. In my world the P1(Captain) always signs the tech log.

AP

[Final 3 Greens]

Ally Pally


Did the AAIB recover the tech log or was it destroyed in the crash?
Many PPLs complete the tech log post flight (please note I am not saying this is good practice, just commenting on actual observed practice)


Just two reasons why your suggestion may not been feasible in this instance.

[bookworm]

While many clubs and possibly all AOC holders implement a sign-to-accept policy in the tech log, the only legally required commander's signature in the tech log is post-flight listing defects (or confirming their absence).

I have heard no confirmation as to whether or not there was such a pre-flight signature in the case of the accident flight in question. There is no mention of it in the accident report, though given the report offers other reasoning to support the hypothesis that Walker was in command, it seems unlikely that such a piece of evidence was found.

[Supersport]

I have looked through this thread with interest. Whilst in some peoples mind there may be confusion about who was P1 surely that would be cleared up by looking at who signed the Tech Log accepting the a/c. In my world the P1(Captain) always signs the tech log.

AP

AllyPally, this is what is stated in the AAIB Report:



Extract from the AAIB Report:

Whilst no technical defect was determined as being a causal factor in this accident, the absence of technical records referred to in the aircraft’s log book meant that the aircraft operator had not complied with the requirements of the ANO. However, the available documentation indicated that the aircraft had been maintained in accordance with the requirements.



Suggests absence of the actual Tech Log, or missing information from the Tech Log, which is why it is only assumed that Andrew Walker was P1, not confirmed.

[S-Works]

Awww, come on DFC, we are standing by for our education.
;)

[AllyPally]

Thanks for the info. If I take the tech log with me (in its fireproof bag) then I have to leave a copy of the page I signed behind. This is a company requirement which helps the paper trail after an accident.

This accident seems to be a tragic case of none of the links in the chain being broken. The RAF had a very good flight safety film based on a Jaguar accident where the pilot was killed because he forgot to remove his seat pins. The film followed him through the day leading up to the accident and showed many instances where the chain of events could have been broken and the accident avoided.

I hope the many people reading this thread take note of each link that led up to the fatal crash and apply the lessons learned to their own flying operation and hopefully somebody's life will be saved by making a correct decision either before or while flying.

AP

[DFC]

Bookworm,

You described an IFR flight operation. Totally irrelevant to a VFR flight. Thanks for doing that because it highlights the fact that you ( and it seems many others) can't tell the difference between the requirements for IFR flights and those for a VFR flight - (check the weather, determine that IMC does not exist, carry enough fuel for A to B and a final reserve).

-----------------

One last time.

The rules of the Air require that you before flight check the actual and forecast weather to determine if IMC conditions exist on the route you plan to fly.

The ANO requires that a pilot must establish that the flight can be safely completed as planned.

Everyone with me so far or does anyone disagree with the above?

So you plan to fly from A to B that is what you plan to do........no more and no less. There is no other plan.

You check the weather and you have decided that there is IMC weather along that route.

IMC conditions on a VFR route mean that the route can not be legally completed as planned

If you still depart on that route as planned despite having decided that IMC conditions exist then you have not ensured the safety of the flight.

You may have to read the VMC criteria, the requirement to establish if IMC exists, the requirement to determine that the flight can be completed safely and the requirement to not recklessly endanger the flight or others to gather together the legal requirements.

However, every pilot trained in the UK was well aware of the requirements at the time they took part in the skill test. At that time they knew that if they were given a route and the weather indicated that such a route would be IMC but despite that they planned to depart anyway then they would at best have the test stopped (with a quiet word in their ear) or the test would be recorded as a fail.

Would it be wrong to fail a pilot for planning to depart VFR on a route that is through IMC?

-----------

Where do you guys draw the line?

In your mind is it OK to depart from A to B if it is IMC along the planned route;

10 miles from the departure point?

5 miles from the departure point?

1 mile from the departure point?

at 190 ft just before you enter a 200ft ceiling?

Seems many here think it is perfectly legal for a VFR pilot to depart VFR on a route with terrain above 400ft and a ceiling of 200ft because they can always............continue, hold wait the weather, divert, fly in circles and so on?

Finally, Bookworm, I can guarantee you that on an initial IR flight test, you can start the engines when the weather is below minima for landing at destination, you can even taxi, you can even obtain your departure clearance and you can line-up. ATC will pass your take-off clearance and you canadvance the throttles towards take-off power at which point the examminer's hand will smoothly close the throttles - and you know you have failed

So perhaps it is not a training issue. It is simply a willingless to push the limits and to be the opposite of risk-adverse.

Regards,

DFC

[DFC]

Forgot to say that every argument against my position has been based on planning to do something other that fly from A to B.

Thus we have apples and oranges.

I can say that it is illegal to leave x village on the A123 at 70 mph

Other can say no you are wrong, 70 mph is perfectly legal on the motorway.

Apples and Oranges.

Regards,

DFC

[Islander2]

The ANO requires that a pilot must establish that the flight can be safely completed as planned.Wrong yet again, DFC!

Actually what the ANO requires (Article 52) is for the commander to satisfy himself before take off: "that the flight can safely be made, taking into account ...... any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned."

[bookworm]

One last time.

Elephant? What elephant?

;)

[421C]

Forgot to say that every argument against my position has been based on planning to do something other that fly from A to B

The ANO requires that a pilot must establish that the flight can be safely completed as planned.

Everyone with me so far or does anyone disagree with the above?As Islander2 helpfully pointed out, the ANO requires that you plan for "any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned"

So you plan to fly from A to B that is what you plan to do........no more and no less. There is no other plan.You are introducing a false determinism to the meaning of a "planned flight from A to B". It means an intent to land at B if all the conditions for safe flight can be met and may include contingencies and alternatives for other outcomes. It does not require a certainty of landing at B. You'd be a fool to depart VFR from A to B thinking "there is no other plan".

