What a waste of a young life [Archive]

Mariner9

18th Mar 2009, 09:43

Paint thinner is typically a toluene/xylene mix Toluene is used in both Avgas and regular gasoline as an octane booster so it will certainly combust well enough.

However, adding too much to fuel would seriously reduce lubricity and will **** up many engine parts including valves and fuel pumps pretty quickly. Also, the solvent effects of the xylene may cause problems with the fuel piping.

Finally, only approved additives are allowed to be added to the fuel, and paint thinner is not approved (though toluene and xylene are present in many additives that are approved, albeit in fairly low proportions)

So, if illegal fuel, fecked up engines and fuel systems are not a problem to you, feel free to use it ;)

Katamarino

18th Mar 2009, 10:05

Wasn't this case already discussed in detail last year?

enq

18th Mar 2009, 10:49

Morning all,

Here is the AAIB Report (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Cessna%20F150L,%20G-HFCI%2007-8.pdf) from the July 08 Bulletin.

Interesting point about being spiked but for a number of reasons, not least the amount of time it takes to prepare for even a local flight, I believe this is highly unlikely to be the case.

Terrible event - I'd always assumed that in this sort of accident the "pilot" was likely to have "trained" by Twocking Ford Escorts & using MS Flight Sim, not having undertaken all the training, expense & discipline necessary to earn a full PPL.

It certainly brings recreational flying into disrepute and is a reminder of how flying under the influence of drink or drugs can ruin lives.

Regards, enq.

modelman

18th Mar 2009, 17:29

Wasn't this case already discussed in detail last year?

Sure was...........

englishal

18th Mar 2009, 17:38

Was he "under the influence" or was there just residual traces? Example being if you smoked dope on a weekend in Amsterdam, two weeks later you could still fail a drugs test but not be "under the influence" of it? Just curious.

Interesting thing in New Scientist recently:

If you had a guest come to your house, and you had two bowls, one full of peanuts and one full of E tablets. Which would be the most dangerous to offer your guest........(assuming not operating machinery of course)...

PompeyPaul

18th Mar 2009, 18:14

If you had a guest come to your house, and you had two bowls, one full of peanuts and one full of E tablets. Which would be the most dangerous to offer your guest........(assuming not operating machinery of course)...
Is there a half tonne gorilla in the room that REALLY doesn't like people eating his food ?

BRL

18th Mar 2009, 18:19

Interesting discussion. I know one or two people who have taken E tablets and have asked them about this situation. They say the effect of the E lasts about an hour bring a great feeling of happiness and well being to the user. Afterwards though, there is no 'hangover' or anything like that, just tiredness because of all the energy used up whilst under the influence.

A few hours later and he would have felt normal enough to drive a car or ride a motor bike, they couldn't comment about flying a plane as they are not pilots so do not know what is involved.

englishal

18th Mar 2009, 18:37

My problem with discussing drugs is that people get so worked up with the word "drug". To answer the peanut question - your chance of killing your guest are far higher if you offered them a peanut that an E tablet, yet the papers focus on the "drugs".

So my question is whether this lad really was "under the influence" of drugs - which is inexcusable when flying, or he had traces in his system - as these are two very different things as BRL points out....

Cusco

18th Mar 2009, 19:24

So my question is whether this lad really was "under the influence" of drugs - which is inexcusable when flying, or he had traces in his system - as these are two very different things as BRL points out..

The actual report suggests from blood levels that he might well have been under the influence............

................toxicology revealed
the presence of methylenedioxymethylamphetamime
(MDMA, or ‘Ecstasy’) in the blood, at a concentration of
0.28 milligrams per litre. No other drugs were present.
The level of MDMA measured in the pilot’s blood was
slightly above that usually seen following a typical
recreational dose. The results suggest, therefore, that
the drug is likely to have been taken within a few hours
of the flight, rather than being present as a residue of a
dose taken the night before..

