Light aircraft down in Dundee [Archive] - Page 3

avgh

17th Jul 2010, 11:33

The AAIB Bulletin is now complete and scheduled for publication soon. Confidentiality precludes me saying anything more.

The CAA is engaged in an investigation of the allegations ( mostly made on PPRuNe) and I have cooperated fully and openly, sending them a copy of my original report to the AAIB, giving a host of evidence and answering every question they have asked. I do not know when they will conclude.

In the meantime I have had some very good correspondence (mainly started through the publicity from PPRuNe) with some serious pilots and instructors curious about the pancake technique. It seems that it was a part of the ops manual (just as I described it) for the Burma campaign, but the instructor who got in touch with me was completely unaware that the manoevre was frequently used in WWI and had been immortalised by Capt. W E Johns in the "Biggles" book! The RFC bequeathed it to the RAF.

My Bridge partner, Alan Simmons, was a Mosquito navigator in WWII and described to me after the event the many who tried the pancake technique after engine failure over the forests of Norway, Belgium and Germany. Most died instantly but a few survived. The CT, with its highly safe cockpit cage; its wonderful aerodynamics and its carbon fibre construction, made the landing a lot more survivable than a ply-balsa Mosquito carrying the weight of TWO Merlins and a glide ratio and speed that made a brick look good. (HIS words before you Mossie fans protest!).

Thank you for your continued interest and I hope that you will find the AAIB bulletin interesting and a help to safe flying.

Vince (the pilot!)

mrpinks

17th Jul 2010, 13:05

no carb heat, Rotax 912

from a distant post on this thread- not true has an electric carb heat

Also re mogas at 10000ft - I think this is because it is assumed (by the regulator) that aircraft operating at this altitude will be turbocharged and need 100LL to preclude possible detonation problems. Mogas is much better for Rotax -100LL causes lead fouling

Dave

trex450

17th Jul 2010, 13:09

If one had to ditch in strong wind conditions then hopefully the wind is around ninety degrees to the swell directionand one could avoid burying ones nose into the next wave. Given these conditions would you advise landing into wind in the sea as opposed to on a mile long wide sand beach fifty yards away?

India Four Two

18th Jul 2010, 08:55

Last night I found this thread just before I planned to go to bed. I hadn't seen it before. My usual SOP with large threads like this is to read the first page to see what happened and then go to the last page.

Well, not this time! As several others have pointed out, it's a real "page-turner". So three hours later at 0200, I go off to bed after having had the most entertaining read that I've ever had on PPRuNe - even better than Oban.

It's not surprising I missed it first time around. Post 513 was 13 days after the first - this must be some kind of record .

Vince, if you are still flying or intend to in the future, I would steer clear of Wales:

http://www.targeta.co.uk/images/piss_off_biggles.jpeg
(Image from this thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/366479-sallys-t-ts.html - thanks to FO Stout)

I cannot wait to see the report.

I42

avgh

18th Jul 2010, 10:36

Firstly the fairway I selected looked long enough but I could only "see" it at first as a swathe cut from the trees. I could not see the ground at all. At very much the last minute,as I was lining up on "fairway finals", I was able to see that four golfers were in my path approaching the "green" and another four were just setting off from the"Tee".

The first four were exactly where I needed to touch down and the second four were (safer) but where I would be trying to stop before shooting off into the trees, assuming I had avoided the bunkers; bushes or whatever other obstructions the course designers had put there to distinguish the course from a runway!

Why were there EIGHT golfers on this particular fairway? Wednesday is "club competition" day at the Caird Park Golf Club and they were playing foursomes or fourballs or something. Another four on the next "Tee"; witnessed the entire manoevre and reported it very accurately in the local paper!

The tree was the only option safe to those on the ground. Beyond it on my track was a busy dual carriageway then a housing estate.

As for your comments on fuel, you will have to wait for the AAIB bulletin. My fully planned and discussed (with pilots at Walney used to the terrain) alternates were Carlisle; Dundee and Inverness (since there is no AVgas at Kinloss).

All the best,

Vince

cats_five

18th Jul 2010, 12:59

Vince

It still doesn't seem to have dawned on you that better planning and preparation could have prevented the accident and lose of your plane. It also doesn't seem to have dawned that you were very lucky you didn't hurt yourself or lose your life.

You are still making excuses for yourself and as a result my fingers are tightly crossed that no-one ever signs you off to fly solo again. Sadly they might already have done so.