IMC conditions on a VFR route mean that the route can not be legally completed as planned No, if your planning has included alternative VMC routes and contingencies "which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned"

If you still depart on that route as planned despite having decided that IMC conditions exist then you have not ensured the safety of the flight.No, you can ensure the safety of the flight by planning for contingencies "which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned"

You may have to read the VMC criteria, the requirement to establish if IMC exists, the requirement to determine that the flight can be completed safely and the requirement to not recklessly endanger the flight or others to gather together the legal requirements. It is those very criteria which permit a VFR departure from A to B despite IMC enroute or at the destination as long as the contingency planning permits the flight to be completed safely. There is no requirement that the flight must be completed at a specific, nominated destination determined before the start of the flight. Only that it can be completed safely, and such safe completion may allow for landing at C,D etc or returning to A.

The rest of your post is not relevant to your claim that it is illegal to depart on a VFR flight from A to B if IMC is forecast enroute or at the destination, even if you have contingency plans that allow you to maintain VMC and safe fuel reserves. Being legal is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a flight test to be executed or passed. Hence, the circumstances in which a flight test can be failed or terminated do not prove that something is illegal.

What is the point of your comment to Bookworm on the IR test and how is this relevant to your VFR legality claim? It's not even meaningful for IFR since an IFR flight may depart to a destination with forecasts below minima if it has two legal alternates. Bookworm has already pointed this out to you.

You may also fail an IR test if your flight planning takes longer than 45 minutes. Are you going to tell us it is illegal do undertake an IFR flight if the planning takes you more than 45 minutes?

Your post and the stuff about apples, oranges, motorway and A road speed limits proves 4 things
1. You can type
2. You can use bold emphasis
3. You can write with an authoritative prose style
4. You are willing to continue typing posts in this fashion ignoring the points made in reply to you

What it doesn't do is support your claim. Since you seem to struggle to absorb points made to you, I will repeat an earlier part of a post, in case this is helpful

Pilot "I am departing VFR from A to B. The current forecast for B indicates that a VFR arrival will not be possible, but C and D nearby are forecasting VMC. There is also an enroute forecast that suggests I may have to turn back to A. I have enough fuel to maintain VMC and land safely in any of these outcomes, and I am willing to depart to see whether conditions turn out to be better than forecast."

DFC:"Stop, do not depart, that is illegal"

Pilot: "Where do you make this stuff up DFC? Of course it is legal"

[ock1f]

:D Well done DFC on the 2 thousand posts :D

Pity you haven't learnt much from the Atc threads, the diesal cessna thread, etc etc etc etc etc

I'll get my coat :E

Yours as ever
Ock1f

[DFC]

Bookworm has already pointed this out to you.

No. I think that you will find Bookworm has a different view to you and I on that one.

The commander of an aircraft shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before
the aircraft takes off:
(a) that the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information
available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and
forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in
case the flight cannot be completed as planned;


There is no requirement that the flight must be completed at a specific, nominated destination determined before the start of the flight.


Are we talking about pre-flight planning and the legal requirement not to depart unless the pre-flight planning shows that the planned VFR flight can be completed safely or are we talking about in-flight decisions to change the original plan?

At the departure point, you must have a suitable destination to land at if you do not then how do you know how much fuel you need to have?


Let me highlight a very important part of the abover ANO quote that you seem to be trying to use;

and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in
case the flight cannot be completed as planned


In case the flight can not be completed as planned - an in-flight decision.

If you plan to fly VFR on a route that is IMC then before you depart that the flight can not be completed as planned. Thus from the moment of departure you are already carrying out plan B.

The requirement to have a Plan B as an alternative to plan A assumes that plan A was a viable option in the first place.

There seems be be misunderstanding regarding the difference between;

a) Ensuring that a flight can be made safely; and

b) Ensuring that a flight is being made safely.

Regards,

DFC

[ShyTorque]

The ANO requires that a pilot must establish that the flight can be safely completed as planned.


DFC, I think your personal interpretation of that sentence is the crux of your argument.

I often plan to fly under VFR but sometimes am obliged to revert to IFR during the flight. I then revert again to VFR for landing or carry out an instrument approach as required. Surely you are not suggesting this is illegal?

[radicalrabit]

OK JUST A STUDENT HERE BUT
Illegal? nope not at all. (oh ex air traffic by the way) . The word illegal has no place in the context of what DFC is saying . I Understand the point he is making but it is not illegal as many of you have pointed out.
It happens every day all over the world. What was illegal (fom my understanding ) was for that particular flight based on; that day in that aircraft in those conditions as vmc/vfr didnt exist at the time and location of departure and the lack of instrument flying instruments or certification of the crew. (which ever of the front seat occupants was deemed PIC) They could not have legally departed and landed back at the same airport could they?
Thanks for this very protracted debate by the way, I am so glad people have such strong and diverse opinions, doesnt it make the threads far more interesting?

And just be be sure I have discussed this with the CAA this morning.
I wish to fly from Barton to Wick on the way the weather is completely naff and IMC for certain NORTH OF a given point.

So I will fly and get an update of weather on the way and then divert away from Wick and nip off to stay with my nephew in Aberdeen and go on to Wick later when the weather gets better.
"THERE IS NO INTENTION TO KNOWINGLY ENTER IMC CONDITIONS IN AN AIRCRAFT NOT EQUIPPED FOR IFR and at no point will I need to be illegal and fly instruments or enter IMC conditions"
This flight is completely legal even though from the outset the Destination may well remain IMC and there is certainly IMC "en route".
I have no intention of going IMC at any point.
Guess what ?
The man from the CAA said in no way could that plan be construed as illegal. Simply stay out of the IMC and it is perfectly legal, Do use Scottish Centre to get met info and make the decision to divert early enough !

Ah well may be we can just say its illegal or pretend it is a bit longer to keep the debate going?

[DFC]

I often plan to fly under VFR but sometimes am obliged to revert to IFR during the flight.

