Light Aircraft down in Oxfordshire (Merged)

[lgw-morph]

Taken straight from Sky News

"Mr Farage walked out of the light aircraft after the crash and has been taken to Horton General Hospital in Banbury, Oxfordshire.
The pilot had to be cut out of the wreckage and has been airlifted to a hospital in Coventry.
The plane was pulling a UKIP banner and it is believed it may have been caught up in the engine.
Northants Police told Sky News the plane crashed 10 minutes after take-off at 8am this morning at Hinton-in-the-Hedges airfield near Brackley in south Northamptonshire."

I do hope that the Pilot is OK.

[cldrvr]

BBC24 reporting plane was towing a banner?

[Basil]

Sky Sources: UKIP's Nigel Farage In Plane Crash | Politics | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Sky-Sources-UKIPs-Nigel-Farage-In-Plane-Crash/Article/201005115626341?lpos=Politics_Top_Stories_Header_0&lid=ARTICLE_15626341_Sky_Sources%3A_UKIPs_Nigel_Farage_In_Pl ane_Crash)

Mr Farage walked out of the light aircraft after the crash and has been taken to Horton General Hospital in Banbury, Oxfordshire.

The pilot had to be cut out of the wreckage and has been airlifted to a hospital in Coventry.
Which sounds a bit more serious.
From Guido: <<The pilot is being taken to a specialist spinal injuries hospital in Coventry.>>

p.s. Spotters - what is it? Thanks XV105 - it's me eyes:)

[The late XV105]

p.s. Spotters - what is it?

The registration is visible in the photo, from which PZL-Okecie PZL-104 Wilga 35A, G-BWDF, Privately owned (http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1042195/) :)

[Fred1001]

I hope the pilot wasn't too hurt. I also hope Nigel recovers quickly from his injuries and gets a very well deserved seat in Parliament.

[flyems]

Are you allowed to have pax onboard for towing flights?

[Airclues]

Are you allowed to have pax onboard for towing flights?


Yes

Ref: CAA CAP 393, Part 17, Section 128(1).

Dave

[liam548]

can you banner tow on a PPL? seem to remember reading you can.

[Algy]

Is it possible to get the banner caught in the prop? Sounds improbable.

[FL370 Officeboy]

Is it possible to get the banner caught in the prop? Sounds improbable.

Think about it for about half a second and that should clear it up. I presume you heard this suggested on Sky News as I just did.... :ugh:

[PPRuNe Pop]

Be aware! Idiot posts are not acceptable. If you cannot say something sensible don't say it all. Geddit?

[Pilot Positive]

And here's the BBCs version of event:

BBC News - Nigel Farage injured in plane crash in Northamptonshire (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/8664260.stm?ls)

Isnt Hinton on Hedges a predominantly short grass field with max TODA of approx 700m?

[flyems]

Quote:
Are you allowed to have pax onboard for towing flights?

Yes

Ref: CAA CAP 393, Part 17, Section 128(1).

Dave

Many thanks!

[andyb79]

Think about it for about half a second and that should clear it up. I presume you heard this suggested on Sky News as I just did....

I heard that one too. They did also say that they had spoken to either an engineer or an expert (i didn't quite catch it) who had explained the probability of this actually happening. Then in their next breath continued with the banner in the engine line.

Still, at least there hasn't been the usual plummeting towards the local orphanage type lines...yet!

[Slopey]

Ouch - looks nasty. More pictures over at the Daily Fail Here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1273591/General-Election-2010-UKIP-candidate-Nigel-Farage-dramatic-plane-crash-election-banner-catches-tail-fin.html)

Hope the pilot is ok also.

[Tankertrashnav]

Is it possible to get the banner caught in the prop? Sounds improbable.


Not once you've picked the banner up, but having watched banner pickups at close range on several occasions I'd say it was possible at that stage of the proceedings. Can imagine an a/c being flipped over in those circumstances. Looks like a lucky escape for Farage, hope the pilot isnt too seriously injured

BTW The site I looked at has the a/c owned by Sky Banners Ltd

[DADDY-OH!]

Looking at the wreckage, the banner is no where near the airframe!

I've just suffered listening to the crassness & banality of the 'jurnalists' interrogation of a rep from the local Police & almost thrown my TV through the window in frustration. What a load of tosh!
:ugh:

[pulse1]

Just below the picture of a Wilga which clearly shows that it is a fixed wing monoplane, the Mail article says:

"The aircraft was believed to be a 1960s-style biplane which left the Winchester area early today and flew into Hinton." :ugh:

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

I heard the report of it being a biplane on BBC News 24 too. So a quick text to them to point out it was a Polish high-wing design (advised to check G-BWDF on the CAA database), that had apparently flipped over and was lying upside down, was promptly reported as such. The system works :o)

[windriver]

No comments to make about this accident.. but


Is it possible to get the banner caught in the prop? Sounds improbable.


It was my misfortune to spend time towing banners some years ago.
The mind is very good at blotting out unpleasant memories (such as banner towing in an aircraft that was only just capable of getting airborne even without anything attached! Beagle Terrifier)

As I recall I would strap myself in and a ground crew would hand me a grappling hook (through the window) attached to a glider type hook at the rear of the aircraft - I would then get airborne fly a quick circuit with a view to levelling of at approx 15 feet above two poles with the banner catch rope strung in between. I'd then chuck the grapple hook out of the window and adjust height to catch the line.

So technically speaking with our operation it would have been possible to catch the banner lines in the prop.

Mostly it all worked out OK and I emerged unscathed from these operations, but had one incident where the banner got caught up in longish grass after pickup and nearly stalled the aircraft before the weak link snapped...

Hope everyone recovers OK.

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

TankerTrashNav

I'm intrigued to know how banner flying is normally carried out. When you've seen banner pick-ups before is it usually the case that the aircraft takes off, completes a circuit without the banner, then comes in low with a hook to pick it up, presumably at a reasonable airspeed to counter the additional drag of the banner ? But then there's a risk, when approaching so low, of snagging on the banner if it blows about in the wind as you approach it (a crosswind was reported) ?

Or is it usual for the aircraft to take off with the banner already attached, as suggested in BBC reporting, and therefore poses a risk in a crosswind of the banner being snagged on objects beside the runway if there are any ? Either way I'm relieved to hear that both pilot and passenger seem OK.

Having flown in to Hinton I know it has a 700m tarmac strip for fixed wing take-offs and landings and large grass area for gliding beside it, which appears to be where the aircraft has crashed.

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

I think I've answered my own question - towing aircraft take off, circuit, then come in low to pick up the banner. Coincidentally this aircraft has been the subject of an AAIB investigation before - see www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/PZL-104%20Wilga%2035A,%20G-BWDF%2010-06.pdf

[athonite]

The main hazard on a banner pick up is getting the tow rope caught around one of the wheels, which means you can't release it, which can cause a multitude of problems. The other hazard is catching the banner on an obstruction during the climb out, my recollection was the performance data was very inaccurate, sometimes you were lucky if you could get 150ft/min climb. It's supprising that the CAA didn't ban it years ago, or at lease review the safety aspects.

[Lima Juliet]

I regularly fly at Hinton and can confirm that there is a 700m tarmac strip (RWY 24/06 "Hard") and 3 grass strips (RWY 24/06 "Grass", RWY 33/15 "Grass" and RWY 27/06 "Grass"). From the looks of the pictures it took off from Runway 27 "Grass" which is about 750m long.

Here is a pic of the airfield, which is unlicensed:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/70/198987585_82aa695b2d.jpg?v=0

In my opinion, banner towing in light aircraft is a mug's game. If you cannot release the banner when the engine coughs, or if the banner catches something, then there is only one way you are going; straight down. Aerotowing of gliders is somewhat better because at least the glider can fly and reduce your drag if required!

Good to hear that the injuries aren't too bad.

LJ

[Whiskey Kilo Wanderer]

Some example banner towing vid's on YouTube:

Ocean City banner towing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUJGjKMHbFY)

Banner Towing with the STOL CH 701 (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFa4M9GmsLM&feature=fvw)

Banner Towing and Pickups (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuYLl8ed6yQ&feature=related)

Shows some of the techniques.

[Rotors]

(Never towed banners.) Fun aircraft to fly - excellent short field performance (even with a glider on the back) - 'Polish Corporal' landing technique (aim at ground and pull back when you think you are near enough). Do not get slow on approach due anti-torque from long wide-chord prop. Best wishes to both occupants.