BTW according to their websites there is also AvGas at Cumbernauld and Fife, so I fail to see why you were pressing on with the needle almost on the stop, and I wonder why they were not mentioned to you. However, the bottom line is you were PIC, it was up to *you* to formulate a safe plan including getting the correct fuel without running any risk of running short, and it seems likely to me that you failed to do so.

cats_five

18th Jul 2010, 20:57

<snip>
I suspect that Vince is still in denial, lets hope the AAIB & CAA investigations remove any doubts over this being a huge case of bad luck and more like an example of all the holes matching up perfectly.
<snip>

I suspect the holes were so big they didn't have to line up anything like perfectly. I also suspect that if Vince doesn't like the AAIB conclusions he won't hold back from telling us how they got it wrong.

jxc

19th Jul 2010, 07:17

Just looking at google earth

What Runway was it on the golf there does look like so much better places to land even round the edge of course or better still just north of the field :ugh:

Captain Smithy

19th Jul 2010, 12:14

It's all very well folk sitting in front of a computer in the comfort of the home saying "ah, but you could've done this instead", but we weren't there. We weren't in the situation at the time, nor did we have to deal with the emergency and the circumstances at the time and make a split-second decision at that time. How can we judge when we weren't there?

Perhaps a more useful thing for all of us would be to wait for the AAIB report, have a good read at it and learn any lessons from it should there be lessons to be learned, rather than bumming around here slagging off the person involved.

Smithy

jxc

19th Jul 2010, 12:38

split-second decision at that time

With a bit of proper planning he probably would not have been in that situation

JW411

19th Jul 2010, 14:13

The AAIB are known throughout the flying world as impartial reporters. They absolutely never allocate blame.

However, they are world leaders in the use of diplomatic language. Those who understand diplomatic language will surely be able to get the drift of what the experts really think when the report is published.

Who knows, Biggles might even be able to gain the odd crumb of comfort from the report and will, no doubt, be offering tree-landing courses for a very modest fee in the grounds of Hampton Court Palace or the Deer Park, Richmond having been totally exonerated (in his own mind).

Pace

19th Jul 2010, 18:56

Vince (Biggles) You are a Hero :ok: You brought a lot of colour and entertainment into these dull grey forums with your adventures.

I have a secret admiration for colourful people who bend the norm and challenge convention in all walks of life.

Makes our drab lives a bit more interesting.

Hope old Vince is back in the skies. Maybe his next adventure will be taking pictures of exploding volcanos above their core.
Bet he survives that too :E

Pace

cats_five

19th Jul 2010, 19:25

You gonna fly P2 with him?

Pace

19th Jul 2010, 19:39

You gonna fly P2 with him?

I will fly P2 with anyone! well they may think as P2 :E But not over volcanoes ;)

Pace

TrafficPilot

20th Jul 2010, 15:57

I'll fly P2 with him.....

On Microsoft Flight Sim FSX!:ok:

trex450

21st Jul 2010, 12:18

Known as Biggles was Vince
His airmanship enough to make anyone wince
twas a golf course near Dundee
where he chose to land on the first tree
and possibly hasn't been flying since!

fisbangwollop

12th Aug 2010, 06:32

AIB report published

Air Accidents Investigation: P&M Aviation Ltd Flight Design CTSW, G-VINH (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/august_2010/p_m_aviation_ltd_flight_design_ctsw__g_vinh.cfm)

Daifly

12th Aug 2010, 07:37

Good Lord, has he been charged with anything?

There but for the grace of God go I, but some of all that is just muppet behaviour. An endurance of nearly an hour more than the (test pilot's) book figures isn't going to be achievable now is it? And as for the IR flying in Class A airspace in a VLA on an NPPL? That's not even trying to play the game properly.

Sir Niall Dementia

12th Aug 2010, 08:59

How about the "Pilot not able to reconstruct a complete record of his flying experience" bit, when a record is a mandatory requirement.

MOGAS at 9 000'

No apparent RT license

As for his own theories on endurance, and son't start me on the airspace bust......:mad:

Vince, I have no doubt you will be on here later with a load of self justifying bull**** and some tale about how Worrals of the WAAF would have knitted some more fuel. I hope the CAA throw a lot of very heavy books at you. I hope for his sake that your instructor can demonstrate that he did train you properly as in the current climate he is likely to be answering some very stiff questions.

Do us all a big favour, realise that no thanks to you and ALL thanks to your utter stupidity and arrogance you have written off an aircraft, risked the lives of by-standers and brought general aviation in the UK into the light of some very poor publicity.

Like many on here I earn my living in the air and spend my spare time with small fun aeroplanes and the wonderful people who fly them. Please go and take up golf or bowls or something where your amazing exploit can impress others, in 30 years of holding a license I have never read such an AAIB report, you should be utterly ashamed, you are a total disgrace.

SND

fisbangwollop

12th Aug 2010, 09:12

SND....wow that told him!!;)

Its incidents like this that make me wonder why the CAA allow reduced hours in gaining a NPPL as opposed to a PPL....its just as easy to bust controlled airspace and endanger your's and others life's flying LAA type aircraft as your run of the mill spamcan!!! Never really made sense to me :cool::cool:

Jan Olieslagers

12th Aug 2010, 09:22

SND....wow that told him!!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

That's what I thought. Particularly interesting how he went sight-seeing the city from West to East when it should have been more or less obvious to him his chances were running out, and his best were NOT to the East. An unquenchable optimist, like every-one called Biggles!

