View Full Version : Pre Flight test leading to Disaster
... A cautionery tale about fastening down the oil inspection cover.
I have often felt uneasy about flimsy butterfly fastenings on the oil inspection openings on certain Cessna singles although this may have no bearing on the following. A fellow pilot not of a Cessna but a Piper Arrow some years ago had problems with the oil inspection cover during pre flight checks - resulting in failing to close the flap down securely.
Consequently during the flight the flap sprung open - causing some alarm. The pilot attempted a swift landing at North Weald but failed to notice
the glider launch cable untill the last minute or two and then attempted an overshoot that resulted in a crash landing in the trees close to the
M11 motorway.
The net result being - sadly his passenger killed - and the pilot confined to a wheelchair for the remainder of his life.
...
A and C
4th Feb 2011, 15:26
Firstly it is called a CAMLOC fastner and second the aircraft will fly all day with the oil panel open provided you have the fuel to do so.
Pilot DAR
4th Feb 2011, 16:04
A sad, and believable story, and not the only one I have heard like it. A few things have flapped loose on me over the years....
However, the story is not really about an oil door adrift, but a pilot who did not continue to fly the aircraft adequately. Pilots would be alarmingly amazed at how much can be wrong with an aircraft, and it remains landable.
I never forget the photos of the damaged aircraft, which have returned from battle with all kinds of airframe no longer there. All those aircraft made it home in the control of a pilot, who did not allow layers of horrifying experiences from distracting him from his most important task - flying!
Aviate - Navigate - Communicate! Do as much as you can, but never stop doing the first, to attemp the second or third!
Katamarino
4th Feb 2011, 17:24
Sadly, on the face of it, this says more about the pilot than about any inadequacies with the machine :sad:
a Piper Arrow some years ago had problems with the oil inspection cover during pre flight checks - resulting in failing to close the flap down securely.
Consequently during the flight the flap sprung open - causing some alarm. The pilot attempted a swift landing at North Weald
Pasir
I remember a fatal accident at North Weald about 30 years ago when a PA 32 crashed near the new M11 (not open at the time) following a late overshoot from runway 20 because of some warning barriers left out on runway 31 (and across 20) by the Gliding Club from the day before. The accident happened very early in the morning before anyone was around.
If this is the same accident then I think you will find that the attempted landing was due to the front baggage locker door opening resulting in a reduced ability to climb over the higher ground and trees following the late go around.
Quite a different thing to an oil inspection panel opening...
UV
One pilot got killed in a TB10 (IIRC) when he found his luggage door was open, and got distracted and crashed the plane.
There would not have been any noticeable change in the flight behaviour.
I had the oil / dipstick cover pop open, very early on. If one closes it just the "right" way, it isn't fully latched.
... UV - Sounds almost certainly the identical incident. I knew the pilot involved to some extent. - He was flying with another ppl in the RH seat -
and told me that on the day of the flight he had loaded a set of
TV aerial poles. I am not familiar with Pipers and presumably the poles would have had some bearing or reason for opening a front hatch - From his description it was evident that he had had trouble fastening the hatch down.
From his description of events the overshoot brought the a/c down into the trees - killing his passenger and leaving him with broken bones and bleeding badly - taking him a very long time to painfully exit the Piper - slide down the tree to painfully crawl onto the motorway and flag down a vehicle. Apparantly there was no one on the airfield to have witnessed the crash.
...
Kerling-Approsh KG
4th Feb 2011, 20:43
Don't forget that private pilots, like motorcyclists, rock climbers, and horse riders, have the absolute right to kill themselves or confine themselves to wheelchairs for their natural lives. Their training takes them to a minimum standard, which should not endanger the general public more than is deemed reasonable.
Professional pilots are trained to different standards, and are allowed to be responsible for members of the public.
Far too few think of this... And the law makes no provision for the truth to be explained to people who put themselves into aircraft flown by PPL qualified pilots and thus expose themselves to this risk; I guess the assumption was that pilots would be truthful about the risk. This assumption has oftentimes been proved invalid.