[The B Word]

One thing to add to LJ's post is that there is a set of 50-100ftish power lines in the undershoot of Runways 06 and Runway 09 (typo of 06 in his post) - I do hope the pilot didn't get the banner caught in those as that would definately spoil his day on take off!!!

[gingernut]

Hope they're both ok. Seem to remember as a kid, Banner towing used to take place from Barton (EGCB) but was stopped following a fatality.

[drawmer]

The Wilga's got plenty of power for this hasn't it? ISTR that it was designed as a glider tug.

[Binks]

Are you allowed to have pax onboard for towing flights?

Yes

Ref: CAA CAP 393, Part 17, Section 128(1).

Dave

Sorry but you are NOT allowed to have pax on towing flights. For that you need an AOC (paying passenger) and no AOC would allow banner towing at the same time.

The flight was illegal.

[CRayner]

I fly model aeroplanes from Dunsfold Aerodrome near Cranleigh in Surrey. For some years there was a chap who did occasional banner towing in a Wilga. The technique was to take off, double back, and fly low with a hook dangling on a line to catch another line strung between two poles. If the banner was caught, which it wasn't always, the pilot then pushed the throttle to the stop and went off as near vertical as he seemed to be able to achieve. Some of the antics involved in doing this looked to me to be close to the limits of physics and the airframe. Though I'm neither a pilot nor an engineer, at least, not of full-size aeroplanes.

The fun all stopped a year or two back when the pilot noticed creaking coming from above his head in flight. Investigation on landing showed that the mainspar was not entirely in one piece. The plane then disappeared, presumably back to Poland for refettling. Mind you a similar plane has recently been seen at the airfield and it is blue, so perhaps the one involved here.

Why can't you just take off with the banner stowed somewhere, and deploy the thing at height? It would at least give you a chance to deal with SNAFUs at altitude.

[GreenMamba]

The last UK accident involving this aircraft type was blamed on a failure of a trailing link on the undercarrage, which led to the plane nosing over onto its back on landing, as in this case.

[athonite]

Binks I'm not convinced you are correct, as long as your not charging the pax for the flight, but just the banner tow, then I can't see how it is illegal. The extra weight and performance would be my concern. It's similar to someone paying for a trial lesson in a C172 and putting two pax in the back, not that I agree with that.

[Capvermell]

Sorry but you are NOT allowed to have pax on towing flights. For that you need an AOC (paying passenger) and no AOC would allow banner towing at the same time.

The flight was illegal.

What if the pilot was a party member and Mr Farage was on board not as a passenger but because he was an active member of the banner display team?

Clearly Mr Farage did not buy a ticket as a normal passenger to be flown anywhere on the plane. He merely chartered the plane to display the banner and then flew on board to give instructions about the areas in which the aerial display of the banner should take place.

[Binks]

Banner Towing is Aerial Work.

You cannot take passengers on an Aerial work flight unless they are employees of the company that owns the aeroplane.

The flight was illegal.

[MichaelJP59]

Why can't you just take off with the banner stowed somewhere, and deploy the thing at height? It would at least give you a chance to deal with SNAFUs at altitude.

Must admit, never having seen it, before today I thought that was how it was done, with it being unfurled at altitude somehow. The snagging a hook method sounds a little "flying circus".

[Pegpilot]

Can't really see that the extra weight of a Euro-sceptic politician would influence things that much. The Wilga at our club routinely tows half a ton of Grob Acro (all up weight), accelerating from a standing start pretty smartish, and climbing perfectly happily thereafter at 4-500 fpm. So 75 kg in the right hand seat isn't going to make much difference with a beast like the Wilga.

[Capvermell]

Banner Towing is Aerial Work.

You cannot take passengers on an Aerial work flight unless they are employees of the company that owns the aeroplane.

The flight was illegal.

In which case clearly the pilot committed the illegal act and should have refused to allow Mr Farage to fly with him as a passenger.

I must say that when I first heard of this accident my immediate reaction was that I was very surprised that the UKIP leader was on board the aircraft rather than just watching the display with fellow party members from the ground.

I would imagine that there are going to be a lot of consequences for the banner flying industry in the UK as a result of this accident.

[Capvermell]

Can't really see that the extra weight of a Euro-sceptic politician would influence things that much. The Wilga at our club routinely tows half a ton of Grob Acro (all up weight), accelerating from a standing start pretty smartish, and climbing perfectly happily thereafter at 4-500 fpm. So 75 kg in the right hand seat isn't going to make much difference with a beast like the Wilga.The reason passengers are not allowed when banner flying is presumably not due to their extra weight but due to the enhanced level of danger of such flying escapades.

Remember the case of the Air France A320 that crashed in to a forest at the other end of the runway while overflying a General Aviation airfield (where the A320 was not actually able to land) at low altitude with a full complement of passengers on board. Passengers were forbidden from being carried on such exhibition flights involving commercial aircraft as a direct result of this accident.

[Capvermell]

There were passengers being carried by this banner flying pilot during earlier banner flying flights before he was then involved in a later fatal crash while towing on a banner on his own.

I do not see any reference in the AAIB report on the accident to the carrying of passengers being illegal during banner towing operations.

See http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Cessna%20FR172E,%20G-OMAC%2006-06.pdf

[nimby]

... you would have thought a hot air balloon more appropriate. Could have dispensed with the burners!

[niknak]

From a personal source closely connected, unfortunately it appears that the pilot is very badly injured, Mr Farage, is recovering and expected to make a full recovery.
One human to another, I wish them both a speedy recovery.

Another case on Pprune where the balance between the welfare of those involved, what went wrong and pointing fingers with the benefit of hindsight comes into question.

[Capvermell]

I think that if the aircraft had come down on the hard tarmac covered strip instead of on the grass that the outcome could have been very different. Most of the time when anything like this happens we are looking at fatalities. They were also very lucky that there was no fire following the impact.

My uncle was killed in the 1950s in the crash of a tiger moth that clipped a radio mast very near to the ground in thick mist/fog. The impact was survivable as the pilot walked away before fire broke out but my uncle was trapped in the aircraft by the impact damage and then killed by poisonous gases from the ensuing fire but not by burns from the fire or by the original impact.

UKIP is very lucky to still have a candidate in this seat and moreover a candidate who looks as though he would still be perfectly capable of taking up his seat in Parliament if elected.

[Binks]

The AAIB will only investigate the accident and not necessarily any legal issues unless they impact on the cause. That will be a job for the CAA.

We operate an AOC and have to dot all the I's and cross all the T's.
It is very expensive and time consuming.

It is always frustrating when others openly ignore the rules and just do it anyway.

Nonetheless best wishes to the pilot for a speedy recovery.

[ara01jbb]

In addition to the legality of carrying a passenger on a banner towing flight, I understand UK election regulations to prohibit campaigning once the polls are open. The crash happened at ~ 08h00 this morning, one hour after polls opened. Everything I've seen so far in the media suggests the banner was carrying a message encouraging people to vote for Farage / UKIP...

[1800ed]

Was this aircraft operating from Wellesbourne on Saturday? I remember seeing a high winged aircraft picking up a UKIP banner from runway 05, which shocked me slightly because the market was on at the other end...

[Capvermell]

From a personal source closely connected, unfortunately it appears that the pilot is very badly injured, Mr Farage, is recovering and expected to make a full recoveryThis sounds like similar luck to that of Frankie Dettori and his fellow jockey in their light aircraft crash where the pilot was killed. Although in this particular case Mr Farage was reportedly sitting alongside the pilot (compared to the Dettori case where the jockeys were sitting in the rear of the plane), in which case his good fortune seems to have been even greater.

I do hope that the pilot's injuries whilst serious are still ones from which he can make a full recovery in time and they they do not involve paralysis or other similar problems.

[Airclues]

The ANO does not prohibit the carrying of passengers during banner towing. However, it does prohibit the carrying of passengers on a helicopter while carrying an underslung load. (CAP 393 Section 128)

I would suggest that you have a good read of;

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf

before accusing the pilot of illegal activities, just in case he has a good lawyer.

Dave

[Capvermell]

I understand UK election regulations to prohibit campaigning once the polls are open. The crash happened at ~ 08h00 this morning, one hour after polls opened. Everything I've seen so far in the media suggests the banner was carrying a message encouraging people to vote for Farage / UKIP...Then you unfortunately understand the regulations about political activity on polling day completely incorrectly.

The only major significant restriction on polling day is in the kind of coverage the media can put out as they cannot broadcast or publish anything which allows a party to put forward their political message on election day.