Its incidents like this that make me wonder why the CAA allow reduced hours in gaining a NPPL as opposed to a PPLCertain states of mind can defy ANY amount of tuition. The number of hours required can only make good the complexity of whatever subject under study.

MIKECR

12th Aug 2010, 10:13

Hmmm....interesting reading indeed. Only a week or so ago, I saw someone else run their aircraft dry of fuel too. Was at a major airport also...causing grief for several commercial aircraft, either sent to the hold or delayed on the ground.

cats_five

12th Aug 2010, 11:53

Well look at that flight path - almost overhead Scone... Wouldn't dropping in there have been so easy?

Unusual Attitude

12th Aug 2010, 12:07

I really dont think lack or standard of training is the issue here at all, more to do with Vince's "I know better / rules dont apply to me" attitude which I suspect is unlikely to change.

Vince, I can only hope that you learn something from this experience about yourself, aviation is not the sort of activity you can participate in and expect to survive for long with such an attitude, you got lucky this time, if your ever allowed to fly again the outcome might be far more serious next time.

I personally hope Vince is never let loose in the sky at the controls of anything in the future and the CAA use the oppertunity to make an example of him.

Regards

UA

RatherBeFlying

12th Aug 2010, 12:29

It seems the pilot looked at the gauges and believed them -- after all, how can a sight tube malfunction?

But fairness requires acknowledgement he had substantial help from the manufacturer in running out of gas.

The GPS trace shows all sorts of fields just North of town. If you want to stretch your fuel, you really need to work on field selection:}

Unusual Attitude

12th Aug 2010, 12:52

Press have picked up on it, thankfully they are being rather kind and have made no mention of the more serious possibilities involving the EDI airspace bust.

BBC News - 'Biggles' crash pilot made fuel error (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-10943650)

'Biggles' crash pilot had miscalculated flight fuel - Scotsman.com News (http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/39Biggles39-crash-pilot-had-miscalculated.6470444.jp)

rans6andrew

12th Aug 2010, 13:03

I wonder how much more circling, while looking for a good tree to roost in, would have taken place if more fuel had been available? ;) (diag 3 in AAIB report).

Rans6....

10W

12th Aug 2010, 13:47

At the time 'Biggles' said on various posts:

I had permission to cross Edinburgh CTA under the watchful eye of Scottish Radar.

Stuff about Scottish Radar seems to be from one person listening in. Maybe a pilot? Let the Inspector decide.

re Controller - of course, but I asked permission before entering the area and was granted.

I entered at 7,000 feet and left at 10,000 ft having made two requests for level changes cos of cloud tops.

I was not light headed and flew down to 7,000 immediately north of the CTA.

Thank you for your preview of the report to AAIB. Sorry to say there are a number of inaccuracies - such as I did speak to Edinburgh and they referred me to Scottish who gave me a squalk and confirmed it before entering.

And I was transferred out to Inverness (not Edinburgh) by Scottish, but was out of range at that point.

my changes of flight level were with the permission of Scottish. How did that endanger anyone? they had me on radar and my track and levels were both cleared. I was given the instruction to notify them if I made any significant turns but I did not.

I am as keen as anyone else to discover if there were errors but your detailed note, whilst showing a lot of knowledge of the circumstances, shows just how important it is to have an independent investigation that has all the facts, not just some, before it.

At least a court would start with the facts and hear both sides. You appear willing to do neither.

And now the AAIB say:

During this climb the aircraft entered Class A airspace at FL85 over Eskdalemuir, exiting into Class D airspace as it crossed into the Scottish TMA approximately 10 nm further north.

At 1440 hrs the pilot contacted the Scottish Area Control Centre (SACC), advising his intended route and his wish to climb to 9,000 ft to remain clear of cloud. The controller cleared the aircraft on track to Kinloss and asked the pilot to advise her before making any “big turns” because the aircraft was in the “TMA environment” and potentially in conflict with aircraft under her control bound for Edinburgh.

As the aircraft approached the lateral limits of the Edinburgh Control Area (CTA) from the south, the pilot requested and was cleared to make a further climb to 10,000 ft in order to remain clear of cloud. Five minutes later the pilot reported ‘cloud ahead the base looks quite high could I have permission to descend 5,000 ft same heading ’. Initially, SACC cleared the aircraft to FL70, due to traffic in the CTA, and instructed the pilot to contact Edinburgh Radar. The pilot read back the correct frequency but had not made contact with Edinburgh ATC before the aircraft entered the CTA. It exited the CTA northbound at an altitude of approximately 4,500 ft and continued to descend to 2,000 ft.