Is that because;

a) The flight rules require IFR and you are still VMC throughout? or

b) You have pre-flight determined that would be the case, have planned for it and have appropriate fuel etc; or

c) The weather information you obtain is failing to adequately provide you with the information you need i.e. the information provided incorrectly leads you into thinking that the flight will be VFR when it can not be; or

d) The available information is correctly indicating that IMC will exist but you can not determine the situation, depart VFR and are caught out by having to fly IFR when you did not expect to do so?

having an IR and appropriate equipped aircraft helps you but if you were operating a VFR only heli and only had a CPL with no IR, would you make your flights knowing that you have to be IMC during part of them?

or

Would you plan to route via a different route that would be VMC or even to a different landing place that would permitt you to remain VMC. Then having departed, you might in flight determine that actually the weather is not as you expected and then in-flight change the plan but that is in-flight and is not pre-flight.


Regards,

DFC

[Supersport]

DFC, I wonder if you could be so kind and answer the following question using the scenario I have provided:

Scenario:
You plan on flying a VFR flight from Exeter to Blackpool. At the planned departure time the visibilty for Exeter is CAVOK with no significant change forecast. The weather at Blackpool is Overcast at 200ft with a high probability of it staying so, which means the chances of you getting there are slim, but there is still a chance. You have 4 hours of fuel onboard and have made a contingency plan to land at Barton which is forecast VMC with no significant change in case conditions do not change at Blackpool.

Question: Taking into account the above scenario - Is it ILLEGAL for yourself to DEPART Exeter in excellent VMC with the intention of going to Blackpool using VFR only?

Simple question DFC, a one word answer will do fine, YES or NO?

[ShyTorque]

DFC, The daily task requires operations in and out of controlled airspace, with class G transits and VFR at one end or the other because helipads have no published instrument prodedures. However, it is sometimes necessary to transit in and /or let down in IMC and therefore there is a requirement to operate under IFR/VFR as the en route in-flight conditions demand. I hold an ATPLH and an IR.

having an IR and appropriate equipped aircraft helps you but if you were operating a VFR only heli and only had a CPL with no IR, would you make your flights knowing that you have to be IMC during part of them?


Apples,and oranges, apples and oranges. Misunderstanding occur when contributors make broad brush claims and statements, as some seem prone to do. No-one in their right mind would plan to fly a VFR helicopter into IMC due to the lack of aircraft stabiity/stabilisation, let alone lack of required minimum radio /nav equipment.

Having said that, in a previous employment, because of the nature of the job, we had to train for the possibility of inadvertant IMC in a unstabilised helicopter, although it did have minimum radio / nav equipment.

Guess what ?
The man from the CAA said in no way could that plan be construed as illegal. Simply stay out of the IMC and it is perfectly legal, Do use Scottish Centre to get met info and make the decision to divert early enough !

Radical Rabbit, precisely. :D

[421C]

Are we talking about pre-flight planning and the legal requirement not to depart unless the pre-flight planning shows that the planned VFR flight can be completed safely or are we talking about in-flight decisions to change the original plan?


We are talking about your claim that:
it is illegal (and stupid) to depart on a VFR flight from A to B when you have determined by reference to a combination of actual and forecast weather information available to you that IMC conditions will or are likely to exist along the planned route.

Clealry a flight may not depart if it can't be completed safely. But you are saying that the presence of forecast IMC on the preferred route of a VFR flight (ie. to B) means that, by definition, it can not be completed safely and that it may not legally depart - you are not allowing for a VFR flight to be planned with inherent contingencies, and this is simply absurd. By 'inherent contingencies' I mean a plan such as I described earlier: "I am departing VFR from A to B. The current forecast for B indicates that a VFR arrival will not be possible, but C and D nearby are forecasting VMC. There is also an enroute forecast that suggests I may have to turn back to A. I have enough fuel to maintain VMC and land safely in any of these outcomes, and I am willing to depart to see whether conditions turn out to be better than forecast"


At the departure point, you must have a suitable destination to land at if you do not then how do you know how much fuel you need to have?

Of course. No-one has claimed that you may depart without a suitable destination to land. You have claimed that it is illegal to depart on a VFR flight from A to B that has forecast IMC enroute or at B, even if there are suitable places to land at C,D or back to A and suitable fuel is carried.

In case the flight can not be completed as planned - an in-flight decision.

No. The ANO says
The commander of an aircraft shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:
(a) that the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned;
The requirement is that a flight can be "safely made" - it does not say that the alternative course of action may only result from unforseen in-flight circumstances and it does not say that planning of a VFR flight may not be based on contingencies (eg. from A to B if weather permits, otherwise C,D or back to A).


There seems be be misunderstanding regarding the difference between;

a) Ensuring that a flight can be made safely; and

b) Ensuring that a flight is being made safely.


No there isn't. The contingency planning is what ensures the flight can be safely made if the weather turns out to be as bad as forecast.

[DFC]

Supersport,

Your Scenario and your question do not match.

Your Scenario is that you are departing on a VFR flight to Barton and have ensured that is a safe course of action. During the flight, you may change the plan and route to Blackpool if the weather changes but by your own admission you do not expect that.

Thus your destination at the time of departure is Barton and that will only change if there is some unexpected change in the weather.

If you are the type of pilot that always plans a suitable altenate for your intended destination then will you have a suitable alternate for Barton?

Nothing illegal with departing for Barton at all provided that in your aircraft the 4 hours of fuel is suficient to fly the proposed route plus contingency and arive at Barton with sufficient reserve fuel.

Unfortunately in this real case, the pilots departed for Blackpool despite the weather saying that there was no chance of landing at Blackpool, they only had suficient fuel for that flight and thus they illegally failed to carry out the required pre-flight planning.

Some here think that simply becuse Exeter and many other places were VMC then the pre-flight planning was perfectly legal. I do not.