However campaigning on the ground in the constituencies by the candidates and their supporters goes on relentlessly on polling day and includes speaker vans asking people to vote, parading around in shopping centres wearing rosettes and handing out leaflets, putting leaflets through doors asking pledged voters not to forget to vote and later in the day knocking on the doors of pledged voters or telephoning pledged voters who have not yet voted.

The only campaigning on the ground that is limited on polling day is putting up any sign or poster encouraging voters to vote for a certain candidate within 250 metres of a polling station. The tellers for each party who sit outside the polling station asking voters for voter numbers (which will tell them which voters have voted but not how they have voted unless those voters have previously revealed their intention during canvassing on the doorstep) are allowed to wear rosettes with the party colour but they not should not have the name of the candidate on them. Also the party tellers (or polling agents to give them their legal term) outside the polling station should not try to in any way influence a voter's voting intention on their way to the polling station.

Away from the immediate very close environs of the polling station anything goes in terms of cars and vans with posters on them or in this case a banner flown from a plane encouraging voters to vote for a particular candidate.

The relevant law is the Polling Stations (Regulation) Bill. It forbids campaigning activity within 250 metres of the entrance to a polling station. I think you will find this aircraft would have consistently been flying more than 250 metres away from any polling station had it not crashed before getting its banner in to the air.

See Polling Stations (Regulation) Bill (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/027/07027.i-i.html)

[Binks]

4 Definitions (Article 255 (1))
5.1 To determine whether or not a flight which is not commercial air transport is for the purpose of public transport of passengers, the first question is whether or not there are any passengers on board. This is not always entirely straightforward as an occupant may claim to be a member of the crew.
5.2 Having determined that there is at least one passenger on board, the next question is whether any payment has been given or promised which, if it had not been given or promised would mean that the passengers would not have been carried. If there is any payment which could fall into this category, consider what would have happened if the passenger had presented himself for carriage and announced that such a payment would not now be made. Would the passenger still be carried?
5.3 If passengers are carried but there appears to be no payment for their carriage, consider whether the operator is an AOC holder. If it is, it will be public transport (subject to certain exceptions - see article 260(3)) even if there is no payment.
5.4 Even if no passenger is carried or there is no payment for the carriage of the passenger (and the operator is not an AOC holder) so that it is not a public transport of passengers flight, it may be aerial work if any payment has been made in respect of the flight or for the purpose of the flight

Straight from the CAA and their interpretation of the ANO.
In the commercial world this is common knowledge.

It is Aerial Work and you cannot carry passengers.
Period.

[Human Factor]

This Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCYqHwpqRak) video shows a banner pickup from about 1 minute in.

[Tankertrashnav]

perky - cirrus

I have only ever seen light aircraft doing the pickups in the way you describe in your first para. Even in a 6 cyl fuel injected C172 (so-called Rheims rocket), which is what our local banner towers used, there is too much drag, especially on grass, for a take-off with banner attached. When I was in the RAF, however, we had target towing Canberras on our station and they took off with the banner dragging behind on the runway, but the amount of power available was somewhat greater!

Good video Human Factor but I hate to see people flying in shorts - still imbued with RAF flight safety thinking on this, with every inch of exposed skin a potential flash burn site!

[Capvermell]

From the discussion immediately below the above YouTube video page:-

bushpilot23 (http://www.youtube.com/user/bushpilot23) How close to stall speed are you before you level off after picking up the banner? Looks like you're right close to stall speed. 8 months ago

1600u (http://www.youtube.com/user/1600u) (uploader) usally we were about 2 or 3 knots above stall speed when we leveled off 8 months ago It looks to me like an inherently high risk activity much more in the acrobatic stunts league rather than being anything like normal flying. I suspect most politicians would cheerfully have left the pilot to it but the heavy drinking and smoking ex leader of UKIP clearly loves taking risks............

[FlyingOfficerKite]

I have to agree with Binks, it's aerial work.

But apart from any legal considerations where was the COMMON SENSE?!!!

Who in their right minds contemplates banner towing and carrying a passenger - particularly a VIP?

I appreciate the Wilga is a capable aircraft, but safety margins are eroded with a passenger on board (performance).

I still bring to mind the sad day at Barton in the 80s when the Mike H was killed flying a banner-towing Rallye. Even with the greatest preparation in the world accidents can still happen.

KR

FOK

[Richard J.]

The relevant law is the Polling Stations (Regulation) Bill. It forbids campaigning activity within 250 metres of the entrance to a polling station. I think you will find this aircraft would have consistently been flying more than 250 metres away from any polling station had it not crashed before getting its banner in to the air.



A Bill is only a draft Act laid before Parliament. This particular private member's bill did not gain government support and was dropped in June 2007. So there is no such law.

[mary meagher]

Banner towing is dangerous. Even though the Wilga was designed to tow up several gliders at once, in Poland, where it is manufactured, and even though it has plenty of power, plenty can still go wrong.

I saw at Clacton on Sea a Supercub pick up a banner which draped itself over the tailplane. Couldn't be released. Somehow, flying sideways, the Cub managed to land ACROSS the grass strip and stop very very short indeed, and amazingly there was little damage. Evidently the banner had acted like the wire for a carrier landing.

The practice of towing banners along popular beaches in the US is well developed, with highly experienced daredevil pilots, who would not dream of taking a passenger along.

[T-21]

It was an invasion of privacy to show an injured Mr Farage trapped in the aircraft, Very poor taste by the media, should have stopped the publication. Bad show all round. Shame on you. := Hope they both make good recoveries.

[bookworm]

Binks

You seem to quote a passage from a CAA paper correctly, but you then draw a quite unfounded inference.

As Airclues says, there is nothing in the ANO, or in that passage, to suggest that passengers may not be carried on an aerial work flight. In fact, 5.4 of the passage you quote clearly envisages that there may be circumstances in which a non-paying passenger may be carried on an aerial work flight by a non-AOC holder.

Passengers are regularly carried on training flights that are aerial work, for example the back-to-back training of a pair of students.

[Pilot Positive]

The extra weight and performance would be my concern

...usally we were about 2 or 3 knots above stall speed...


..and with only 700m t/o distance available - not much margin for error then.

What was the experience of the pilot?

[DespairingTraveller]

Binks:
I've no wish at all to be argumentative, and my ignorance on the subject of banner towing is near total, but I don't understand how the above paragraphs you quoted demonstrate that carrying a passenger while towing a banner is illegal.

Para 5.1 - we assume that the unfortunate Mr Farage did not claim to be a member of the crew, so he was a passenger.

Para 5.3 - I assume the operator doesn't hold an AOC, so that of itself this clause doesn't make this a public transport flight.

Para 5.4 - Assuming payment changed hands for the flight, (it could be a private flight by a UKIP supporter, for example), then this paragraph makes it aerial work.

Para 5.2 is the key para, surely? It clearly gives cause for a prudent operator to think hard before carrying passengers while conducting aerial work, because of the risk of the flight being deemed public transport, but it doesn't mean that simply carrying another, non-paying, human being necessarily makes the flight public transport. (E.g. suppose a fee has been agreed for the work, and the pilot offered to take a supernumerary at the last moment? There's no additional payment involved, so no paying passenger.)

And CAP393 doesn't forbid carrying passengers while towing, except for a helicopter.

[Binks]

Bookworm. Back to back students are not passengers, they are students. It is permitted for an extra student to sit in the back for the purpose of flight training.

If it is acceptable to carry passengers on aerial work then why does any GA pleasure flight operator bother with an AOC.

It is also illegal to carry passengers on air displays, display practice, glider towing etc etc.

If you look at the definition of Passenger the CAA are quite clear on this.

The rule is there to protect the public, someone just going "for a ride" and putting themselves at a higher risk than on a conventional public transport flight.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can think that this is a legal and acceptable practice.

[Basil]

Binks,
I am sure that you are posting in good faith but I think it is possible that, if there is no AOC, then carrying a non-paying passenger 'along for the ride' is not illegal.
I would also suggest that 'legal and acceptable' are two different judgements.
The ANO is not at all clear and I'd guess that if Mr Adams wished to take action for libel against PPRuNe the lawyers would do very nicely.

[bookworm]

If it is acceptable to carry passengers on aerial work then why does any GA pleasure flight operator bother with an AOC.

Because on a "pleasure flight", valuable consideration is given for the carriage of the passengers. They are paying passengers.

It is also illegal to carry passengers on air displays, display practice, glider towing etc etc.