The pilot held a National Private Pilot’s Licence which does not permit flight under instrument flight rules and therefore does not permit flight in Class A airspace. There is no record of the pilot holding a valid flight radio telephony operator’s licence at the time of the flight.

Flight in Class D airspace requires a clearance either via radio telephony or by prior arrangement. The commander of an aircraft flying in an aerodrome traffic zone is required to obtain permission to do so from the associated ATC unit and to maintain a continuous watch for instructions (though not necessarily by radio). The Edinburgh ATC unit reported entry of the aircraft into the CTA without clearance as an infringement.

Infringement of controlled airspace and flight within the Edinburgh ATZ without permission did not directly affect the outcome.

Sorry Vince, but those professionals who told you at the time what you had done wrong, were funnily enough 100% right. You didn't listen to advice then and everything seems always to have been someone else's fault. If you still persist with that attitude today, then you have learned nothing and are a potential danger to everyone who is in the air and on the ground every time you get airborne.

If on the other hand, you have accepted the AAIB report and the failings which it has highlighted in your performance, and have taken appropriate instruction or guidance to bring yourself up to a safe standard of flying, then I wish you every success for future flights and welcome you in to the airspace as a fellow aviator who can display the necessary competence and skill which is required by us all.

Juno78

12th Aug 2010, 14:14

Is anybody else reading "Biggles"'s posts in the voice of Count Arthur Strong... YouTube - Count Arthur Strong's Radio Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdch66skZIU)

Unusual Attitude

12th Aug 2010, 14:23

"Maybe what GA needs is an airfield or two, positioned in such a way that aircraft could make this journey without stretching the fuel so much. How about airfields at...... say.....Carlisle and Perth? That might be ideal for such a journey. "

Dont be a crazy fool, you'll be expecting airfields at Cumbernauld and Glenrothes next! :rolleyes: ;)

Molesworth 1

12th Aug 2010, 14:46

By strange coincidence the report has come out exactly one year to the day after the accident.

24Carrot

12th Aug 2010, 16:49

By strange coincidence the report has come out exactly one year to the day after the accident. They must be keen to get away for the grouse!
Glorious Twelfth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Twelfth)

Torque Tonight

12th Aug 2010, 17:59

I'm normally one of those that 'waits for the report to come out' but in this case I did pass comment early on in this thread. Enough primary evidence came straight from the horses mouth to suggest that the root cause of this accident was a serious lack of airmanship on the part of the pilot. Having read the diplomatic but still damning report I feel vindicated in all the mean thoughts I had about 'our hero'.

Even amateur aviation requires a degree of professionalism which was clearly woefully lacking in Vince. Low ability combined with a bad attitude and a complete failure to apply a serious mindset to the task of operating an aircraft meant this accident was a given. Whilst Vince no doubt still sees it as a jolly adventure I doubt very much whether he realises what a danger he posed to innocent third parties particularly those on the ground and the occupants of airliners in the airspace he bust.

Just to put the boot in further, the fact that Vince didn't fly at a constant altitude or speed at any point during the flight suggests that he's not the most talented of pilots, as does his amazing ability to avoid a number of fields potentially suitable for a forced landing in open countryside and instead shoehorn the aircraft into a treetop in a built up area.

I'm normally reasonably charitable but in this case think old Vince is a lost cause who should stay away from aircraft in future. Perhaps that decision will be made for him by the relevant authorities. I wonder how long before he returns to this thread with more delusional arrogance and self-justification.

mustpost

12th Aug 2010, 18:11

I'm normally one of those that
posts on other threads hereaboots, but I am intending taking up tuition at Portmoak in the not too distant future. Speaking as a GA passenger on many occasions, including over 100 hrs helicopter filming, usual space cadet flying stuff when younger etc, I hope to C*rist he doesn't come back to Scotland when I am under instruction. :suspect:

Captain Smithy

12th Aug 2010, 19:34

Interesting reading.

Not defending Vince by any means here but I think some should be perhaps a little less... "aggressive" with their posts/views.

It's obvious to all through reading the report what the problems and causes were here, and I will not condone those, in fact it makes for worrying reading, but let's hang back a bit. It's not up to any of us to publicly castigate the guy and act as judge, jury and executioner. The CAA will decide what happens to the pilot involved, if anything, based on the conclusions from the AAIB. If the CAA feels there is a genuine safety issue here (no comment) then they will take the necissary action. The decision will not be made by a group of mostly anonymous posters on an internet forum, but the appropriate regulatory authority, and we should respect that, as the CAA are very good at taking action on people who make our hobby/career dangerous, putting themselves and others at risk. They will not stand for it, and we should all back them up and respect whatever action they take.