Cusco.

eyeinthesky

18th Mar 2009, 19:25

Missed this the first time round.

What a shame: I spent the most of my time learning to fly in GHFCI when it was based at Ipswich (another airfield to succumb to the curse of expanding housing estates) with Horizon Flying Club. Many happy memories.

What an eejit!

Shunter

18th Mar 2009, 19:47

The problem with such incidents is that they're investigated by, reported on and subsequently ingested by people who have never experienced any type of "drug" and have no idea as to their effects except for the propoganda they read in filth like the Daily Wail.

Maybe the pill had something to do with it, maybe it didn't. The evidence tends to allude to good old fashioned incompetence. Just a shame he had to take an innocent party with him.

BRL

18th Mar 2009, 20:11

My point being is that the report says it was taken a few hours before the flight. People I have spoken to say the effect lasts no more than an hour so I don't think he was directly under the influence.

Molesworth 1

18th Mar 2009, 20:14

More like just a thoroughly irresponsible attitude.

gasax

18th Mar 2009, 21:58

It all seems to be a great report for middle aged 'ol gits' to tut tut over. And before you all get uppity - I'm one!

The thinners - largely irrelevant. The drugs ditto. The erratic performance - well actually that is classic 'ol git' behaviour.

Do we really want pilots grounded because someone in ATC thinks they are 'not up to it'? Do you want to be able to ground someone on the basis of little more than 'hearsay'?

Given the circumstances the AAIB are not going to get much adverse comment from us 'ol gits' - but what would stop all these comments applying to you or me - or Maurice Kirk?

At the end of the day this chap probably made a poor decision during the climbout - he may or may not have tried to recover and failed. Most of the rest off the commentry is pretty much irrelevant. Sad event and maybe he was a marginal pilot - are we all so much better?

I know a variety of pilots - whom I will not fly with. Generally they get by, I just don't want to be involved. This guy was probably not much different to them.

And as for comments like taking Ecstasy and flying is equivalent to 'certain death' look out of the car window - if Plod is to be believed someting like 5% of drivers at critical times are doing the same...........

Zulu Alpha

19th Mar 2009, 07:53

ATC are professionals and quite at liberty to report somebody that they feel is incompetent/a danger to others.

This is similar to what happened to Bob Hoover which, in my opinion was a disgusting abuse of power. This is the point that gasax was making. I know the FAA are not ATC but the point is the same.

ZA

For those who don't remember the FAA decided he was flying erratically and removed his licence. There was so much of an outcry that they reversed the decision a year or two later.
In the meantime the Australians had given him a licence!!

foxmoth

19th Mar 2009, 08:18

A few hours later and he would have felt normal enough to drive a car or ride a motor bike,

People I have spoken to say the effect lasts no more than an hour so I don't think he was directly under the influence.

Whilst someone may feel normal enough to drive a car, it does not mean that he was normal enough to do so - I would like to see proper research rather than go on someones perception which can be very different from what is actually the case.:=
As it is anything that reduced the performance in any way of what would seem to be a fairly incompetent and irresponsible pilot cannot have helped.

Say again s l o w l y

19th Mar 2009, 10:10

What a shame, especially for the young lad who was killed. I spent many an hour in CI and it's sad to hear that she's been destroyed in these circumstances.

There is no excuse for taking drugs and flying. The effects simply aren't compatible. Each person reacts differently and it is conceivable that this chap was off his box when he took off.

His previous actions simply confirm that this man should never have been let anywhere near an aircraft, the tragedy is that a young man had to die. What is the point of having an enforcement brach if people like this get reported and nothing happens?

DenhamPPL

19th Mar 2009, 18:38

With that sort of dose inside him the pilot would have been "off his tree" to put it mildly.

The ecstacy "high" can last anywhere from 30mins to at least 3 hours depending on the person (diet/build/mental state etc).