"Professional pilots" is a redherring.
Passenger carriage, whether paid or not, is a responsibility.
The only difference in the passenger paying for the flight is that it is generally accepted that if somebody is paying, they have a greater expectation of safety. This is certainly true (and has led to a massive edifice of "safety" regulation and all the associated empire building to be created) but nobody expects to get killed as a passenger.
I have no problems with a solo pilot getting killed, because the State has no business dictating an individual's attitude to risk. Rock climbing, scuba diving, etc, is not regulated. For 2 reasons: (a) no 3rd party risk (a plane crashing on one's head is a massive emotional/institutional issue, exceedingly unlikely though it really is) and (b) no passengers to kill.
Kerling-Approsh KG
4th Feb 2011, 21:03
IO, you've got it wrong again. Where in the PPL syllabus is the student taught about 'explaining that the risks in the flight for your passengers are way beyond what they would otherwise find acceptable'? Ditto for parachute aircraft, charity joy rides, etc...
Aside from that, if the State provides healthcare, why should the taxpayer put right the broken bones etc from sporting accidents..? Should those who participate in dangerous sports not, at least, be required to self-insure for their healthcare?
Fuji Abound
4th Feb 2011, 21:44
Aside from that, if the State provides healthcare, why should the taxpayer put right the broken bones etc from sporting accidents..? Should those who participate in dangerous sports not, at least, be required to self-insure for their healthcare?
Dangerous, dangerous. Fatties should insure because they are fat, smokers because they spoke, drinkers becasue they drink, people born with diabetes because they were unlucky. It is a very dangerous line of argument.
Where in the PPL syllabus is the student taught about 'explaining that the risks in the flight for your passengers are way beyond what they would otherwise find acceptable'?
On what do you base that grand sounding statement? How many passengers that are not also pilots and/or are not aware of the risks get killed at the hands of PPLs in the UK each year?
Duct Tape Can Fix Anything | Telovation.com (http://www.telovation.com/articles/duct-tape-can-fix-anything.html)
Never Yet Melted Bear-damaged Plane Repaired With Duct Tape Then Flown Home (http://neveryetmelted.com/2010/01/15/bear-damaged-plane-repaired-with-duct-tape-then-flown-home/)
Fuji
There is an element of truth in his statement. While there are many PPLs who are the right stuff there are many who I wouldnt send my worst enemy up with.
Crash an aircraft because of an open oil cover??? Pilots have to deal with open doors, electrical fires, undercarriage problems, engine failures single and multi engine etc etc etc.
Anyone can fly when all is going well its when all is not going well that true pilots shine and should be expected to shine.
As Commercial pilots we do simulator work where we are loaded and loaded with every failure in the book and we are expected to deal with any problems which arise? Simulators soon pick up a lack of ability to deal with multitasking or handling multiple problems or a pilot who will sit there frozen.
You read something like the above and sorry but some poor wives husband,childs father lies dead because the pilot was not up to it? Harsh but what can be harsher than what the wife of that dead passenger thinks now.
A tragic situation but one which should not have happened! whos fault???
Pace
Gertrude the Wombat
4th Feb 2011, 22:34
Crash an aircraft because of an open oil cover??? Pilots have to deal with open doors, electrical fires, undercarriage problems etc etc etc.
I'm sure I remember reading of a pilot who misdiagnosed an electical fire as an engine fire, turned off the engine instead of the master switch, then crashed and died.
Where in the PPL syllabus is the student taught about 'explaining that the risks in the flight for your passengers are way beyond what they would otherwise find acceptable'?
Dunno where it is in the syllabus but I certainly managed to learn it. I don't phrase the warning quite like that, but I do point out that standards for amateur and professional pilots are not the same.
Fuji Abound
4th Feb 2011, 22:52
Pace
Yes, there is an element of truth.