I read a lot of prattish comments on PPRuNE on a regular basis. Like people who think it's OK to pick up a wing drop at the stall using aileron. Or a few weeks back when I read a comment by someone saying it's perfectly OK to fly in 3000m vis., VFR, as long as you are following a GPS. Or people who find it perfectly acceptable to attempt a turn back following an EFATO at a few hundred feet AGL. Just to quote a few examples. If these people think they know better then God help us all.

Closing thought: whilst many of us are sensible and would not get in this sort of situation, or at least we'd like to think that way, how would you feel if you were the subject of an AAIB report, with personal comments being directed at you from all angles on PPRuNE?

Time we all chilled out a little chaps. :)

Smithy

hoodie

12th Aug 2010, 19:59

Capt. Smithy, I've thought about what you say, but I'm not convinced.

I might have been more persuaded if Vince hadn't represented himself on here as he did, and as often or as recently (after having seen a draft of the report) as he did.

Frankly, he's dangerously incompetent and unwilling to admit it. That's a valid opinion and IMO unarguable, and it is worth expressing so that other naive readers don't get taken in by bluster.

Sorry, Vince, but the truth sometimes has to hurt - before reality does.

mad_jock

12th Aug 2010, 20:06

Smithy apart from the fact he didn't have a RT lic and couldn't produce his log book as said previously all the main issues happen in Scotland. So they could go for the paper work charges down south which he would be daft to try and contest.

The CAA has no powers of prosecution in Scotland. It will be the proc fiscal in your own fair city who will decide if we get to hang the bast... opps sorry ;)

And whats wrong with flying in 3k viz VFR? Thats what I did my CPL test in, in the vale of York and I didn't have a GPS.

Anyway people will want to express their disgust at his actions all over again mainly because of his attitude post accident. If he had fessed up and proclaimed "I f'd up" the reaction would be different.

There is a load of good learning points in that report for both experenced and student pilots. Unfortunately as previously said the pilots that could actually get the most benefit from the learning points will be the ones least likely to read it.

Yes he was a prat on numerous issues, I don't think this will be the last we hear on this accident. Now the report is out the legal system can start turning.

IO540

12th Aug 2010, 20:07

I read a lot of prattish comments on PPRuNE on a regular basis

Or a few weeks back when I read a comment by someone saying it's perfectly OK to fly in 3000m vis., VFR, as long as you are following a GPS

Clearly a swipe at me, so can you please elaborate on why this is a "prattish" comment?

With references to legal documents please, where appropriate.

mustpost

12th Aug 2010, 20:08

Capt. Smithy, while some of what you say appears reasonable, my understanding is that much of the flak the gentleman has attracted was generated by the tenor of his postings here, his press comments and subsequent corroboration from people who know him. And of course what is now documented as some pretty shoddy airmanship. Colin McRae was a friend of mine, but that did not make him any less blameworthy..

mad_jock

12th Aug 2010, 20:14

I will call you a prattish IO :p

You shouldn't have used the GPS.

Use the force IO, use the force.

Jan Olieslagers

12th Aug 2010, 20:17

If he had fessed up and proclaimed "I f'd up" the reaction would be different.
That may hold true for some contributors but for me it doesn't. One thing I've learned is to go by people's actions, not by what they (or others) have to say about them.

More or less agreeing with Smithy: it's easy enough to have an opinion post-factum. Opinions are plenty, and cheap. Especially since the days of internet.

Torque Tonight

12th Aug 2010, 20:23

This is a discussion board and so surely aviators of various persuasions are free to discuss matters of interest and express their opinions. In fact 'our man' has positively encouraged discussion with his personal contributions, some of which were so ill-advised as to raise questions about his competence as a pilot. Furthermore, unlike many accident threads, this thread was based largely on the first hand accounts of those involved and is now based on the published official findings. Not exactly idle speculation.

Flying is an unforgiving activity and at some point positivity, optimism and fluffiness have to give way to some hard-nosed realism. In my opinion, the chap concerned is a liability to himself and a danger to other users of the sky and it would be best for all concerned if he moved on to another, less risky, hobby. I sympathise to a limited extent. Not many people find training to be a pilot an easy ride, and most will have had 'eye-opening' moments at some point, but when someone reaches the limits of their talent so readily, you have to wonder if maybe they're just not cut out for piloting. There isn't an automatic right to be a pilot, and those who are not safe shouldn't be up there. Tough titty. Just my opinion.

Many pages back our hero incredibly stated that he was simply going to refer the AAIB inspector to his comments on this thread rather than fill in the official paperwork despite most of his inputs setting alarm bells ringing in the rest of us. Clearly he didn't think he'd done anything wrong at all. He even stated repeatedly that he had not run out of fuel and that it wasn't a crash. Now read the AAIB report again. This guy seems incapable of self-critique even after stacking a perfectly serviceable aeroplane into a treetop and bonging controlled airspace inhabited by airliners with hundreds of people down the back. Sure, it's not my decision whether or not he flies again, but I'd feel more comfortable if he and his ilk didn't.

mad_jock

12th Aug 2010, 20:26

One thing I've learned is to go by people's actions

I refer you to the report.