While a display authorisation might prohibit carriage of passengers, there's no relationship between that and whether the flight is aerial work. Some displays may be private flights. Passengers are often carried on glider tows: most tugs are single-pilot aircraft, so any second occupant is a passenger.

If you look at the definition of Passenger the CAA are quite clear on this.

According to the ANO "‘Passenger’ means a person other than a member of the crew". I don't really see how that supports your case.

The rule is there to protect the public, someone just going "for a ride" and putting themselves at a higher risk than on a conventional public transport flight.

Passengers, members of the public, "go for a ride" on private flights every day. The extra protection and lower risk is afforded only to paying passengers.

[Capvermell]

If it is acceptable to carry passengers on aerial work then why does any GA pleasure flight operator bother with an AOC.

This is a very high profile light aircraft crash as far as the CAA is concerned so I would imagine the issue of whether or not passenger carriage in this situation is legal is likely to be put to the test.

At the moment it would appear to be a grey area.

[Binks]

The point is there is a big difference between going for a ride in a light aircraft, and participating in an activity which carries a hugely greater risk such as Banner Towing.

For a start the insurance will not cover a passenger, and for a commercial flight that means illegal.

These passengers are still paying for the flight be it as passenger or for the service - same thing.

In 200 hours of towing gliders no passengers to my knowledge were allowed.

Bookworm. the reason I drew a parallel with air displays is that the reason passengers are not allowed is purely safety. (Since the Invader Crash at Biggin Hill years ago in fact)

Banner towing is also a high risk activity and the risk is and should be limited to the pilot only.

[cats_five]

<snip>
In 200 hours of towing gliders no passengers to my knowledge were allowed.

There is a gliding club in the south of England which I believe sometimes does have passengers for aerotow retrieves - outbound an instructor, inbound the original pilot. AFAIK they had an aerotow retrieve incident (no-one hurt but the glider suffered some damage) and for various reasons now sometimes send an instructor to fly the glider back. Obviously it's not the club you towed gliders at!

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Guys, guys, guys..

It matters not whether the flight was illegal or not. A serious accident has happened, 2 people have been seriously injured and here we are, as usual, bickering amongst ourselves. It's quite sad really if you stand back and read it..

If it's illegal, I'm sure the relevant authorities are on the case. If not, let the AAIB investigate and decide what happened. Its not going to change anything.

Binks,

Whilst I agree with most of what you've said so far, I must take exception to this:

It is also illegal to carry passengers on air displays, display practice, glider towing etc etc.


It is NOT illegal to carry passengers on practice display flights. I'm also sure (but not 100%) that it's not illegal to carry pax on glider tow flights either. When I was checked out to glider tow, I was technically a passenger, but it doesn't do much for the aircraft towing capabilities.....Likewise for practice displays, where I have spent many hours doing DA Evaluation flights in a variety or types, technically as a passenger.

Just wanted to get the facts straight:ok:

[Dawdler]

It was an invasion of privacy to show an injured Mr Farage trapped in the aircraft, Very poor taste by the media, should have stopped the publication. Bad show all round. Shame on you. := Hope they both make good recoveries.

Good point T21 I share you hopes for a good outcome. However, I well remember watching the extrication of Mr Tebbit from the Grand Hotel blast on live television That, I suspect was much worse than a single still photo of the unfortunate Mr Farage.

As a disinterested (not uninterested) onlooker, I suspect that Mr Farage is likely to have been the client of this professional banner towing company and therefore legitimately aboard in order to direct the flight - ergo part of the crew! Something else for the four ale bar room barristers to argue about.

[oversteer]

There is a gliding club in the south of England which I believe sometimes does have passengers for aerotow retrieves - outbound an instructor, inbound the original pilot.

After my first 50k I had a ride back in the tug and an instructor flew the glider. The reason given - the club did not want a low-hours pilot to take off without a wing runner.

[Binks]

Chuffer. We are not bickering. We are having a discussion based around issues thrown up by todays events.

A discussion to which you yourself felt obliged to contribute.

[UV]

Chaps, dont forget the rags read and quote from these forums.

You might be somewhat embarrased to read your own errors/misinterpretations on tomorrows front page!

Previous accidents frequently show that speculation/rumours here often prove wildly inaccurate and no one on Pprune has the real authority, or information, to determine whether this was a "legal" flight.

Surely better to avoid attracting any bad press for GA and leave the technicalities to the professionals who will, no doubt, be considering this unfortunate event.

[dhc1180]

I've flown in this aircraft. Sad to see it crashed. I hope the wing spar failure it had a couple of years ago has nothing to do with it. I wish Justin a speedy road to recovery...

[blambert]

The Daily Mail has decided to publish some more, albeit shocking images, along with some eyewitness reports:

GENERAL ELECTION 2010: 'I just hope that the plane doesn't crash!'... What Ukip's Nigel Farage joked moments before his aircraft nosedived | Mail Online (http://goo.gl/iBPB)

Whatever the cause, it's amazing these guys survived and I wish them well.

[Dusty_B]

Binks,

Do you KNOW that valuable consideration was made/agreed for any part of the flight? If not, then stop implying that it must be illegal! As has already been pointed out, it could have been a genuine private flight. Also pointed out was that if a charge was made for the purposes of carrying the banner and that no further charge was made for carriage of a passenger during the flight (which remained local), then no valuable consideration was made for carriage of the passenger = still legal.

[T-21]

Yes and it could have easily caught fire . Less of the media and more rescue required.

[621andy]

Just seen the pics on the Daily Mail site. How bloody insensitive can they get?? Poor pilot obviously trapped in the wreckage behind and the photog. is snapping pics of the MP...bastards!


Some pics of a mate of mine(CPL/banner & glider tower/instructor) picking up a banner...it's a dodgy game at the best of times, involving a circuit and the out-throwing of a grappling hook and the banner towline. The banner is spread out flat on the ground with a loop of rope suspended between 2 poles about 2m high. He flies low and slow, gets lined up and gives it welly as the a/c passes over the poles. If he's a bit low, the hook occasionally bounces along the ground before catching the banner rope..a bit high and it might not catch properly resulting in a buggers muddle on the ground with poles and banner flying everywhere...then out I go to set it all up again! The tow rope is attached to the a/c via a glider tow release so if it all goes to pot he can at least cut it away.
Anyway, if all goes to plan, then it's up and away for a few hours, then back to the a/f, drop the banner and a normal circuit.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/621andy/D-EEEI.jpg

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/621andy/flugplatzsnow00422.jpg

[Basil]

SASKATOON9999,
I can see your point.
I do think however, that those pictures provide a valuable insight for those who fly light aircraft into one outcome of an air accident.
Probably every light aircraft pilot's nightmare; certainly one of mine.

[Jim59]

Banner Towing is Aerial Work.

You cannot take passengers on an Aerial work flight unless they are employees of the company that owns the aeroplane.

The flight was illegal.


Isn't dropping parachutists aerial work? Do all parachutists have to be employees of the company that owns the aeroplane they jump from?

[S-Works]

Isn't dropping parachutists aerial work?

In some countries yes.

Do all parachutists have to be employees of the company that owns the aeroplane they jump from?

No.

[Dawdler]

Banner Towing is Aerial Work.

You cannot take passengers on an Aerial work flight unless they are employees of the company that owns the aeroplane.

The flight was illegal.

What about employees of the company comissioning the work? I am thinking about e.g. survey work.

[El Grifo]

I have carried out loads of Aerial Photography shoots in the UK and Spain. I always take along friends family or clients for the ride.

Not one single aircraft operator has prevented me from doing this, or pointed out that it is in any way against the law.

What do you think Binks. Aviation is chock full of rogues, or you have your facts wrong.

[Just a spotter]

Apologies if this has already been posted and removed and with best wishes for a speedy recovery to all those involved

Officials investigating the cause of the crash involving a light aircraft in which former UKIP leader Nigel Farage was a passenger have released their initial findings.

They say the crash was cause by the aircraft having too much right wing.

No, don't get up, I'll let myself out .... :}

JAS

[boguing]

I've not seen any mention .. one of the images pre-flight shows a fairly heavy looking bag/case and sundry equipment laid loosely behind Mr Farage. If it took off like that, and there is a significant tube down back? 2p.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

As has already been pointed out, it could have been a genuine private flight.

No it couldn't. Banner towing is classed as aerial work, just as flying to Spain with your favourite airline is public transport. If Ryanair offered free seats would that make it a private flight? No it wouldn't.