We committ our lives totally to others rarely, but every time we get in a car we make that committment. There is no easy answer. I recall the line from Top Gun - something along the line the US government trust me so that better be good enough for you. Well every time an examiner issues a PPL or driving licence they "trust" that person to carry passengers. No one says when you get in a car with a licensed driver the risks may be way beyond those you consider acceptable. Depending on how you assess risk the risks of private flying may be greater, but statistically the risk is so small both are in the noise, even if the one more than the other.
Are commercial pilots likely to do a better job than a PPL - yes, undoubtedly, they are more current and their training more focused. I guess a HGV driver or a taxi driver is likely to do a better job than you or me ont he roads.
I doubt there are many people who dont understand there is a risk associated with flying light aircraft. I cant think of anyone who is not a pilot that have joined me who were not aware they were partaking in a "risky" activity. Isnt flying light aircraft dangerous? In fact if anything I would assess their perception of the risk to be way out of proportion with the actual risk.
Frankly I am fed up with the way we molly coddle adults.
I think the requirements for a PPL adequate and proportionate. It is good enough for one of the most regulated industries - and it is good enough for me.
but I do point out that standards for amateur and professional pilots are not the same.
They are not, but why should they be?
The demands placed on a professional pilt are quite different. On the one hand the pilot is operating in a multi crew complex enviroment usually in an aircraft that is unlikely to fair well should a forced landing be necessary and one in which cascade and complex failures are more likely. On the other hand the typcal PPL flying a SEP will utlimately be far more dependent on basic stick and rudder skills when things go wrong, cascade failures will be very rare and multi crew skills irrelevant. The greatest risk to a PPL is allowing their stick and rudder skills to erode or to committ to IMC without being prepared and current - avoid these fundamental mistakes and almost every accident is avoidable or can be mitigated to damage limited.
Unusual Attitude
4th Feb 2011, 22:54
As others have said already, an aircraft will remain in the air and perfectly controllable with all sorts of bits open / hanging off. Distraction however is certainly be one of the worst contributing factors to an accident if you let it get the better of you and there are numerous examples of both private and proffesional pilots dying because of it.
I've had doors come open or partially unlatched on Pipers and Cessnas, a generator failure on a night flight, a carb heat knob and cable come off in my hand, a laser pen attack at night, a radio failure on short finals and a variety of other weird and wonderful equally minor incidents. None of these were of any real drama at the time but any of them could have become fatal if allowed to distract from the task of flying.
Having said that I did allow myself to get distracted whilst solo in a JP3 several years ago when the U/C failed to retract after take-off despite much mashing of the U/C retract button. Whilst fiddling with this the sleeve of my flying suit got caught on the throttle bringing the power back without me noticing. The JP3 is lacking in power at the best of times but is a real dog with the gear and flaps still dangling and I was fortunate enought to check the ASI just as it was decelerating through 100kts..... Full throttle and lowering the nose quickly rectified the problem however a few more seconds and it might have been a very different matter had the engine spooled down much further and the sink rate kept building...
There but for the grace of god and all that.......
I'm sure I remember reading of a pilot who misdiagnosed an electical fire as an engine fire, turned off the engine instead of the master switch, then crashed and died.
Gertrude
So what? You have found another one who isnt up to it? Ok we all make mistakes but even taking what you say and the guy switched off the engine why crash and die and why mistake an electrical fire for an engine fire? Panic?
I have been in that situation with an air duct fan fire in a citation at night. 24000 feet mid channel heading to the Balearic isles. The smoke was so dense and choking you could hardly see a couple of feet.
We handled it correctly and landed at Biggin Hill met by the emergency services. Had to throw my clothes away they were so polluted by that accrid smoke. Smoke like that in the dark not a good experience.
But that is what our passengers private or commercial should expect from us and I am nothing special.
But an oil cover??? Poor sod should never have been flying that aircraft! Why? simply he wasnt up to it!
Pace
Fuji Abound
4th Feb 2011, 23:33
But an oil cover??? Poor sod should never have been flying that aircraft! Why? simply he wasnt up to it!
Harsh, but right.