---------------

Clealry a flight may not depart if it can't be completed safely.

Horray. Someone has seen the light.


But you are saying that the presence of forecast IMC on the preferred route of a VFR flight (ie. to B) means that, by definition, it can not be completed safely and that it may not legally depart


No. I never said preferred route, I said intended route.

-------------

Shytorque,

Nothing wrong with Y or Z flights or even I - V - I or V-I-V flights at all.

However, you are expected to plan appropriately and in your case the ops manual will make appropriate provision.

Don't forget that your VMC is IMC for fixed wing flyers.

----------

Seems that there will still be people taking off and flying into mountains while IMC - those mountains clearly covered in cloud visible from the apron at the departure aerodrome and the intended route clearly passing through an area unsuitable for VFR flight.

They had lots of fuel on board and there were several airports and routes that were VMC

Some say that there is nothing wrong with drawing the line along the map through an area with elevations above 3000ft and ceilings less than 2000ft and intending to fly that route.

Until pilots sit up and comply with the legal requirements for VFR flights to plan correctly and clearly show that the intended route does not intend to be in IMC we are going to regularly see people killed.

Regards,

DFC

[Supersport]

DFC said:

Supersport,

Your Scenario and your question do not match.

Your Scenario is that you are departing on a VFR flight to Barton and have ensured that is a safe course of action. During the flight, you may change the plan and route to Blackpool if the weather changes but by your own admission you do not expect that.

Thus your destination at the time of departure is Barton and that will only change if there is some unexpected change in the weather.

If you are the type of pilot that always plans a suitable altenate for your intended destination then will you have a suitable alternate for Barton?

Nothing illegal with departing for Barton at all provided that in your aircraft the 4 hours of fuel is suficient to fly the proposed route plus contingency and arive at Barton with sufficient reserve fuel.


Thanks for the lengthy reply DFC, a simple "No, it's not illegal" would have done just fine.

[ShyTorque]

However, you are expected to plan appropriately and in your case the ops manual will make appropriate provision.


Ops Manual you say? Must ask myself to see if I've got one in the shed....

[421C]

No. I never said preferred route, I said intended route.


In that case you choose, wrongly, to interpret an "intended route" as an invariable, unconditional determination to fly from A to B, come what may. A flight does not need to be planned with a single, irrevocable course of action; it is perfectly reasonable to have intentions and an intended route which include the conditionality in the example below:

"I am departing VFR from A to B. The current forecast for B indicates that a VFR arrival will not be possible, but C and D nearby are forecasting VMC. There is also an enroute forecast that suggests I may have to turn back to A. I have enough fuel to maintain VMC and land safely in any of these outcomes, and I am willing to depart to see whether conditions turn out to be better than forecast"

Thus, my intention is to fly from A to B along my intended route if the weather turns out to be better than forecast, otherwise I will adopt a plan of action that, in accordance with forecast weather, allows me to maintain VMC and safe fuel reserves. (Note the use of underline to emphasise the conditionality in intentions)



Until pilots sit up and comply with the legal requirements for VFR flights to plan correctly and clearly show that the intended route does not intend to be in IMC we are going to regularly see people killed


The merit in the advice you are trying to give is somewhat diluted by your persistance in making false claims about the legal requirement for VFR flight.

You use "legal requirement" and "clearly show that the intended route does not intend to be in IMC" when the legal requirement does not say that. It has been posted several times before, but I will keep posting it in case it eventually sinks in.
The commander of an aircraft shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:
(a) that the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned;
There is nothing complex or confusing about this clearly worded paragraph.
Can a flight from A to B with forecast IMC enroute or at B be "safely made" if VMC is forecast to allow VFR back to A or to land at C or D and sufficient fuel is carried? Clearly it can. Has the "latest information" been taken into account? It has. Is there "any alternative course of action"? There is.

Clarity in understanding the legal requirements is important to aviation safety. Confusing people with your own legal inventions does not help. Fortunately, in this case, the ANO is clearly worded enough that I would be surprised if any pilot found it confusing.

You, quite freely, advised other pilots to undertake training etc, earlier in this thread. If, in the same spirit, I may advise you: do consider your approach to interpreting regulations and requirements carefully. You seem prone to misunderstanding them and absolutely unswerving in your conviction, no matter what points are made to you, or what evidence is presented. This behaviour pattern can be an aviation safety risk factor, I refer you to the usual HPL sources.

rgds
421C

[S-Works]

I am assuming by DFC's silence in the face of his far more knowledgeable and experienced peers that his silence indicates acceptance that he was wrong?
:ok:

[DFC]

421C,

You have totally missed the simple fact that in order to determine that a flight can be made safely in terms of weather, fuel and everything else, at the planning stage there must be a point at which based on the information available you know you will safely terminate the flight (the destination)..............otherwise, the flight has no defined end and thus actual fuel requirements and weather requirements can not be determined.

An alternative course of action will often be planned and one may even find that during the flight that it is required.

You said;
Clealry a flight may not depart if it can't be completed safely


Horray. At last someone who agrees.

Thus, my intention is to fly from A to B along my intended route if the weather turns out to be better than forecast,


This ignores two very important aspects;

1. You must make your decision based on actual and forecast weather; and

2. You as pilot in command have to not simply use the met forecaster as the person who decides if it is safe but you alone must interpret the information provided and decide that based on the information available that it is safe to proceed on the intended route..........which you clearly can't do VFR if the intended route is IMC.

-----------


So you depart from Exeter to Blackpool eventhough Blackpool is IMC, and will be so for longer than your endurance. Your alternate is Barton. As you are within 20nm of Barton, you find that the airfield is closed due to an accident. Your alternative plan of action now that the flight can not be copmpleted as planned is?

In this case, you departed on the alternative course of action i.e. you were diverting from the moment you departed. You planned to do this and consequently, you departed without havign an alternative course of action to what you planned to actually do.