IO540

12th Aug 2010, 20:30

I have to agree with Torque Tonight above, but I think there is a deeper question which needs to be asked: how can one graduate from the PPL sausage machine in the first place having received such apparently poor training, and then how does one get through the 2-yearly checks? The answer to the latter is easy enough (they are meaningless). The answer to the former is not so easy.

Yesterday I went for a local flight to check out some newly installed avionics, Upon returning, found some poor chap in the circuit who, according to ATC was flying at an estimated 400ft, and had to be told which way to turn in order to land. He sounded OK on the radio...

IMHO one learns little having a go at the pilots in these cases. It has to go further back.

Jan Olieslagers

12th Aug 2010, 20:35

One thing I've learned is to go by people's actions I refer you to the report.Thank you, the report does say all I need to know indeed, no need for further discussion. And of course none of us are perfect so everybody has a chance to pick up some wisdom. Discussion might help, there.

MichaelJP59

13th Aug 2010, 09:33

Going back to the report, it says he relied on fuel consumption of 12 litres/h for his calculations. What cruise speed would that achieve in a CTSW, is it even remotely feasible to use that figure? I generally allow 20l/h in my Europa which gives 125kts (although it has the 914 engine when the turbo isn't being used figures are fairly similar to the 912)

Rod1

13th Aug 2010, 13:01

You can get the fuel burn on a 912S down to 12lph, but you are not going to go anywhere very quickly and in this case he was flying into a headwind which would make it even more of a problem.

Rod1

Aunt Mabel

13th Aug 2010, 13:02

The Courier - 'Biggles' Vince Hagedorn keen to take to the skies again (http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Dundee/article/3810/biggles-vince-hagedorn-keen-to-take-to-the-skies-again.html)

Speaking from Philadelphia, Mr Hagedorn said he could not comment on the AAIB report because of unspecified "ongoing action."

He added, "The key point I would make from the report was that the cause of the engine stopping was not running out of fuel, as was reported at the time."

The 64-year-old said the flight planning had been carried out with two other people at Walney Island airfield, where the journey began.

The allegation he had entered controlled airspace was "debatable," said Mr Hagedorn, and there was ongoing dialogue with the CAA over the radio licence issue.

He added, "I haven't flown since the crash — I have been incredibly busy over the last 12 months — but I would love to fly again. In fact, I have already chosen my next aircraft."

Up and down

13th Aug 2010, 14:05

Looks like he's still in denial and blaming others. Poor show.

24Carrot

13th Aug 2010, 14:54

The point of the AAIB reports is to let us learn from the misfortunes and mistakes of others. In that spirit I am trying to learn from this report.

Re licences: check before flight.

Re airspace busts:
1) Even if you 'know' where you are, talk to ATC.
2) If uncertain of position, tell ATC early on.

Re fuel exhaustion:
1) use good data for fuel planning
2) do FREDA checks to monitor actual usage
3) land if low fuel is suspected

Re emergency landing sites:
1) Avoid towns.
2) Turn into wind early.

Have I missed anything?

Up and down

13th Aug 2010, 15:11

Not sure about turning into wind 'early'.

It is important to know what the wind direction is without having to think about it, so draw a big arrow on your chart before setting off, however minor the journey.

Landing into wind is useful for obvious reasons, but if you have the height, travelling downwind will cover more ground and may help you spot a better landing site. Then, do the PFL circuit you've practised loads of times and land into wind.

24Carrot

13th Aug 2010, 15:37

Fair point, perhaps I should have said 'earlier than this pilot did'. He appeared to head downwind into the town, then turn back into wind leaving only the golf course between the houses.

Torque Tonight

13th Aug 2010, 15:58

VH's latest comments to the press are, unfortunately, exactly what we all predicted, and I stand by my harsh comments from last night.

One of the most important attributes of a pilot is to be able to self-critique and learn from mistakes, so not to repeat them and to become a better, more experienced aviator. If you refuse to even acknowledge that any mistakes were made, even in the face of a pretty unambiguous investigation and a wrecked aircraft, then there really is little hope.

AAIB:
"The reported circumstances of the accident indicate that the engine became starved of fuel."
"The average fuel consumption assumed by the pilot was insufficient to account for operational realities."

VH:
"The key point I would make from the report was that the cause of the engine stopping was not running out of fuel, as was reported at the time."

etc. etc. :ugh:

NorthSouth

13th Aug 2010, 17:18

This raises some pretty fundamental issues. It seems clear to me that Vince should not continue flying. But whether we can rely on the CAA to ensure that happens is a big question.