You'd have to be a total nutcase to even consider flying an aeroplane on "e".

gasax

19th Mar 2009, 18:40

Yes SoCal.

But the point is a single FAA 'inspector' made a complaint and one of the most capable pilots on the planet was grounded. Only the intevention of the Australian option got Bob flying again. With the level of power the FAA have we would all expect considerably more responsibility.

If ATC or the CAA can simply ground people here where will it end? Maurice Kirk had his licence withdrawn by the CAA on little more than hearsay - remember that the FAA did not prosecute him and it took legal action to get his poo brown back.

And yet there are all sorts of people saying this chap should have been grounded. Why? Largely because of their prejudices. O'l gits drugs of choice are alcohol and tobacco - both significantly more lethal than Es. If one of you 'fail' a biennial flight (I know - but lets say you scare the instructor and he refuses to sign). Should you have your licence withdrawn? Or should you have additional training?

Given the choice of a glass of wine versus an E then the wine will have more impact. Like ot or not Es are pretty harmless - as legal or illegal drugs go.

Flying whilst impaired is dumb, but let's not let a generational difference hype this incident up to things that are in no way justified.

Final 3 Greens

19th Mar 2009, 18:51

Gasax

FFS.

Pilots are expected to self certify as fit to fly and are encouraged not to fly when taking even innocuous OTC medicines.

Flying without first discussing the consequences with an AME after having taken any type of drug is negligent and unforgivable.

This is nothing to do with generation differences, its all to do with being a responsible pilot, which this guy obviously was not.

And he took a 13 year lad with him :mad:

bjornhall

19th Mar 2009, 19:18

Flying without first discussing the consequences with an AME after having taken any type of drug is negligent and unforgivable.

How do you know he didn't?

If a pilot should be grounded everytime "a professional" (professional what?) has issues with their flying ability or their personality, not many active ppruners would still be flying... :E

As for "lives would be saved"; well, sounds so right doesn't it? How do you even argue with that? Let's ground everybody, then nobody would die. Right...? :oh:

Say again s l o w l y

19th Mar 2009, 21:04

Don't be so bl**dy stupid.

Simple rule, don't take any form of mood altering substance before going flying. That includes booze, weed, Cocaine, E, Smack etc.etc.

There is no justification of any kind for taking something like E and then going flying. End of.

If he did discuss it with an AME, what do you reckon the AME's response was? Do you reckon they said "Oh that's alright then". Aye right.

dublinpilot

19th Mar 2009, 22:23

As far as I can see, no one said that a pilot should be grounded on the say so of ATC. All they have called for is that when multiple people report the same pilot that the CAA should not just ignore the complaints; they should INVESTIGATE. They shouldn't just take back the pilot's licence; they should investigate the reports and make a decision on the basis of what they find.

I can't see them doing anything without sufficient evidence to be able to justify their actions in court. They are hardly THAT stupid, and have access to enough legal knowledge to know what they are doing.

Flying under the influence of any mood altering drugs, be that E, wine or other alcohol is stupid, dangerous and illegal, no matter what generation it is (as is trying to make your own fuel from paint tinner :ugh: )

dp

Nibbler

20th Mar 2009, 05:11

How often do ATC or anyone else report pilots to the CAA for the quality of their flying? Reading the AAIB report these reports were not MORs but something quite different. Am I right in thinking this is in fact very rare in the UK? If this is the case the clear inference is the pilot had been causing some genuine identifiable concerns. The same can be said for a flying school refusing a pilot the option to hire, in my experience you've got to be working very hard indeed to demonstrate that level of incompetence.

The affects of E are not proven either generally or specifically for this person but the willingness of the pilot to fly after taking it only strengthens my opinion that he had a know it all experimental listens to no one attitude and it eventually killed him.

Having seen at first hand the behaviour of some GA pilots I think revalidation through experience should be replaced with the LST or if revalidating outside experience then with a GST. Dare I say, in addition to this PPL examiners need to partial or fail pilots when required, rather than the "Pass with a b@ll@cking" I hear so often.