Can a flight from A to B with forecast IMC enroute or at B be "safely made" if VMC is forecast to allow VFR back to A or to land at C or D and sufficient fuel is carried?

The answer is clearly No you can not depart intending to fly from A to B. Because you have determined that there is IMC enroute. You have made that decision. You have decided that the flight can not be made VFR. The fact that everywhere else in the world is VMC has no bearing on that very important decision.

Perhaps we have people who can not make decisions that the weather is unsuitable and that the flight can not be made. They simply rely on having a look see, taking far more fuel than is necessary and hoping that all the airfields in the country are available.

----------

Leaving the legal aside, I would hate to be a passenger on one of your flights from Exeter to Blackpool.

"Now here we are at 3000ft on our way to Blackpool, the weather says that we can't get there and I knew that before we departed, I know you want to go to Blackpool, I do also. I will push it as much as I can but never mind we will probably end up in the North of England somewhere or perhaps even back where we started."

Passenger response - "Take me back to Exeter you idiot".

Passenger thinks - 'I'm never going to fly with this idiot again'

421C,

Everthing in your posts says to me that you are unwilling or unable to make a go/no-go decision - the very go/no-go decision that the law requires. You are simply surviving because ther are a multitude of fields in the country and your luck so far has not left you stranded.

:)

Regards,

DFC

[Supersport]

DFC, you can go on and on and on about the various posters on here decision making / planning skills etc, it doesn't and won't make a difference. Everyone knows it would be a bad decision to to depart Exeter with the intention of going to Blackpool when it is forecast IMC for a prolonged period of time.

The main point which various others are trying to get across to you, which you continue to evade, is that it was/is not illegal to depart Exeter under these circumstances.

Bad decision yes, illegal no.

The extensive diatribe that you keep coming out with is, to be frank, BORING. You have killed what was a healthy discussion on lessons that can be drawn from this terrible incident.

[Lurking123]

DFc, taking you flight to Blackpool with Barton closed due to an accident scenario, are you saying that under almost the same scenario it would be 'legal' to depart to Blackpool if the forecast IMC bit was a TEMPO? if so, there is a high likelihood that you could still end up over/near Blackpool in exactly the same predicament but at least you would be 'legal'.

[Wrong Stuff]

I'm intrigued by this fantasy world DFC inhabits. I find myself wondering, if I wanted to follow his advice, how it should work in reality. DFC paints a picture of an experienced aviator, who presumably has put this into practice a few times, so hopefully he'll be able to let me know how it works out in the real world. I personally think he's a troll, but no doubt one day he'll prove me wrong. In the meantime, taking DFC at face value:

For the sake of example, let's say I want to fly VFR from Elstree to Le Touquet to visit the market and have a spot of lunch. As is often the case, the weather in the UK is pleasant VFR, but Meteo France are forecasting lower level cloud cover forecast for the French mainland. However, as many people have experienced, it's quite common for the weather over the sea to be CAVOK with the significant cloud cover starting a few miles inland from the French coast, while Le Touquet itself basks in glorious sunshine.

So according to DFC, to remain legal our plan A is to take off from Elstree, head off towards Le Touquet, with the intention of turning round and coming back to Elstree. Plan B is to divert into Le Touquet if the weather turns out to be good enough to land there despite the adverse forecast for the region.

So, thinking about how this actually works in the real world:

1) What do I put on the flight plan?

Presumably it's got to be departure EGTR, destination EGTR with a route something like DCT LAM DCT DVR DCT LT DCT DVR DCT LAM DCT with an alternate of LFAT. I'll need to put in EETs for the FIR boundary, so do I put in two - one for the outbound leg and one for the inbound one?

2) What happens if the cloud cover is forecast to start before the FIR boundary?

The route I know I can complete is now DCT LAM DCT DVR DCT LAM DCT. I guess I now don't need to bother with the EETs to the FIR boundary. But in the real world, how does this flight plan get addressed to LFFF and LFAT? Does somebody spot that I've got LFAT listed as an alternate and add them as addressees on the offchance, or do I have to manually specify that myself? What do you do DFC?

3) Where exactly do I put LFAT on the flight plan?

In filling in the flight plan, I'm not sure I should really put LFAT in as the alternate. The flight plan forms have 2 spaces for "alternate" aerodromes, but according to the definitions in ICAO Annex 11:

Alternate aerodrome.

An aerodrome to which an aircraft may proceed when it becomes either impossible or inadvisable to proceed to or to land at the aerodrome of intended landing.

That doesn't really apply in this case. Once I get to Le Touquet, it is neither impossible nor inadvisable to return to Elstree - I just don't want to. So Le Touquet isn't really the alternate. Do you put it in the "alternate" field anyway, DFC, or do you put it somewhere else - as a RMK in field 18 perhaps?

4) In the real world, do you ever get given a hard time by ATC at the surprise destination?

I can imagine when I rock up at Le Touquet the controller being a little confused. To use one of DFC's imaginary conversations:

G-ABCD: Le Touquet Tower, G-ABCD is a Cessna from Elstree to Elstree, we wish to divert in to you.

LFAT: Roger G-CD, do you have a problem?

G-ABCD: Negative. The weather is better than forecast and we now wish to divert in to you. We did make sure you got a copy of the flight plan.

LFAT: Roger G-CD. I have a copy of your flight plan. Your flight plan shows you returning to Elstree without landing. Is there something now preventing you returning to Elstree in accordance with your flight plan?

G-ABCD: Negative. The weather is better than forecast and we now wish to divert in to you.

LFAT: G-CD standby.

Le Touquet are unfailingly helpful (if sometimes a little overworked). However, there are many other destinations where I could imagine a prolonged conversation and the real possibility of being refused permission to land. Is this ever a problem in the real world, DFC?

5) What do you do about SAR?

Obviously the route you actually fly may be very different to the one on the flight plan, which could cause problems for SAR.