Pilot DAR
5th Feb 2011, 00:50
Are commercial pilots likely to do a better job than a PPL - yes, undoubtedly, they are more current and their training more focused.
....Is a statement which is extremely arguable, and probably has little basis in fact. The "better job" will be done by the person who has the better attitude overall. The letters printed on their license will have, at most, a passing relationship to this.
My experience has been that a conciensious PPL owner is every bit as likely to care for his aircraft, flight, and passengers, with the care of a CPL. In my days I have flown with many CPL's who were very "wet behind the ears", and probably more dangerous, because they had been annointed CPL's and wer now magical. Three of them managed to kill themselves, in aircraft which I, a meer PPL at the time, had sucessfully test flown with no problem. There I am, the PPL, trying to explain to the investigator how the magical CPL could not keep the plane under control, and the flight within his skill set. It was not the fault of the plane...
On the other hand, I have known many PPL's who said "I fly within my skills, and don't fly in xxx conditions, because it is beyond my skill. They have flown safely for decades, and have a safe attitude.
I flew 33 years and 5500 hours as a PPL, obtaining my CPL last summer. Aside from how I sign logbook entries, I'm not doing anything differently now as a CPL, than I did as a PPL.... Maybe I'm safe, maybe I'm not, but I can endanger people for hire now!
Ryan5252
5th Feb 2011, 03:35
'The Kings' gave a good presentation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el5I2WsJsQA&feature=related) on risk managment and is an interesting watch. It is stated that GA is on par with motorcycling in terms of risk.
The difference between the 'Training' for a Private Pilot V Commercial Pilot has been discussed in detail but I think it's worth pointing out that there is actually, IMHO, no difference between the training of a private pilot or commercial pilot. We both do the same training, it's just the guy who goes on to get paid for flying continues with further training! I fly to the same standard as they did when they had 100 hours and I'd challenge anyone who questions my airmanship, skills or regard for safety based only on the colour of my licence or the hours in my logbook. Nor am I saying that Im as safe as a CPL, of course not, but then we're not comparing like for like are we?
Where in the PPL syllabus is the student taught about 'explaining that the risks in the flight for your passengers are way beyond what they would otherwise find acceptable?How do you know the risks are 'way beyond' what any passenger would find acceptable?
Big Pistons Forever
5th Feb 2011, 05:23
"Professionalism" in the truest sense of the word IMO ultimately has nothing to do with the license held or even the total number of flying hours. I think it is largely defined by the attitude of the pilot. I know many PPL's I consider extremely professional because they have a clear understanding of the capabilities and limitations of their training and license and plan flights that are within their abilities. They also understand that learning doesn't stop when the PPL shows up in the mail and understand the personal responsibility to maintain their skills that is implicit in exercising the privileges of a pilots license. I also know a discouragingly large number of pilots who hold CPL's and even ATPL's who IMO are wholly unprofessional in the manner they fly, because of the poor and often dangerous attitude they display.
But not being able to successfully land an aircraft after a trivial malfunction like an open oil access door to me speaks of a profound failure to maintain basic flying skills. I think that this one area where too many PPL's are failing, especially those PPL's that own their own airplanes and thus do not have at least the minimal skills maintainance check requirements that renter pilots get. I realize these are harsh words but I think it is past time the GA community stops making excuses for pilots who are unwilling to maintain adequate skills by means of regular recurrent training, attending safety seminars, keeping up with regulatory and airspace changes, adequately plan x country flights etc etc.
Ryan
A student could go direct to a flight school study 14 ATP exams full time. He could run through a PPlL Then the Multi and IR do all the other bits which train him to work in a professional environment and come out with a frozen ATP.
He may have gone through various aptitude tests to see if he had the right attributes for being a pilot.
He has to be better trained and to higher standards than a basic PPL?
The PPL is a different animal who take up flying for different reasons, some not the right reasons ?
They will come from all walks of life and all age groups as well as all income levels but they are leisure pilots. Some will have the right aptitude some won't.they are trained to a minimum standard to fly in good weather and in simple aircraft.