IO540

20th Mar 2009, 07:03

The 2-yearly JAA PPL revalidation flight (or whatever it is called) seems to do nothing. The instructor has no power to fail the pilot and more or less must sign his logbook - so long as, presumably, the instructor has survived the flight.

This has come up on some pilot forums from time to time and I gather that originally this flight was framed as an FAA-style BFR (which you can most definitely fail) but there was such an uproar that this was dropped. IMHO, loads of pilots would fail a "BFR" and even just from flying around it's obvious that many can only just about make a radio call despite having been flying many more years than I have.

The BFR works well for the FAA which directly or otherwise runs at least 90% of the world's GA.

Mind you, there are cowboys everywhere and you will never weed them all out. This kind of thing is a personal tragedy but it's also bad news for all of UK GA because it ensures that the separate debate of "what expectation of safety do passengers have" is kept in a high profile and this in turn maintains a huge raft of Euro regulations concerning parts certification, maintenance procedures, etc. - much of this stuff is totally irrelevant to safety in GA but it keeps the costs up.

It's obvious that somebody climbing into a C150 should not expect the safety of a 2-crew 747, but where do you draw the line? You certainly don't expect to end up with a cowboy.

Final 3 Greens

20th Mar 2009, 07:27

Good points, IO.

dublinpilot

20th Mar 2009, 11:27

WR,

That's probably true, but only to the extent that the pilot owned his own aircraft. In this case, I understand that the pilot was renting. Presumably every rental organisation would want to check the pilots licence first.

dp

Katamarino

20th Mar 2009, 12:00

He owned the crash plane, I believe.

Rodent1982

20th Mar 2009, 12:26

He owned a share in the plane, yes.

Parents of the kid would surely have known their brother was taking drugs. If indeed I had kids and was put in this situation I'd think twice about who I was allowing my child to go up with...

Agaricus bisporus

20th Mar 2009, 13:00

Am I alone in my disbelief at the apologists who are dreaming up idiotic excuses for this cretin? How can anyone even think of justifying this sort of behaviour?

He's under investigation for two - not one - TWO examples within the last 20 flying hours of such shocking airmanship that he's been reported - and by God you have to be convincingly dreadful to make an Air Traffic unit take such drastic action, but to do it TWICE???

He has virtually no experience and even less continuity, yet appears to be neither concerned or interested in his shocking performance above (any normal pilot would have gone back to the flying school for some refresher, wouldn't they?) and yet still takes pax on a jolly.

He's out of his box on recreational pharmaceuticals, (note dose OVER the usual "recreational" level, not under). He's put solvent in his fuel, fer Chrissakes, what kind of dipstick does that, stoned or not?? He then gets airborne without his harness secured, and then, on top of all this, fails to pay sufficient attention to his take-off while making a radio call to Bristol at under 200feet????? RT at under 200 feet?? Incredible, simply incredible! And take the time to read what he said on that RT call - no wonder he'd been reported for, amongst other things, gash RT. No wonder he'd attracted attention in the past with RT of that calibre!

IMHO this imbecile was a prime contender for a Darwin award, and has done society a favour by removing his DNA from the gene-pool. Remember, he volunteered for this, his poor passenger did not.

It is utterly tragic that his criminally irresponsible behaviour resulted in the death of a lad keen on aviation, and tragic too for the reputation of aviation itself.

Any one of the above aberrations would be bad enough on it's own, but to have all those stacked up together in one flight? No bloody wonder therre was an accident, it would have been incredible had one not occurred under the above circumstances.
No. There are no excuses for what he did. None whatsoever...

bjornhall

20th Mar 2009, 14:34

Am I alone in my disbelief at the apologists who are dreaming up idiotic excuses for this cretin?

No, probably not. Your disbelief might be a good hint that what you're not believing is perhaps not true..? I haven't heard anyone here finding his behavior excusable...