Taking another example for a moment - let's say we want to fly from Elstree to Berlin and the weather across Europe is fine, but there's a band of weather approaching from the north. The forecast for Essex and north Kent is for a cloud base around 1,500' which isn't high enough to be above MSA for the early legs. If the bases actually turns out to be above 2,500' then that's plenty to safely make it out to Kent and the better weather.

Now because our plan A is to take off from Elstree and land back at Elstree if the weather is as forecast, the flight plan we must submit in DFC-world is from EGTR to EGTR with a route of something like DCT LAM DCT, a flight time of 30 mins and an alternate of EDDI.

So what happens if you get as far a Dover and the better weather? We're now on our way to Berlin, but if anything untoward happens nobody knows our intended route or our estimated ETA. If the radio goes dead, they won't have the faintest idea where to start looking. Do you put the alternate route in as a RMK? Or ask a "responsible person" to alert everyone if you don't turn up.

As an experience aviator, no doubt you've encountered all these problems with your unusual method before and found a good practical solution to them. Personally, I think anybody trying to do things the DFC way in the real world would soon see that it's ivory tower rubbish.

[S-Works]

Everthing in your posts says to me that you are unwilling or unable to make a go/no-go decision - the very go/no-go decision that the law requires. You are simply surviving because ther are a multitude of fields in the country and your luck so far has not left you stranded.


LOL, You are getting into a peeing contest now to try and prove your point with people who are amongst the most capable and knowledgeable in aviation! If you wrote everything I know about aviation on a postage stamp, 421C and Bookworm would submit the encyclopedia Britannia and still have time to give me advice.

You never know when to quit do you.

[HappyFran]

This was an excellent thread for which I feel I have learnt a lot.

Now it seems like a P**ing contest....get a life guys

listen to Supersport.

The extensive diatribe that you keep coming out with is, to be frank, BORING. You have killed what was a healthy discussion on lessons that can be drawn form this terrible incident.

[421C]

You have totally missed the simple fact that in order to determine that a flight can be made safely in terms of weather, fuel and everything else, at the planning stage there must be a point at which based on the information available you know you will safely terminate the flight (the destination)..............otherwise, the flight has no defined end and thus actual fuel requirements and weather requirements can not be determined.

No DFC, I said that one can determine that a flight can be made safely without determining an invariant single course of action. In the example I have been using...
"I am departing VFR from A to B. The current forecast for B indicates that a VFR arrival will not be possible, but C and D nearby are forecasting VMC. There is also an enroute forecast that suggests I may have to turn back to A. I have enough fuel to maintain VMC and land safely in any of these outcomes, and I am willing to depart to see whether conditions turn out to be better than forecast"
...the defined end of the flight is contingent upon the weather encountered. Sufficient fuel is carried for these contingencies. The weather forecasts and fuel permit the flight to be "safely made" even if (as may be likely) the IMC at B is as forecast. QED.



Thus, my intention is to fly from A to B along my intended route if the weather turns out to be better than forecast

This ignores two very important aspects;

1. You must make your decision based on actual and forecast weather; and
The decision I describe in the example above is based on the actual and forecast weather - the decision is to adopt a contingent plan which safely permits a flight to attempt to land at B if the weather is better than forecast. A forecast of IMC at an airport or enroute segment does not preclude you from flying towards that airport or enroute segment in VMC, to see if the weather is better than forecast, as long as you have adequate fuel to maintain VMC and land safely at an airport where VMC is forecast.

2. You as pilot in command have to not simply use the met forecaster as the person who decides if it is safe but you alone must interpret the information provided and decide that based on the information available that it is safe to proceed on the intended route..........which you clearly can't do VFR if the intended route is IMC.[/

The underlined sentence illustrates the rather fundamental misunderstanding you are struggling with. If IMC is forecast along a route you must be aware that this doesn't mean it is in IMC or will, with certainty, be in IMC. If you plan safely and accordingly, you may depart to evaluate whether the intended route actually is in IMC as you approach it. If it is, then you have to fly one of the VMC contingencies, if not, you proceed to B.


Everthing in your posts says to me that you are unwilling or unable to make a go/no-go decision - the very go/no-go decision that the law requires. You are simply surviving because ther are a multitude of fields in the country and your luck so far has not left you stranded.


It seems this friendly debate is provoking mutual concerns. Mine is more prosaic: you express various points with a sufficiently odd and unreal undertone that you come across like someone who's entire knowledge of the subject is more based on pouring over written regulations, misinterpreting them, and then lecturing people on internet forums rather than actually flying general aviation aircraft. This limitation manifests itself in your inability to grasp the basic relationship between weather forecasts and contingencies in flight planning.

Happyfran - you are right, I am just being weak in replying endlessly. I will try to stop.

Wrongstuff - of course you are right, and innumerable real world examples could expose the absurdity of DFC's claim and illustrate why aviation law isn't written in our universe the way it is in his parallel one. But that won't stop him!

[ShyTorque]

HappyFran said:

This was an excellent thread for which I feel I have learnt a lot.
Now it seems like a P**ing contest....get a life guys
listen to Supersport.
The extensive diatribe that you keep coming out with is, to be frank, BORING. You have killed what was a healthy discussion on lessons that can be drawn form this terrible incident.

I wholeheartedly agree, well put. Certain posters seldom fail to take an opportunity to post their own version of what is written in the rules and regulations, whilst pouring scorn on everyone else's interpretation, experience and abilities.

I'm not sure why, perhaps it stems from some feeling of insecurity, or poor grasp of the english language. (I'm OK, the CAA just told me I'm proficient, so there).

[BRL]

Now it seems like a P**ing contest....

Just thread banned one or two people to see if the thread has any life left in it without the peeing contest that has arisen.

[Whirlybird]

BRL,
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!! Phew. I'd given up posting on here after watching the thread degenerate into ridiculous nit-picking. Maybe now we can get back to discussing something sensible...like real-life aviation. :ok:

The extensive diatribe that you keep coming out with is, to be frank, BORING. You have killed what was a healthy discussion on lessons that can be drawn from this terrible incident.