But, as no other regular contributor is going to fall into the trap of entering a long discussion regarding private flights, aerial work or public transport flights neither am I.

You'll just have to read it up for yourself.

KR

FOK

[T-21]

This accident occurred at 08:00Am. looking at press photos and TV coverage I question a. Was there any manned fire/crash truck at that time of the morning b. Who was supervising/or was their adequate supervision of the press on an active airfield c. Even if you rescue a person from an aircraft wreckage they should not be allowed to walk about after,again supervision of the accident site. There are lessons to be learn't from this.

[Capvermell]

The photographer obviously has no moral compass whatsoever

Why on earth are they taking photgraphs of the gentleman concerned, whilst there are people trapped in the wreckage of the aircraft and in obvious urgent need of medical assistance? I can understand in the aftermath, but there are several disturbing shots where rarther than photographing, they should have dropped the cameras and run to offer assistance.

I think you have failed to consider the possibility that UKIP and/or Mr Farage's agent may have been perfectly happy for these photos to be published on the basis of the old theory that "all publicity is good publicity"

Also the photographers were specifically invited to the airfield and requested to take photos of the UKIP aircraft. When something dramatic happens to the aircraft and/or its occupants you cannot expect news photographers not to also record that too. In addition as it was established early on that the injuries of both Mr Farage and the pilot were not life threatening there was no possibility that the publication of the photos could be considered as being ghoulish etc, etc.

I think it is pretty commonplace for photographs of adult survivors of crashes who have not suffered loss of limbs or other extreme trauma to be pictured in newspaper photos. Showing pictures of dead bodies is an altogether different game that normally requires very explicit permission from the next of kin.

The bottom line is would Nigel Farage be offended by the publication of these photos and I have to say that almost certainly he would not and indeed will no doubt be dining out on stories of this crash and how he cheated death for many years to come.

[T-21]

Sask,
Agree totally with your comments. Preserving life is the number one priority in any accident not standing around taking photos.

[bookworm]

No it couldn't. Banner towing is classed as aerial work, just as flying to Spain with your favourite airline is public transport. If Ryanair offered free seats would that make it a private flight? No it wouldn't.
...
You'll just have to read it up for yourself.

You should take your own advice FOK. Your example flight is public transport specifically by virtue of Art 260(2)(b), which treats a flight as public transport if

(ii) the flight is operated by the holder of a national air operator’s certificate or an EU-
OPS air operator certificate and any passengers or cargo are carried gratuitously in
the aircraft except for [employees of the operator] or [the operator's own] cargo

(These days, Ryanair's flight is classed as commercial air transport and covered by EU-OPS, not by the operating requirements of the ANO.)

Banner towing is not "classed as" aerial work. Whether or not a flight is aerial work or private depends, by Art 259, on the giving or promise of valuable consideration for the flight or purpose of the flight. The absence of valuable consideration means that the flight is not aerial work.

[NutLoose]

There is a sequence of photos of the crash and their recovery, two very very lucky people, see

Nigel Farage of Ukip plane crash: in pictures - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7686463/Nigel-Farage-of-Ukip-plane-crash-in-pictures.html?image=4)

[A and C]

The morality of continuing to take photos of an accident rather depends on if the photographer can be of any use in the helping the victims escape from the aircraft.

If it is clear that enough help is on hand then it is hard to see why a news photographer should not continure to work, it is another matter if the photographer is the only sorce of help.

The morality of the publication of the photographs of an accident is another matter.

[bnt]

Farage has just been released from hospital, and told Sky News a bit more about what happened. Something went wrong with the banner pickup and it got wrapped round the tail. The pilot spent about five minutes circling and trying to sort it, before trying to land. Farage has some bruising, broken ribs, sternum, and a chipped vertebra, but the pain killers seemed to be working. :ouch:

[Flying Lawyer]

Chuffer Guys, guys, guys..
It matters not whether the flight was illegal or not. A serious accident has happened, 2 people have been seriously injured and here we are, as usual, bickering amongst ourselves. It's quite sad really if you stand back and read it..

If it's illegal, I'm sure the relevant authorities are on the case. If not, let the AAIB investigate and decide what happened. Its not going to change anything.
I agree it's sad.
Unfortunately, it's not unusual on PPRuNe. I have never understood why people are always so quick to try to find some (supposed) illegality by fellow aviators.

[windriver]

Something went wrong with the banner pickup and it got wrapped round the tail.

This doesn`t suprise me. I could imagine a situation where (for example) the banner might have snagged on pick up leading to a portion of the banner/line/hook assembly breaking and the remaining portion either "whiplashing" around the tail assembly or bouncing off the ground and getting caught up in the tail somewhere.

Speculation of course, but as I mentioned in an earlier post I had a banner snag in (not very long) grass on pickup, things happen very fast and the bits of banner that remain attached, and their subsequent movements may not be conducive to continued full control of the aircraft.

My instinct is that this will turn out to be primarily a case of "bad luck" in what remains in my view a moderately high risk activity, rather than anything else.

Can`t comment on their operation, but regarding the carriage of passengers our AOC was very specific. "No persons other than the pilot to be carried except for the purposes of training or testing blah blah... "

[Molesworth 1]

What tabloid newspaper could be described as having a "moral compass"?

I assume though, that the Daily Mail had Mr Farage's permission to publish the photos. The shot of him standing there in shock with blood streaming down his face is a fantastic photograph, capturing the emotion of the moment perfectly. "I'm scared, I'm scared, I'm scared".

Poor man, the earlier photos show him bristling with excited anticipation - the last thing he expected was to emerge terrified from a near-death experience!

The picking up of banner manoeuvre seems really risky, in my opinion

[Miroku]

Nice to hear that Nigel Farage has left hospital but does anyone have any news concerning the condition of the pilot?

[Capvermell]

Some explanation of the relatively favourable outcome to the crash has been given by Nigel Farage in this just published article on the Daily Mail website.

Essentially after the banner wrapped around the tail the pilot had severe difficulties controlling the plane and knew that he could not land without nosing over and landing on the ground head down. I assume this meant the pilot located the softest possible landing spot and got as close as possible to the ground before attempting to execute the maneouvre. Even so the fact that the engine ripped clean off on impact and did not ignite the significant amount of fuel on board seems to have been largely a matter of luck.

See 'I must be the luckiest man alive' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275198/I-luckiest-man-alive-says-UKIPs-Nigel-Farage-election-day-plane-crash.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

As he described the accident for the first time today Mr Farage, who had cuts to his nose and lip, revealed they had known five minutes in advance they were going to crash. He said: 'You have to take off, and then you have to pick up the banner. But something went wrong. 'Basically the banner hooked around the tail of the plane which meant that whenever he came in to land, it would be a nose-dive landing. 'So we spent five minutes knowing we were in for a crash landing and the question was just how big and bad it was going to be.'

[Pilot Positive]

to be primarily a case of "bad luck" in what remains in my view a moderately high risk activity, rather than anything else.

Yes and wouldnt the nature of high risk activites be conducive to eliminating as much risk as possible and therefore removing the possibility of "bad luck"? Not sure carrying a pax in this inherently high risk activity was supporting that....and will no doubt form part of any AAIB investigation. :hmm:

I wish both a very speedy recovery and the best of health.

[heli-cal]

Whilst it is indeed good news that the pilot and passenger both survived, it will be great news if the pilot makes a complete recovery.

Looks to be a tough airframe that protected the crew from some incredible impact forces!

[Glider21]

If I had sufficient pitch authority to control the aircraft which the 5 minutes circling would imply, but thought the landing would be difficult, I think I would talk to D&D and go somewhere with full rescue services available such as Cranfield or Oxford rather than Hinton. Also I may be mistaken but was surprised to see that the pilot appeared to be wearing shorts and flip flops.

As a glider tug pilot we are specifically forbidden from carrying anyone apart from during training or check flights due entirely to the higher risk involved.

[Basil]

I believe that, in the final stages, pitch authority was non existent.

does anyone have any news concerning the condition of the pilot?
I understand that he has been discharged from hospital with cuts and bruises and burns on his arm from the engine exhaust. No reports of the back injuries which were feared.

[Sam Rutherford]

Easy to say here, but my money would have been on heading for a 'huge' runway, circle overhead until basically out of fuel and the fire-engines and ambulances were nicely bored waiting for me...

But, easier from my armchair!

Safe flights, Sam.



PS I do think that discussing the legality of this flight is worthwhile - it's all useful information that helps others stay legal.