Next we have experience? The PPL may limit his experience to flying within his licence limitations or may add an IMCR or even an IR and a multi engine. He may be wealthy enough to fly 100 hrs per year plus but probably 20 to 30 hrs per year.
The guy with the frozen ATP may have gone for a type rating and be flying up to 900 hrs per year.
While the Experienced PPL with the right aptitude may be an excellent pilot we are such a broad church that does not hold true for all.the PPL may turn into a better pilot in what he does they are as different as chalk and cheese.Different doesn't always mean better.
Pace
Commercial (jet) ops are much safer for a number of reasons which barely relate to the training originally received:
- 2 pilots
- operational support from base
- strict guidelines for go/no-go decisionmaking (and the other pilot is supposed to spill the beans on you if you bend the rules)
- lots of currency
- recurrent training
- GPWS
- non-varying routes
- very mission-capable hardware (de-iced, cat3c, wx radar, 35k+ op ceiling, etc)
- pilot recruitment concentrating on an "accountant" character profile
- GPWS
- GPWS
Start removing too many of the above and all these wonderful 14-exam CPLs and ATPs start crashing pretty quickly, just like the rest of "us".
10540
We were not discussing whether commercial ops are safer than light GA aircraft.
Obviously they are far far safer.
What Does better mean? Better at flying a PA28? OCAS in IMC ?
Well if he has an IR prob Yes over the IMCR but prob not over the PPL IR
As a group rather than individuals yes they would be better because of their higher training levels but mostly because the majority willl have had aptitude screening and will be more of a uniform standard than the PPL as a group.
The pilot who makes a good Ferry pilot is different to the pilot who makes a good airline pilot who is different to the pilot who makes good Red Bull racer etc.
There is training and experience. Experience prob counts for more whatever flying you do and of course aptitude which is the ingredient which is not uniform in the PPL group and I refer you to the accident that started this conversation.
Pace
S-Works
5th Feb 2011, 08:16
When we test for a class or type rating we test at exactly the same standard. Take a look at the SRG1157 form and see of you can see any allowances for PPL holders. When we perform a test we don't test 'harder' for someone who is taking paying passengers over non paying. We test to ensure that everyone meets the same standard regardless.
Where the real difference lies is in that a working CPL will generally be more current due to the volume of hours flown and the constant checking within company SOP's whereas it is easier for a PPL to become rusty due to lack of currency.
The discussion should be around currency and professionalism rather than the differences between a CPL and a PPL. Every pilot should fly like a professional. To suggest that a private pilot is participating in a dangerous sport is just ludicrous.
Fuji Abound
5th Feb 2011, 08:21
Are commercial pilots likely to do a better job than a PPL - yes, undoubtedly, they are more current and their training more focused.
....Is a statement which is extremely arguable, and probably has little basis in fact. The "better job" will be done by the person who has the better attitude overall. The letters printed on their license will have, at most, a passing relationship to this.
Really - which part is arguable and in which context?
I am not referring to individuals but to the population as a whole. Of course some PPLs will be "better" and of course the skill set of a PPL in some aspects is different than a ATPL.
However, an ATPL on average will be significantly more current than a PPL, significantly more comfortable in the flying enviroment, and likely to be more methodical when it comes to resolving a "situation".
The stick and rudder skills required to fly a SEP are in some aspects different and there are some aspects of flying a SEP at which the typical ATPL will perform no better or even worse than a current PPL flying SEPs.
I speak from experience. I have flown with quite a few current ATPLs who have either been out of light aircraft for a while or fly them regularly. In my exeprience they are as a group, focused, skilled and not surprisingly very comfortable in the cockpit enviroment. On average they are signficanty better than the average PPL flying maybe 30 or 40 hours a year.
For me no surprises there.
and so to the original post. I cant imagine many ATPLs being phased by the incident mentioned, whereas clearly this PPL was. I can imagine many other incidents which might phase the average PPL and probably wouldnt phase the average ATPL.