What has been spoken up against is the moral panic of "Oh-my-god-he-was-taking-drugs-what-a-bad-bad-person!!!", and to question whether even without hindsight there was already enough evidence to motivate grounding him.

I think, and hope, most PPL holders would prefer a system where a pilot is grounded after investigation, not pending investigation.

The main point emphasized by this accident (I won't call it a "lesson to be learned", since it is really nothing new), is to be very, very careful who one flies with. The risks involved with a particular "operation" (if that is a proper term for what this pilot was running...) can be many orders of magnitude higher or lower than what the over-all accident statistics seem to imply.

IO540

20th Mar 2009, 15:15

be very, very careful who one flies with

Couldn't agree more.

Would you let your teenage kid get into a car with three others, with all including the driver being p*issed? It happens all the time. Ask any fireman / ambulance driver.

One also needs to be careful what one flies in. A little more tricky, that one...

IO540

20th Mar 2009, 15:47

SoCal, the UK CAA does almost nothing on the "cowboy" front. Look at the list of prosecutions on their website. They go after people beating up airline cabin crew, or doing AOC busting.

englishal

20th Mar 2009, 18:45

I do recall one case of a US pilot at Palm Springs who got banned for drink flying....So what did he do, took his plane for a last spin....literally...into the ground and killed himself, accidentally by all accounts while FUI. And there was the other one at Hemet who decided to go for a quick flight after the pub...and ended up in a ditch on landing, he lived though. So it shows it is very difficult to regulate against morons and pillocks.

I certainly won't fly with anyone or in anything (any more), and I won't fly with people who don't take flying seriously or show off.

George Zipper

20th Mar 2009, 22:44

Remember what this stands for?

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

21st Mar 2009, 12:49

<<I think, and hope, most PPL holders would prefer a system where a pilot is grounded after investigation, not pending investigation.>>

I disagree. As an Air Traffic Controller I was used to being suspended pending investigation into any incident. If someone is potentially incapable why should they be allowed to continue with their activities?

IO540

21st Mar 2009, 13:19

I disagree. As an Air Traffic Controller I was used to being suspended pending investigation into any incident. If someone is potentially incapable why should they be allowed to continue with their activities?

A few possible reasons:

- the ATCO is being paid to do that job, and a suspension on full pay is the only way to investigate the case without him suing the employer for a raft of stuff e.g. constructive dismissal, not to mention him having to turn up for work and do his job under pressure/worry while he is being investigated

- a dodgy ATCO could wreak a lot more havoc than a dodgy pilot ?

- the ATC regulators will have a lot more investigative resources, post-incident, than the CAA is ever going to throw at a case which - at the time - consists probably only of allegations

Say again s l o w l y

21st Mar 2009, 15:09

In most work situations if there is an investigation, then people are suspended pending the outcome.

I wouldn't want to see people losing their licence just because they've made a mistake or because someone has made an allegation, however, the investigation process needs to be tightened up. This chap shouldn't have been flying and their was evidence to support action being taken against him.

The question needs to be why this was. We don't need more regulation, we just need the current rules enforced better.

bjornhall

21st Mar 2009, 16:49

I wouldn't want to see people losing their licence just because they've made a mistake or because someone has made an allegation

Exactly, and that is precisely what happens when people can be grounded pending investigation.

If someone is potentially incapable why should they be allowed to continue with their activities?

And what constitutes "potentially incapable"? How can you tell who is "potentially incapable"?

The solution is to investigate more quickly.

Say again s l o w l y

21st Mar 2009, 17:12

I've spent many years honing my "muppet radar" and it is fairly accurate. Most experienced FI's have developed this sense too!

However, my thoughts on someone wouldn't count in a court, but there are enough dodgy people out there to warrant a bit more of a proactive approach from the men in the ministry.