I've flown with lots of PPLs doing their biennial flight with an instructor for revalidation, and I have (on one occasion) refused to sign someone's logbook because they clearly needed some focused refresher training. But contrast that with car drivers. Once you pass your test you can drive for decades, steadily acquiring bad habits and simultaneously forgetting your training. But I'd argue the chances of killing someone else as a result of bad airmanship with a PPL are significantly less than the chances of killing someone else as a result of bad driving.

It seems to me all eyes should now be on the CAA to see what they do. If there's no action from them, then the message is surely that busting controlled airspace and running out of fuel, and then denying that either of those things happened, are acceptable limits of PPL behaviour. Not a pretty picture.

NS

10W

13th Aug 2010, 17:32

If the press reports are correct about his quotations, there is no way the CAA can give this guy back his licence. He can see no wrong in himself and learn nothing it seems. And I don't think that licence removal should be 'debatable' but necessary to ensure public safety.

Gertrude the Wombat

13th Aug 2010, 19:55

there is no way the CAA can give this guy back his licence
Thought he had an NPPL? To what extent is that the CAA's business?

PPRuNe Radar

13th Aug 2010, 20:50

To the extent that the UK CAA are still responsible overall for air safety in the UK I would hope.

The NPPL is devolved to the NPPL Steering Group for licence issue and 'regulation' but I'd imagine they have no legal teeth to remove a licence nor have anything to do with legal action that might be taken against a pilot who breaches ANO regulations.

PART 31 POWERS AND PENALTIES

Revocation, suspension and variation of certificates, licences and other documents

228 (1) Subject to paragraphs (5) and (6), the CAA may provisionally suspend or vary any certificate, licence, approval, permission, exemption, authorisation or other document issued, granted or having effect under this Order, pending inquiry into or consideration of the case.

(2) The CAA may, on sufficient ground being shown to its satisfaction after due inquiry, revoke, suspend or vary any such certificate, licence, approval, permission, exemption, authorisation or other document.

As the NPPL is granted under authority of Schedule 7 in the ANO, and therefore falling under Part 31 for any licencing action, this gives the CAA every right to claim it as 'their business'.

jollyrog

13th Aug 2010, 21:03

Let's not beat around the bush.

He's a loon. A dangerous loon. To all of us in the sky and anyone that's on the ground beneath him.

The sooner his licence is withdrawn, the better.

mad_jock

13th Aug 2010, 21:35

err are you sure he has had his privilages to fly suspended? In a previous company I worked for one Captain managed to get 8 MOR's in the space of 2 sectors including one runway incursion and an alt bust requiring inventive controlling for noise abatement purposes. He was flying the next day.

Does anyone actually know of anyone who had their ticket pulled? Because i certainly haven't heard of a case apart from that nutter in a R22 who flew outside the tower giving the vickies to a controller he had an issue with. And I don't think he had his license pulled it was just his medical.

C42

13th Aug 2010, 23:28

It would be dificault to pull his licence if he did not have one to start with.....................:=

IO540

14th Aug 2010, 05:40

Does anyone actually know of anyone who had their ticket pulled?

Only for medical reasons.

I suspect the CAA is wary of pulling a license for "behaviour" without first winning a prosecution, because - on the occassions where the pilot employed a half decent lawyer - they have lost quite a few prosecutions.

Prosecuting pilots for e.g. fuel mismanagement is tricky because it opens a huge can of worms concerning practices widely taught in the PPL training establishment. Get yourself a decent lawyer and you will have the judge saying he wishes he could shut down some flying school...

PPRuNe Radar

14th Aug 2010, 09:39

I suspect the CAA is wary of pulling a license for "behaviour" without first winning a prosecution, because - on the occassions where the pilot employed a half decent lawyer - they have lost quite a few prosecutions.

Prosecuting pilots for e.g. fuel mismanagement is tricky because it opens a huge can of worms concerning practices widely taught in the PPL training establishment. Get yourself a decent lawyer and you will have the judge saying he wishes he could shut down some flying school...

I'd agree with that. It would be a very big and brave step to 'pull' a licence and the CAA would need evidence which was cast iron.

Now, if they recommended action such as retraining for our pilot, and he failed to comply but then flew, I suspect there might be a better case to prove the holder was an unfit person.

I'm sure none of us really wants a fellow aviator to be grounded and all reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that he can continue to fly amongst us, but only if he does so in a safe and competent manner. If that requires lots of help and training, and more importantly, the pilot is willing to play his part and take it on board, then that would be a much better result.

Pace

14th Aug 2010, 11:20

I'm sure none of us really wants a fellow aviator to be grounded and all reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that he can continue to fly amongst us, but only if he does so in a safe and competent manner. If that requires lots of help and training, and more importantly, the pilot is willing to play his part and take it on board, then that would be a much better result.

I agree with these sentiments. The guy with only 130 hours was a complete novice. Although he was a complete idiot he does have a spirit of adventure and should be given a chance by all of us.