[oscarisapc]

In theory, in the situation where a crash landing is inevitable and the only variables are when and where, would it be better to choose the grass as in this case, or opt for a hard runway? I read somewhere that the deceleration forces in a crash landing on soft ground are extremely high since the plane just digs in. Chances of survival are paradoxically much better on a hard runway where there is a chance of skidding along and decelerating more slowly although this has to be set against a risk of sparks setting fuel alight. This is not to criticise the pilot in this current episode who made difficult choices in the emergency and did well to ensure he and his passenger survived, and in any event we don't fully know what happened, but just thinking through what I might have done in a similar situation.

[Flying Lawyer]

Sam Rutherford
I do think that discussing the legality of this flight is worthwhileIt's not worthwhile discussing the legality of this flight when the circumstances in which this flight took place are not known.

it's all useful information that helps others stay legalIt's not useful unless readers are able to distinguish between the accurate and inaccurate information posted about 'the law.'


FL

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

I think Nigel Farage reported that the banner had wrapped itself "round the tail" (so he may have meant the fin or the empennage) so re-routing via D&D to another better equipped airfield was never an option. They had to get down quickly

[T-21]

The risk of injuries would have been reduced if they were wearing Nomex flying suits,gloves and bone-domes(helmets) plus get rid of all the loose articles ie. Hose-reel floating about in the rear cabin,particularly as this was a commercial flight.

[DespairingTraveller]

It's not useful unless readers are able to distinguish between the accurate and inaccurate information posted about 'the law.'

FL
Entirely agreed, and I wish people would post relevant references rather than simply making bald statements or appealing to authority.

However, it is disturbing that there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on here of what defines "aerial work". Several posts have suggested that whether or not a flight is aerial work is determined by the nature of the task undertaken. (Specifically, statements like "Banner towing is aerial work".)

As I'm sure FL and others know, aerial work is not defined in that way:

ANO S259(1): ...aerial work means any purpose, other than commercial air transport or public transport, for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised for the flight or the purpose of the flight. (my italics, and there are various specific exceptions covering cost sharing, flying displays & prizes, etc.)

That means that if a friend says he'll give me a tenner to fly over his house the next time I go up on a sunny Sunday afternoon, because his kid loves aircraft spotting, I would be conducting aerial work...

But, try as I might, I cannot find any specific prohibition on carrying passengers while conducting aerial work. However, if valuable consideration is given or promised for their carriage, then the flight becomes public transport. (Parachute lifts being an exception - they are specifically defined as aerial work not public transport, subject to various conditions being met.)

[seymour beaver]

I apreciate laws and rules change. If i recall correctly (time wise)around 10 years ago i wrote to the caa asking if i could use a 172 for banner towing, advertising my own business being a ppl holder.The reply around a month later was a confirmation letter saying it was acceptable.After weighing up training costs, banner costs and insurance etc i chose not to proceed.Obviously different if you run a banner towing setup.

[liam548]

I apreciate laws and rules change. If i recall correctly (time wise)around 10 years ago i wrote to the caa asking if i could use a 172 for banner towing, advertising my own business being a ppl holder.The reply around a month later was a confirmation letter saying it was acceptable.After weighing up training costs, banner costs and insurance etc i chose not to proceed.Obviously different if you run a banner towing setup.


They said advertising your services was allowed on a PPL !?

[Pilot Positive]

For a little more insight here's the interview with Mr Farage and the BBC:

BBC News - Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage speaks on plane crash (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8672726.stm)

[Capvermell]

All seems to have gone quiet now.


Does nobody know anything about the pilot as he seemed to be more seriously injured than Mr Farage.

[AIRADS]

There's an awful lot of misinformation floating around here and as the owner of Airads, with over 1,000 hours of experience doing this kind of aerial work let me try and help get some of the facts presented properly.

Banner towing is a tricky as it gets in terms of aerial work. Only a handful of us do this in the UK, one less after the incident being discussed here.

It does however have an unprecedented safety record, possibly because everyone is very experienced and in mid-forties to mid fifties and inclined towards the "No old bold pilots" way of thinking.

Occasionally and like any flying activity, mistakes and accidents can happen. The same thing that happened with the Wilga, happened to me once in sudden unexpected turbulence near the ground during a pickup manoeuvre. It's a problem without doubt but one that can be dealt with without incident if the right procedure for landing with the banner still in tow is followed.

At Airads, we have strict operational safety rules that you will find in the aircraft on a laminated card to remind us before each flight. Most important of all, never let a client put you under time stress and "If it doesn't look right, then it probably isn't"

We don't take passengers because we don't have an AOC and it's best not to test the rules governing such anyway but occasionally, if W&B limits and drag calculations permit we will run with two pilots if only because two sets of eyes are better than one. Just after the pick up, it can be very useful having one pilot concentrating on the climb out manoeuvre and the other running through the checks. If you visit AiradsUK on YouTube you can see some examples.

To stress flight safety might appear trite but believe me, it's at the very top of my list of priorities and takes precedent above anything else. Towing banners has to be treated with the same care as say crop dusting or airshow aerobatics.

We do everything from opening the Farnborough Airshow, to lots of marriage proposals!

Hope that helps but happy to answer any questions if they come my way!

[Capvermell]

We don't take passengers because we don't have an AOC and it's best not to test the rules governing such

So on that point you do actually seem to concur with the earlier comments regarding this incident and also taking the point about two pilots providing two pairs of eyes surely a passenger might reduce the pilot to about 0.7 of a pair of eyes due to his need to also worry about the passenger and their safety or any questions that they might raise.

[AIRADS]

It's really not appropriate for me to comment on another operator where an incident is presently under investigation.

All I can add is that when clients ask us to come along, which is not an infrequent request, we have a strict policy against it for a number of good reasons. These being potential liability, no AOC, a rather grey area for insurance and the simple fact that during one of the more difficult challenges in aviation, having a non-crew-member can be a distraction, if only because the pick-up manoeuvre can make them air sick!!!

We were asked to fly a UKIP banner around Birmingham with the candidate the previous weekend, an independent candidate on the same day and the LibDems the day before. In each case we were asked by the candidate if he could come along for the ride and in each case our own procedures ruled this out for the reasons I've given above. That's not to say that another operator may have different rules he chooses to follow:)

[Tyger]

Daft question, I know, but does anyone out there want to know, or even care, what actually happened that day?

I have a source with some of the forms submitted to both the AAIB and CAA.

She also has some good photos.

Makes interesting reading!! :eek:

Enough replies and I'll put them all out there, in one place.

I am aware that there is a pending investigation, and possible prosecution, but this information is already available, if you dig deep enough into the Great God Google, so technically it has already been published.

BTW, should we use that term in future; GGG (Great God Google) instead of WWW (yeah you know it!)?

xxx + cherry on top

[BRL]

I would wait until the investigation is over mate. :)

[vanHorck]

Some people have something to gain from bringing out facts at a time when the facts available point in a certain direction, sometimes not necessarily in the right direction....

Better for us to continue speculation and analysis, learn by doing so, and wait to be corrected by the AAIB report thereafter

[alright jack]

Choice of hard or soft runway for crash landings?

Having been involved in an accident this time last year , the ground was very hard when we impacted it near vertical due to a stall after take off from about 50 feet, my fault , causing the aircraft nose to crumple and skid forward after the impact for about 50 yards. If the ground had been soft earth the nose would have buried itself and I think the out come would have been much worse. Luckily the structure absorbed the impact in this case and we got out almost uninjured . A very sobering experience indeed !! Make sure your seatbelt is always tight ............................:ooh:

[abeaumont]

BBC News - Crash pilot 'threatened to kill UKIP's Nigel Farage' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-11886985)

Ten minutes ago.

It just gets more confusing - now the pilot is remanded in custody for threatening to kill his passenger. Oh, and for likewise threatening an "aviatikon official".

[10W]

AAIB report here:

G-BWDF Report (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/PZL-104%20Wilga%2035A,%20G-BWDF%2011-2010.pdf)

[goldeneaglepilot]

Crazy - the old expression, "when in a hole, stop digging" comes to mind...

Threats to kill someone from the AAIB or CAA and also the customer - WHY???

[coldair]

From the Daily Mail;
Pilot of Nigel Farage crash plane is charged with threatening to kill him | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334617/Pilot-Nigel-Farage-crash-plane-charged-threatening-kill-him.html)

Pilot of UKIP leader Nigel Farage crash plane is charged with threatening to kill him and air investigator



By Daily Mail Reporter (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Daily+Mail+Reporter)

Last updated at 11:55 AM on 1st December 2010


The pilot of the plane which crashed and injured Nigel Farage has been charged with threatening to kill the politician.