Nibbler

21st Mar 2009, 18:05

This is why IMHO pilots should be required to take an LST to revalidate their SEP just as with the multi. Those who have issues can be failed or receive a partial and are left with the choice of taking further training or not flying. The sign off by experience leaves the door wide open for poor pilots to continue to be a danger to themselves and others.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

21st Mar 2009, 18:22

Nibbler. Good choice of name. We do not need more regulation. We need, even less, a "knee jerk" reaction from the authorities on the strength of a certificated retard.

englishal

21st Mar 2009, 18:44

This is why IMHO pilots should be required to take an LST to revalidate their SEP just as with the multi.
IMHO an FAA style BFR is better - which is signed off by the instructor as a logbook endorsement, which certifies that they have completed the BFR successfully. That way, should anything crop up in the near future, the FI takes the rap from the FAA. It means examiners are not needed, competent pilots are not unduly hindered, and no hassle. If the date is passed, fine you can't fly until it is done. Forget any hours requirements too...

Nibbler

21st Mar 2009, 20:02

Thanks GBZ.

I entirely agree, a knee jerk reaction to a single or otherwise rare event is unwise and regulation introduced like this often fails to address the problem as was intended. Yet there remains in my mind, from personal experience, the problem of pilots who would very likely fail a skills test. The question has to be are we happy to hope, or should something positive be done to benefit overall safety?

As you might expect I agree with englishal.

PompeyPaul

21st Mar 2009, 20:35

Taking drugs \ drinking and flying is only ever going to end with one result. Flying after class A drugs is suicide. I find it very hard to believe he knowingly dropped an E and then got into an aircraft with a passenger. Either he was spiked, or he took the tablet thinking it was something else. If he did knowingly take ecstacy and then got into an aircraft he commited suicide. The only other thing I wonder was if the MDMA was in the passenger's body and samples got contaminated ? We'll never know what truly happened that fateful day.

scooter boy

21st Mar 2009, 22:34

E is not safe.
E kills people.
Brian Harvey of the pop group E17 (the one that managed to reverse over his own head in a mercedes whilst in a non-lucid state and whose girlfriend totally destroyed her nasal septum with cocaine) once tellingly informed the press that "E was fine" - don't see much of him these days.
E is an incredibly irresponsible drug to take prior to taking responsibility for taking somebody else's child flying in a light aircraft.

I was involved in an aviation air-to-air formation photoshoot today for one of the flying mags.
The camera ship carried the snapper and I had the photographer's 12 year old kid sitting next to me as I flew the other aircraft - a major responsibility AFAIAC - I was extremely flattered that he trusted me enough to undertake this role of keeping his kid safe.
I think the photographer knew I am a born coward and wouldn't get too close.
Still... I don't know whom I would trust to take my little girl up - I fly even more carefully when she or her mother is in the aircraft.

Call me judgemental but...you just have to look at this guy to know he was trouble...

SB

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

22nd Mar 2009, 09:02

<<And what constitutes "potentially incapable"? How can you tell who is "potentially incapable"?>>

In the context of this thread, if a pilot visited me in ATC to "check out", or whatever it's called now, and was obviously the worse for drink/ drugs I would take every action I could to prevent him from flying.

I had close dealings with light aircraft pilots early in my career and whilst the vast majority are safe and behave very professionally, there are those who shouldn't be allowed on an aerodrome, let alone on an aeroplane.

juliet india mike

22nd Mar 2009, 16:20

Alcohol is not safe
Alcohol kills people

If this idiot pilot had been over the drink-drive limit he would still be as dead and his poor passenger too.

The Ecstacy element of his foolishness is taking too much attention away from the fitness to fly issue. It then runs the risk of concealing the broader issues implicit in IMSAFE, something that some pilots only realise they have breached in retrospect after a close call or worse.

Self-awareness of one's present condition is difficullt to maintain. (If someone has recently take drugs they are more likely to be aware of their impairment than someone worried about work or relationships).