Along with others, I totally agree with this statement. Let's hope things can now change.

[Supersport]

Along with others, I totally agree with this statement. Let's hope things can now change.

Glad it wasn't just me that felt like this! :ok:Wasn't sure whether I'd been somewhat harsh when I posted the comment.

[HappyFran]

The thing that drew me into the thread was the very scary ability to identify (from my perception of Andrew Walkers position) with the possible chain of events that lead to this tragedy. Prior to read this thread I would like to think I would have made a different call on the Exeter – Blackpool leg, but I can easily envisage a scenario on the out bound flight were I could have found myself in the same situation as Andrew.

For that matter earlier in the week I was sitting in an atpl theory class, and scanned around my colleagues and would have estimated a good proportion may also make a bad call in those circumstances.

Hopefully I and my colleagues have learnt something and will now always be sure who is PIC and perhaps be a bit more weary of Seniority.

With regard to the latter threads ‘pis..ing contest I do feel that in so many things the law does seem to be the last bastion of the ethically wrong. Using the law in my opinion is no excuse for bad airmanship. :uhoh:

[Whirlybird]

The thing that drew me into the thread was the very scary ability to identify (from my perception of Andrew Walkers position) with the possible chain of events that lead to this tragedy.

HappyFran,

I think a lot of us felt that way. I know I did.

It's all very well to say that someone has a PPL and they're PIC and that's the end of it...but human nature doesn't work that way. You don't go overnight, just because you've passed a Skills Test, from doing exactly what your instructor tells you, to completely ignoring all his/her advice. You don't say "I'm PIC, therefore I will ignore the advice and opinions of pilots with zillions of hours more than me, because it's my decision". You especially don't do this if the instructor/more experienced pilot is a lot older than you. You listen to advice. Most people even suggest that this is a good idea, if you're a low hours pilot. Not listening to anyone is generally perceived as arrogance and over-confidence. Where do you draw the line?

So, leaving the law and who was officially PIC out of it, this is a very scary scenario that many of us can identify with.

[HappyFran]

Wirlygig,

I guess I am in the fortunate position now of looking to build some hours. I am very low hours so need to gain lots of experience.
For me, I can book an aircraft, if the weather is looking good I can do a bit of cross country. If OK at departure, but some doubt further a field I can do circuits …my PFL has plenty of room for improvement at moment. :uhoh::uhoh: So no good reason to push any marginal thoughts.

I fly out of Bournemouth and Old Sarum and have a great deal of respect for the instructors and ground staff at both locations, I have a great tendency to seek guidance / discuss with them my flight plans and greatly appreciate there input. There is no way on this earth I would not take there advise if they were to suggest that perhaps my plan was not the best idea. I know I may be PIC but any advise in the negative would be gratefully received and acted upon.

So far the only time I was a bit pissed off , was at ~ 40 hours and doing my cross country solo. Bournemouth – touch and go Cardiff – land Exeter – Bournemouth. Weather looked fine, ~ 10 miles short of Cardiff. bl..dy great cloud bank….it should have been up in Wales …it always rains in Wales not in Bristol Channel. So turned around and came home. Got some solo time but meant I would go over 45 hours to PPL. It was pure ego wanting to do minimum hours and a bit of cost I suppose. But micro warning to me of not to get irritated about something that is not that important.

Most PPL flying should be for fun, should not have intransient deadlines or imaginary targets (particularly with UK WX). So why take any chances at all
:O:O

[Aztec Driver]

Not posted for a while as my previous was removed.
Whilst a lot of finger pointing and hatered may be seen one small point has been well over looked
A-B flight was not repeat not mandated that day,indeed the Aztec aircraft remained unused / wanted until 3 months after it returned.
No body any where pressured thoes two aviators to return to Blackpool that night, this was and is their decision and took them to their maker
I am sick and tired of all the finger pointing, Walker senior has a grudge against the owner of the RF, due to his son's untimely departure from this life. Walker senior get a life (what's left of it) your barking up the wrong tree. The coroner will only determine what, when, how your son left this world, anything more will have to be followed up by a civil prosecution, to which the owner of the aircraft has already won on 2 occasions.
I feel sorry for The guy who offered his aircraft to do two people favours, look what shi- this has caused.
Incidently I wonder if the fingers were/ would be pointed if this aircraft had departed from one of the other famous RF at Blackpool :=

[Lurking123]

Azrec, I think you are off-side with that last post. Most of us have a genuine interest in the dynamic of this accident. On the one hand, you have those who keep to the facts and the legalities, on the other you have those that are trying to ascertain why/how a pilot could get himself in such a mess. You then reappear and make personal attacks and accuse posters of taking sides because of the personalities involved. Essentially, you have stoked the fire.

Back to the day in question - loads of daft decisions and many unanswered questions. Maybe we should draw a line under this thread and just use this accident as an example of how poor airmanship (from all parties involved) can get someone killed.

[bookworm]

One of the above has.

That would be me then. It was the elephant jokes, wasn't it... Oh no, look, I'm still here, well fancy that...

Passenger response - "Take me back to Exeter you idiot".

Funnily enough, I do remember Pat Lander saying something very similar to you, 421C. But I think it was more like "Take me back to Bournemouth, they're all idiots" ;)

[HappyFran]

May be its thread drift, I’m not sure what David Walkers original objective was.

I use Pprune for information, education and entertainment, (sounds a bit like the BBC ). :sad::sad:

I think Bose X made the point about the responsibilities of PIC very clear…and very repeatedly..I don’t think any contributors disagree.

I think everyone also agrees that the decision to depart on return flight was a very bad one, and not to divert much earlier was a fatal one.

As to weather it was illegal or not, seems to me a bit spurious, it was simply bad airmanship. When driving a car some activities are illegal but not dangerous or stupid. And some activities are stupid / reckless but not illegal. The point I make is that just because it may or may not be legal to do something does not make it a good idea.