Justin Adams, who was at the controls of the light aircraft which slammed into a field on General Election day in May, seriously injuring the UK Independence Party's now leader, has been remanded in custody.

The 45-year-old airman has also been charged with threatening to kill the official who investigated the dramatic accident.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/01/article-1334617-09741E2B000005DC-420_468x286.jpg A seriously injured Nigel Farage is seen being helped from the wreckage of the plane shortly after it crashed on May 6


Adams was at the controls of the Polish-made Wilga 35A, with Mr Farage sitting alongside him, when it suddenly nose-dived to earth during a party-political stunt on the morning of May 6.

Amazingly Mr Farage managed to walk from the scene, as pictured in graphic images from the time, while Adams was trapped in the mangled wreckage.

The seriously injured pilot remained conscious and was later airlifted from the scene, in Hinton-on-the-Hedges, near Brackley, Northamptonshire, to hospital in Coventry.

A probe by the Air Accident Investigation Branch of the Department of Transport found the crash was caused by the campaign banner the plane had been trailing.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/01/article-1334617-0C4D282A000005DC-263_468x339.jpg Pilot Justin Adams (left) has been charged with threatening to kill Mr Farage and the official who investigated the accident. This picture was taken just minutes before the plane took off

The ropes used to tow the giant slogan, reading: 'Vote for your country: Vote UKIP', had become caught on the tail of the lightweight aircraft, forcing it into a dive.
Earlier the plane had had to make a number of low-level passes before it was able to collect the banner from a special harness.
Adams was brought before magistrates in Oxford and spoke only to confirm his name, age and address.

He was arrested on Sunday after calls were made to the police, alleging that on November 26 he threatened to kill Mr Farage and that on Sunday he similarly threatened Civil Aviation Authority investigator Martin James.
The business owner, wearing a blue fleece and jeans, did not enter a plea to either charge.

He was remanded in custody and ordered to appear at Oxford Crown Court on Tuesday next week.

Adams, who had been living in Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, but has since moved to the village of Buckland, Oxon, ran a firm called Sky Banners.


At the time of the crash Mr Farage, who has a fear of flying, was making a last-ditch attempt to win over voters as he fought to boot House of Commons Speaker John Bercow MP out of his Buckingham seat.

The controversial politician, who previously led UKIP from 2006 to 2009, stepped down from the role to concentrate on his campaign.

However, his supporters delivered the news to him in hospital that he had come third with only 8,401 votes.

He then resumed the leadership of the party on November 5 this year.

Following the publication of the crash report, the 46-year-old said: 'I think the conclusion is the best for everyone. It was an accident, there we are, these things happen in life.

'I give thanks to the fact I got through it.

'I have never liked flying - always hated it, although I have done a fair bit of it as an MEP.

'Part of the flight on May 6 was an attempt to challenge my demons. Look how that ended up.'

He added: 'I wish the pilot the best of luck in his recovery. I know he's had several operations and was not in a good way at all.'

[Lon More]

Just on BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-11886985), the pilot of the plane that crashed with the UKIP leader in it in the run-up to the Elections has been charged with threatening to kill Farage and also the leader of the investigation

[Contacttower]

What a bizarre development. Is there any suggestion here that by having Nigel Farage on board he may have been conducting illegal public transport?

[MR. PROACH]

I guess he missed his chance.......:=

[KeyPilot]

Extraordinary story. Bearing in mind that this now sub judice and will likely go before a court, does anyone know the circumstances of the allegations?

[Basil]

http://farage.b l o g s p o t . com/2010/12/nf029-02-dec-2010-justin-adams-pilot-in.html

To look at the full blog you'll have to remove the spaces.

Justin Adams hung upside down soaked in fuel whilst his arm was trapped against the exhaust burning!

[Deeday]

To look at the full blog you'll have to remove the spaces.

It's easier to use tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/adams-farage
(http://tinyurl.com/adams-farage)
(see tinyurl.com (http://tinyurl.com))

[Basil]

Deeday,
I am indebted.
What a cunning stunt :ok:

[coldair]

Well, that was a very confusing blog and to be honist I can't quite make out the point he is trying to make.

I guess it will all become clear when this finaly comes to court , however, the pilot was due to have had an appearance in Oxford Crown Court before now but nothing has yet been reported in the press.

[Dodo56]

In a rather odd case following on from this event: http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/414381-light-aircraft-down-oxfordshire.html

The pilot concerned has just been convicted of making threats. The facts are still a lttle unclear but it would appear the stress of having his licence suspended after the crash caused some rather extreme behaviour.

BBC News - Crash pilot guilty of Farage death threats (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-13082655)

Not condoning threats of violence but I'm surprised this behaviour didn't merit a plea of diminished responsibility. Even found guilty, at the very least one should expect mitigation.

[coldair]

From The BBC


Jury retires over Nigel Farage crash pilot case

Crash pilot 'threatened' Farage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-13044418)


A jury in the case of a pilot accused of threatening to kill UKIP leader Nigel Farage following a plane crash has retired to consider its verdict.
Justin Adams is charged with making threats relating to Mr Farage and crash investigator Martin James.
Oxford Crown Court heard a telephone call between a police handler and a man calling himself Justin Adams who claimed to have a 9mm pistol.
Mr Adams, 46, of Faringdon, Oxfordshire, denies the five charges.
Both Mr Farage and Mr Adams were injured in the light aircraft crash on 6 May, the day of the 2010 general election, after it nose-dived to the ground while towing a campaign banner in Northamptonshire.
'Rapidly spiralling downhill'
The court heard Mr Adams said he had received media offers to talk about the crash, but it had been suggested to him by Mr Farage that he should not speak until after the conclusion of the investigation in his favour.
He claimed friends later informed him Mr Farage was "generating PR as a result of the crash".
The court heard threats were intended to make those receiving them fear they would be carried out.
Within the conversation between the police call handler and the man calling himself Justin Adams in November last year, he was heard to say: "I know where they live, they destroyed my life."
He later added: "I now have a 9mm pistol, I've got the means - I will take them out and then myself."
Mr Adams told the operator he had lost his livelihood, house, wife and child in the wake of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) investigation, the court heard.
"You need to understand all charges were dropped against me after six or seven months of investigations," he said.
"In the intervening period everything else fell apart."
Giving evidence in his defence, Mr Adams told the jury that after the crash his mental health had been "rapidly spiralling downhill", as his business and personal relationship deteriorated.
He said he felt he was not receiving the help he needed and made the threats "in the belief and hope I would get put inside".
"I could see no other way," he said.
"I made a decision to make these threats purely to get assistance."
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

[coldair]

From the BBC

BBC News - Nigel Farage death threats crash pilot guilty (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-13082655)

Nigel Farage death threats crash pilot guilty

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52164000/jpg/_52164277_farage.jpg Mr Farage was taken to hospital after the crash on election day 2010
A pilot has been convicted of threatening to kill UKIP leader Nigel Farage following a plane crash.

A jury found Justin Adams guilty of making five threats relating to Mr Farage and crash investigator Martin James after the accident in May 2010.
Oxford Crown Court heard a telephone call between a police handler and a man calling himself Justin Adams who claimed to have a 9mm pistol.
Adams, 46, of Faringdon, Oxfordshire, denied the five charges.
Both Mr Farage and Adams were injured in the light aircraft crash on 6 May, the day of the 2010 general election, after it nose-dived to the ground while towing a campaign banner in Northamptonshire. They were both taken to hospital.
Sentencing was adjourned until the week commencing 9 May.
'Extremely disturbed'
Remanding Adams in custody, Mr Justice Saunders said the defendant was "clearly extremely disturbed" at the time the offences happened.
He added: "He is a man who does need help. If I can find a way of giving him help I will."
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52167000/jpg/_52167355_d748304d-7077-44ab-bbe7-ef9787a18d2e.jpg Adams thought Mr Farage was "generating PR" from the crash
Mr Farage said after the verdict: "From beginning to end, this is a very, very sad case indeed.
"It's been my belief all the way through that what Mr Adams needs is help and I don't really believe from our mental health services that he's received that."
The court heard Adams said he had received media offers to talk about the crash, but it had been suggested to him by Mr Farage that he should not speak until after the conclusion of the investigation in his favour.
He claimed friends later informed him Mr Farage was "generating PR as a result of the crash".
The court heard threats were intended to make those receiving them fear they would be carried out.
Within the conversation between the police call handler and the man calling himself Justin Adams in November last year, he was heard to say: "I know where they live, they destroyed my life."
'No other way'

He later added: "I now have a 9mm pistol, I've got the means - I will take them out and then myself."
Adams told the operator he had lost his livelihood, house, wife and child in the wake of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) investigation, the court heard.