I am all for retraining I am all for restrictions even a back ground check through the medical department but he should be given another chance to prove himself and approach aviation in a more knowing and responsible way.

Pace

Fly-by-Wife

14th Aug 2010, 11:42

If that requires lots of help and training, and more importantly, the pilot is willing to play his part and take it on board, then that would be a much better result.

I am reminded here of the old adage that ends:

"...He who knows not, and knows not he knows not - he is a fool, shun him."

Self-denial to the point of delusion is not a good foundation for any form of (re-)training.

FBW

Torque Tonight

14th Aug 2010, 12:21

Why should he be given a chance, Pace? He's had sufficient chances already. Any 45hr holder of a PPL (* or indeed NPPL holder - in fact anyone qualified to operate an aircraft) should be competent enough to consistently fly solo cross country without running out of fuel and infringing controlled airspace. If not, then standard would be grossly inadequate. Running out of fuel is as fundamental a sin to an aviator as running aground is to a mariner: entirely avoidable except in a tiny minority of cases.

Having a spirit of adventure does not absolve you from requiring a certain level of competence and common sense. Most worrying is this fellow's attitude, which suggests that he cannot see that he has done anything wrong, would not be receptive to retraining, and is destined to repeat his mistakes if given half a chance. Mistakes in other hobbies may not be a big deal (damn - I've dropped a stitch); mistakes like his in aviation can result in fatalities in the air, on the ground or most likely, himself. A line has to be drawn somewhere and I feel that VH has shown, and continues to show himself to be on the wrong side of it by quite some margin. Flying is fun, but it's not a game.

One thing I am feeling from the report and VH's comments is that he has absolutely no grasp whatsoever of the concept of unusable fuel. His argument seems to be that because there was a small amount of fuel present in the wreckage and at the time of the engine failure, then he could not have run out of fuel. Studying the report might help him understand (wishful thinking I feel). I am not familiar with the aircraft type but I do also wonder if maybe he found a best endurance speed fuel flow value in the manual and then applied that to flying around at high power settings until he ran out of gas.

Gertrude the Wombat

14th Aug 2010, 13:08

as running aground is to a mariner: entirely avoidable except in a tiny minority of cases
Hmm. Wonder if this one counts: we chickened out of continuing the planned journey due to weather, and ran for the nearest (and only available) harbour, arriving dead on low tide. Fortunately as we were trying to nudge our way around a mudbank using two echo sounders and a (theoretical) display of the mudbank on the GPS screen we saw someone waving a radio at us from the harbour wall, and he was able to explain the harbour's leading marks to us (which weren't in the book we had despite it being the most recent edition). So we got off the mud and into the harbour with no further trouble (thus giving the lie to the book's assertion that nobody could get in within two hours of low water).

I'm sure the skipper wasn't doing anything wrong - she had a perfectly good Plan B, which was just to anchor in the channel for a few hours until the tide came in, with the disadvantage of not getting to the pub before closing time - but I was struck by how differently we do things around aeroplanes, like the out-of-dateness of the best available documentation for example.

BEagle

14th Aug 2010, 13:28

The NPPL is devolved to the NPPL Steering Group for licence issue and 'regulation' but I'd imagine they have no legal teeth to remove a licence nor have anything to do with legal action that might be taken against a pilot who breaches ANO regulations.

That isn't correct.

The NPPL Policy and Steering Committee evolve NPPL policy recommendations, but these must be approved by the CAA.

NPLG Ltd processes licence application paperwork for NPPLs with SSEA and/or SLMG Class Ratings, as does the BMAA for NPPLs with Microlight Class Ratings; however the paperwork is despatched to the CAA and licences are only ever 'issued' by the CAA.

NorthSouth

14th Aug 2010, 17:59

IO540:Prosecuting pilots for e.g. fuel mismanagement is tricky because it opens a huge can of worms concerning practices widely taught in the PPL training establishmentVery tantalising. I'd love to know what those are. Do tell!
NS

Sir Niall Dementia

15th Aug 2010, 17:27

The CAA/ARE did state a number of years ago that they would prosecute anyone running out of fuel, I believe on the grounds of negligence. As for removing a license on the grounds of behaviour, thats a tricky area, what did they remove Maurice Kirk's for?

Even if VH is sent for re-training would it help? The man comes across as mentally unsuitable to be allowed in an aircraft in the first place. He will probably just use his last foul up to raise his public profile thinking that any publicity is good publicity.

Lets face it if a judge sent him away he'd probably sit in his cell waiting for Algy and Ginger to spring him without another care in the world. The more I read about his stupidity the more I think that some form of psychometric testing might be useful when issuing the first PPL medical, similar to, but simpler than the requirements for the airlines and other commercial operations. "now then Bloggs, tell me about your mother...................:eek:"

SND