For me the real story is who was the PIC, for which no one can provide the answer.

But more importantly is the lessons that can be learnt from the circumstances that lead to the first flight ever departing and the implications for the return flight.This forum is not a court of law and should not be some sort of witch hunt but non prejudicial discussion will help many to learn some valuable lessons, even if the scenarios suggested are not necessarily what happened in this case. As probably none of us actual know.

[boy entrant]

Walker senior get a life (what's left of it) your barking up the wrong tree.

Unbelievable ! I hope this time your'e not censored so more people can appreciate what a Moron you are

[bookworm]

As to weather it was illegal or not, seems to me a bit spurious, it was simply bad airmanship.

Just to be clear, HappyFran, the debate about legality was not about whether the Exeter to Blackpool accident flight was legal. I don't think there was a single contributor who argued that it was. The debate was about a more general case. That digression was of marginal relevance to the rest of the thread about the accident flight, but some interesting points about flight planning were made -- by all contributors, IMO.

[foxtrot-oscar]

Aztec Driver,

What a nasty unpleasant person you are, to have made such a comment to a grieving Father beggars belief. You should hang your head in shame you nasty piece of work. You are beneath contempt.

[Supersport]

Some pretty harsh remarks indeed Aztec Driver.

Although, good to hear from someone who is obviously deeply involved in this case. It does give people not based in Blackpool an insight into how the various different 'sides' feel about exactly what happened. It is obviously still pretty raw there. Although some of your words are terribly harsh, I can see where you are coming from Aztec Driver.

[vanHorck]

I agree with Supersport.

Aztec Driver should no be banned, it s obvious he too suffers and is on the "other side" of the fence although apart from the suggestion within his Alias, I do not know his exact position. Was he one of the two Aztec pilots left behind on the outbound journey?

Aztec Driver, we re all waiting for you to give your side of the story here, preferably without hurting people just like i try not to hurt people.

The reason is simple, none of us are helped by single sided stories and it just might be that all of us can learn just that little bit more by hearing your factual recount of the events that day.

From Holland

[Chieftan Driver]

I echo Foxtrot Oscars comments, we all know who you are Aztec Driver. You are none other than RM himself, the very man who the controvosy of the dispatch of this flight centres around. You are beneath contempt indeed! To come on here and post as if you are a third party when we all know who you really are. To think you even invoiced the father of the deceased and tried to sue for the value of the aeroplane is again a good demonstrator that you have no conscience. How the CAA allow such a spineless coward to yet again open another shambles of a flying school is beyond belief!! (FlyBPL dot con)

[frontlefthamster]

The coroner will only determine what, when, how your son left this world

Clearly the words of someone with no idea at all about the extremely wide remit and powers of HM Coroners.

[Aztec Driver]

For all that may have forgot
The Inquest will open next Tuesdat 1000hrs at Blackpool Town Hall
All welcome :)

[S-Works]

Clearly the words of someone with no idea at all about the extremely wide remit and powers of HM Coroners.

Actually not in the UK they don't. They can make recommendations but have no legal power as far as prosecution is concerned.

I am regularly an expert witness for the coroner in another field so have an understanding of what they can and can't do.

The coroners role is merely to establish the cause of death and if they can't they leave an open verdict.

Morality aside it is plain to see the cause of death. I would estimate by misadventure.

[frontlefthamster]

Bose, you are quite correct that a Coroner is not concerned with prosecutions following death. I did not suggest that he was.

The powers to which I referred are powers to investigate and examine. HM Coroner's powers here are almost unlimited. It is in this respect that, should the Coroner in this case wish, he will hear evidence which uncovers all the facts behind the flight. He will, of course, then either give a verdict or direct his jury to a verdict. In this case, I believe a narrative verdict is the most likely outcome (though I recognise that some Coroners choose to avoid narrative verdicts for their own reasons).

Some Coroners are much more willing to explore fundamentals than others (Oxfordshire springs to mind).

(My words on this specific matter are informed by involvement with Coroners at a level somewhat above your experience as an expert witness).

[frontlefthamster]

They would like to stop him (and tried) but can't.

[vanHorck]

To all tomorrow, i wish you good luck.

I hope the Coroner will establish what were the known facts (over and above the AIB) and will prove to be a wise man, helping the family to find closure and helping the flying community to become clearer about responsibilities and authorities of PIC.

[pony2]

Hi Guys / n gals
I was there today listening to this epic
david Walker Father of the lad that was on board, nearly had himself ejecteed from the proceedings as predicted for contempt of court :confused:

Summing up Wed expected accidental death as thought nothing more nothing less:{:{:{

[S-Works]

David Walker Father of the lad that was on board, nearly had himself ejecteed from the proceedings as predicted for contempt of court

I assume by 'the lad onboard' you are referring to the pilot in command?

[172driver]

I assume by 'the lad onboard' you are referring to the pilot in command?

:D:D:D:D:D

[Supersport]

I assume by 'the lad onboard' you are referring to the pilot in command?

:ugh:Here we go again!!! :D

[vanHorck]

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Pilots-34ran-out-of-options34.4152777.jp

[S-Works]

Death by misadventure, exactly what I said at the start of all of this.

Now hopefully this can all be put to bed. Lessons have been learnt I am sure.

[vanHorck]

i d love to hear what te coronor had to say. Is that published anywhere?

[S-Works]

Its a shame that some of the shenanigans were not given a public airing. Some of it made me want to . Most people on here take reponsibilities as a pilot/instructor/examiner seriously. A few don't, they are not safe near an aeroplane, and GA could well do without them.....

Thats because a coroners court is not the place to conduct a witch hunt........

I think people have done a pretty good job of having one on here, how many more places are in scope?

It's over, the verdict was as expected. The people involved that are not dead have their own consciences to live with. End of story.