Giving evidence in his defence, Adams told the jury that after the crash his mental health had been "rapidly spiralling downhill", as his business and personal relationship deteriorated.
He said he felt he was not receiving the help he needed and made the threats "in the belief and hope I would get put inside".
"I could see no other way," he said.
"I made a decision to make these threats purely to get assistance."

[Shell Management]

Unbelievable.:ugh::uhoh:

[Capvermell]

Was there any evidence given that Farage turned up on the day with a banner larger than that which the pilot had originally indicated was the biggest he could safely tow?

If Farage then insisted that the stunt must still go ahead because the election would not wait then you can see how the pilot might harbour a grudge. Having said that if the pilot believe that then he should certainly never have agreed to take Farage up in the plane with him.

Also threatening to kill the crash investigator (clearly only doing their job whereas one can see why the pilot might have reason to partly hold Farage to blame) and then calling the Police about the death threats does suggest that the balance of his mind was affected.

Also is Farage sueing this guy for personal injury or psychological trauma as presumably he has no valid insurance cover given that he was clearly in breach of his operating licence in carrying a passenger?

[Sir George Cayley]

Actually, when you read the Judges comments I see some real humanity in his comments.

The Jury have discharged their duty and it seems the facts were not disputed just the cause and motivation.

Hopefully justice will be seen to have been done and then the medical help he needs will be given.

Mental illness shouldn't be swept under the carpet nor used against someone undergoing a life changing crisis. I hope that the outcome suits both the crime and the punishment.

Sir George Cayley

[BRL]

Just merged this so there may be similar posts recently.

[Basil]

he was clearly in breach of his operating licence in carrying a passenger
Not necessarily.

[stickandrudderman]

Actually, when you read the Judges comments I see some real humanity in his comments.

The Jury have discharged their duty and it seems the facts were not disputed just the cause and motivation.

Hopefully justice will be seen to have been done and then the medical help he needs will be given.

Mental illness shouldn't be swept under the carpet nor used against someone undergoing a life changing crisis. I hope that the outcome suits both the crime and the punishment.

Sir George Cayley

Nicely put Sir.

[coldair]

Latest from Oxford Mail ;

Farage death threat case adjourned (From Oxford Mail) (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/9015516.Farage_death_threat_case_adjourned/)

Farage death threat case adjourned
11:50am Monday 9th May 2011
By George Gaynor

The pilot of a plane which crashed and injured Ukip leader Nigel Farage during an election day stunt was told by a judge to expect a suspended sentence for making threats to kill.
Justin Adams, 46, from Buckland, near Faringdon, was due to be sentenced at Oxford Crown Court, but his case was adjourned for further reports to be made.
The crash on May 6 2010, in which the light aircraft nose-dived to the ground while towing a campaign banner, left both Adams and Mr Farage in hospital.
Adams was found guilty on April 14 by a jury of five counts of making threats to kill relating to Mr Farage and Civil Aviation Authority crash investigator Martin James after a three-day trial.
He has been in custody since the end of the trial.
Judge Mr Justice Saunders was asked by Alistair Grainger, defending, if the case could be adjourned while a report concerning the defendant's problem with alcohol is compiled, and the judge agreed.
The judge said an assessment needed to take place to find out if a treatment programme for alcohol should be a term of a suspended sentence order.
He told Adams: "I have already given the indication that I will pass a suspended sentence of imprisonment. However, things can change if I hear about any more threats."
Adams was remanded in custody until June 10, when he will be sentenced at Oxford Crown Court.
Mr Farage did not attend court.

[coldair]

A pilot found guilty of threatening to kill UKIP leader Nigel Farage following a plane crash has been given a two-year supervised community order.

BBC News - Nigel Farage death threat crash pilot given community order (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-13724369)

[Capvermell]

I'm glad to see some sense has finally prevailed (in view of the suspended only sentence for what nominally were serious threats) and that it has been realised that these threats were clearly not actually going to be carried out but merely a cry of despair by the pilot who has seen his whole life, marriage and career destroyed as a result of no doubt being charmed by Mr Farage (who does have a lot of charm when he wants to use it to get his way) to both carry an unreasonably oversized banner and to carry Mr Farage on board for the flight as a passenger.

Obviously the pilot should have said no to both the banner and the passenger but I feel sure that the UKIP leader is at least in part to blame for this whole situation by encouraging the pilot to do something that Mr Farage must surely also have realised was unreasonably dangerous. And of course banner flying is a somewhat inherently risky business perhaps therefore more inclined to appeal to pilots with a personality type that is willing to take risks.

One can only hope the pilot here will be able to move on and at least be thankful he is still alive, although I fear that he will probably also have lost his pilot's license either forever or for several years as a result of this incident.

[coldair]

A more informative story is in Scotland's Herald newspaper.

Farage threat pilot goes free - Herald Scotland | News | Home News (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/farage-threat-pilot-goes-free-1.1106342)

A sad ending in many respects.

[Capvermell]

There seems to be no information whatsoever in that story on whether or not Nigel Farage was being legally carried as a passenger by the pilot.

If after the 6 month investigation the insurance company was going to pay out on his aircraft and he was going to get his license back it does seem very sad that he then lost the plot to the extent of phoning the Police to make these death threats. Obviously the fact he rang the Police to tell them that these were his intentions rather suggests he was not at all serious about carrying them out. If he had been at all serious about carrying out his threats he would probably have been sending anonymous letters to his intended victims in the post rather than calling up the Police and making it clear who he was.

One wonders why exactly he was held in custody for 6 months for an offence over which he only eventually received a community service order. Although perhaps he would have been jailed for 6 months or a year if he had not already spent this time in custody. Sad also that his wife left him with their child although probably this was something that was going to happen soon in any case as many other wives would have rallied to their husband's side in a situation where they had been injured and their ability to earn their livelihood temporarily cut off. This sounds like a wife who only wanted to stay with her husband as long as he kept bringing cash through the front door to feed and clothe their child and who had no other reason left for wanting to stay with him.

[strake]

One wonders why exactly he was held in custody for 6 months for an offence over which he only eventually received a community service order.
When considering bail, one of the factors the court has to take into account is the prosecution's case at it's highest level of potential sentence if the defendant is found guilty at trial. In this case, it was a threat to kill, so he was remanded.
In terms of the eventual sentence, this would have been handed down after mitigating circumstances were accepted at trial as well as taking into account his previous good character and pre-sentence reports from Probation.

[Capvermell]

When considering bail, one of the factors the court has to take into account is the prosecution's case at it's highest level of potential sentence if the defendant is found guilty at trial. In this case, it was a threat to kill, so he was remanded.

In the UK criminal courts everyone is considered innocent until it is proven otherwise so whether or not people get bail has nothing whatsoever to do with the length of potential sentence if found guilty and everything to do with whether or not there is a risk of them fleeing and not appearing for trial and/or of them posing a threat to other parties whilst they are out on bail. The risk of a defendant fleeing does of course perhaps indirectly depend to some extent on how long they could go down for if found guilty.

Perhaps it was the death threats that in this case coloured thinking about whether or not he should get bail although in his current circumstances he may of course also not have had the necessary finance available to put down as surety against being bailed.

However we still haven't got to the bottom of the question of whether or not Nigel Farage was being legally carried as a passenger on the aircraft on election day.

[chrisN]

What is the source of the information that the banner was oversized? I can’t see any mention in postings except very recently – not in AAIB or press reports, where I would have though at least AAIB would have mentioned it, if true.

Is not the commander of an aircraft, rather than a passenger, entirely responsible for ensuring that the flight is within permitted limits etc.?

Just wondering.


Chris N.

[Deeday]

Is not the commander of an aircraft, rather than a passenger, entirely responsible for ensuring that the flight is within permitted limits etc.?I'd be astonished if that wasn't the case.
I also don't buy the idea that it was Mr. Farage who "charmed" the pilot into breaking any air work regulations (on banner sizes, carrying of passengers etc.) More likely it was the very tempting publicity return from such high-profile job that influenced the pilot's decision to go ahead regardless.