So yes of course there are skills unique to each discipline of flying. I wouldnt want to guarantee how well a typical ATPL would cope with an induced spin compared with a typical PPL in current aerobatic discipline but I bet on average a typical SEP current ATPL will outperform a typical current PPL in a range of aspects of flying a SEP.
As I said before a PPL has met the regulatory standard. At that time at least he was considered good enough to receive a license and that is good enough for me. However skills degrade or improve with use. An ATPL is unlikely to be allowed to let his skills degrade below a minimium, whereas a PPL must accept greater responsibility for self regulation whilst realising that if he allows his currency to fall to around the minimium regulatory level his skills may well have degraded to a level which is lower than when he was considered good enough to be licensed.
Ryan5252
5th Feb 2011, 13:13
I realise we have entered somewhat of cul-de sac re private v commercial. The above replies echo my own thoughts and the general consensis seems to be both are trained to suit different mission profiles - therefore 'skills' will vary accordinly. Currency is obviously a key issue; not just on how many hours one may log p/a but in terms of the flying they are doing.
I have heard horror stories of some guys who come to the club and firstly are surpirsed, even shocked, to learn they need to be checked out before hiring aircraft because they have 150hrs and a blue book. The standard of the flying reported is a real eye opener; in one case a pilot who estimated his position 35nm north from where he actually was - if he continued on track he would have entered CAS. Another were the instructor had to take avoiding action to prevent CFIT. Both pilots would have recieved more training than a PPL holder but neither flew to standards which would be satisfy a PPL/SEP examiner not because they are poor pilot's but because they are not current on SEP operations and the principles which apply; basically your on your own don't f*** it up!
I would expect a PPL/IMC holder to fly down an ILS to the same standard as CPL/IR holder nor I would I expect him to be efficent in a MCC enviroment in IMC.
We each have different skills to enable us to accomplish the type of flying we do. It is critical that we all identify these skills and know their limits. It is equally critical that one is confident and recognises his/her ability so should it all hit the fan one at least the sense of mind to do something about it.
This topic started from the poor guy who downed his plane after the oil inspection cover popped open in flight. Unfortunately the pilot allowed the aircraft to escape him with tragic consequences. However, lets also the consider the topic where the aircraft 'Crashed' at Headcorn after the bloddy donk fell off!!! The pilot seemed to have executed a text book forced landing!
S-Works
5th Feb 2011, 17:12
I would expect a PPL/IMC holder to fly down an ILS to the same standard as CPL/IR holder nor I would I expect him to be efficent in a MCC enviroment in IMC.
We each have different skills to enable us to accomplish the type of flying we do. It is critical that we all identify these skills and know their limits. It is equally critical that one is confident and recognises his/her ability so should it all hit the fan one at least the sense of mind to do something about it.
With all due respect you are talking through you arse or your ego. Taking aside the IMC minima and sticking with an IR so we compare apples with apples I would expect a PPL/IR holder to be able to fly SPA down to the same standard as a CPL/IR holder. We can't really discuss a PPL in a MCC environment now can we?
Single pilot IFR operations I would expect 2 candidates arriving for test PPL & CPL to perform to exactly the same standard or neither will pass. Tuck your ego back in your little blue/green book.
Ryan5252
5th Feb 2011, 17:17
With all due respect you are talking through you arse or your ego. Respect duly noted thank you. That was a typo supposed to read "I would not expect a PPL..."
The wonders of the iPhone eh?!
Taking aside the IMC minima and sticking with an IR so we compare apples with apples I would expect a PPL/IR holder to be able to fly SPA down to the same standard as a CPL/IR holder.
Fair enough take out the IMC-R for a moment, I never said that a PPL/IR would not be expected to fly instruments to the same standard as CPL/IR of course he should it's the same rating!
As we're comparing apples with apples. I have seen quite a few CPL Pilots with a SEP rating who cannot display the nessecary SEP flying skills one would expect a PPL candidate to display on a skills test.