Inspirational jaguar pilot story

[STANDTO]

Some years ago, I read a story about a jag pilot who underwent pretty major surgery, in the shape of a heart transplant or similar, and actually returned to flying duties. He later died in a flying accident.

I think it was in the readers digest of all places! Can anyone point me in the direction of the full story. It struck me as something special at the time, and I have not been able to find it since

Ta

STANDTO

[treadigraph]

Think this chap was a back-seater in a two-seat Jag which had a mid-air with a Cessna 152. It wasn't all that long ago...

[Magic Mushroom]

STANDTO,

I believe that the chap in question underwent a heart and lung transplant before regaining his aircrew med cat (although he was only allowed to fly twin stick jags with another pilot.

At the time of the flying accident (around 92/93 I think), he was OC Ops at Coltishall and was highly active in raising money for organ donor charities.

I believe that he was actually in the front seat of the Jag when it had a mid air with a Cessna that was illegally conducting air-ground photography over Wales. Both RAF guys banged out although only the backseater (OC 41 I believe) survived. The Cessna pilot (who'd got a record for breaking CAA rules regarding low level photograhy activities) was also killed.

I think that these details are fairly acurate, although I await corrections from any Jag mate.

Regards,
M2

[STANDTO]

That'll be the one. Absolutely incredible story. I find it incredible on two fronts: the first being the amazing feat of human bravery insofar as to return to flying at all, and the second being the fact that the RAF ever let him near a Chippy again, let alone a Jag. Notwithstanding the built in safety angle (another pilot) I would have simply thought an 'apply the book' mentality to be the default position.

You just wouldn't belive that after being given that second chance he would be taken away so soon. Somebody upstairs obviously wanted him for greater things.........

[moony]

I think his name was John Marden, he was part of my station commissioning board at Coltishall in 88.

[Pie Man]

The accident happen on 29 August 1991 at Carno in Wales. The Jaguar was in collision with a Cessna 152 G-BMHI, details are in the AAIB Accident Report 2/92. Sorry can't find details in the web.

Regards

Pie

[Jackonicko]

The back-seater was Bill Pixton, and the Cessna (being flown single-crew) was flying a 'photograph rich people's houses' sortie.

The Cessna was being flown by a single pilot/photographer (who was therefore undertaking no effective lookout) at 500 ft in a known LFA.

Pilot Magazine had the audacity to publish articles criticising the Jag crew, implying that this Neanderthal had been 'murdered by the RAF'. In this instance, I joined the chorus of contempt for journos.

Mardon was a real loss, but the Cessna pilot (while no-one deserves to die) seems to have been a Darwin Awards nominee......

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I remember this very well. I lived just down the valley, a piece of the Jag engine landed in my Nans garden and I had just appeared in the local paper as being 'local boy sponsored by RAF'.

The valley in question was indeed a notified exit point from a very busy at the time LFA. It was in the middle of the working week during a peak time of year for military exercises. The Cessna was at or about 500' agl, circling in a high wing aircraft with a single pilot conducting aerial photography.

The crass absence of any hint of airmanship was only marginaly less contemptable than the local medias instant condemnation of the RAF. There was a local political agenda running along the lines of 'we said this would happen - the RAF is risking our lives flying over our houses so fast and low'.

That nobody on the ground in Carno was injured really does merit the tag of miracle. A significant chunk of engine/fuselage landed in the local primary school playground 10 minutes before break. A turbine embedded itself 2ft in the ground of a council house back garden within which a 2yr old was playing at the time.

That the RAF carried 99% of the media blame for an accident that was 99% not its fault was and is galling in the extreme.

At the time I managed to get a letter published in the local rag pointing out the obvious. Unfortunately it was mostly drowned out by the plethora of liberal do-gooders and compensation junky farmers wagging gleeful sneering fingers at the Royal Air Force.

It was with great delight in 1999 that I found myself at a local function with the journalist who has written and led the ignorant diatribe against military low flying at the time of the Carno collision. I took the opportunity to lambast him into next week about the whole deal. I catalogued his errors, demolished his arguments and condemned his partisan bias for about an hour. He promised to write a retrospective on the next anniversary taking on board all my comments.

It never happened.

Swine the lot of them.

RIP John Marden, Sir,


WWW

[Airbedane]

Standto,

Not sure why you criticise the RAF for letting John Marden get back to flying a Jag. He was an outstanding guy, and an outstanding pilot - I speak from personal experience as I shared two tours with him on each of Jaguar and Hawk.

You can't keep a good guy on the ground and his heart-lung transplant had been fully successful. The latter didn't take away his pilot skill, indeed, it gave him the physical strength and stamina to enable him to practice it. So full marks to the RAF for letting him continue to practice his art. He was also a good instructor, so had he continued he would have passed on his skills to the next generation, which is a good investment for the RAF, n'est ce pas?

Just prior to his death he was planning a charity flight in a light aircraft from John O'Groats (sp??) to Lands End. He told me about it during a conversation when he also challenged me to a game of squash. Unfortunately, neither came to fruition.

I missed him, and I still do - he was a great loss to the team.

A

[WorkingHard]

To quote the AAIB report the cause of the accident "Was the failure of the 2 pilots to see each other." Any loss of life, civilian or military, is a tragedy and all possible steps should be taken to avoid such tragedies. The AAIB report does point out that the Cessna was hit from about the 7 o'clock position by the jaguar at about 450k. Whilst the cause is a fact it is misleading in the extreme to say the civilian pilot contributed to his own death because he did not see the jaguar. He never had any chance of seeing the jaguar from that position. And before anyone jumps please remember both a/c were in the open FIR and the Cessna was perfectly legal. What was the cause of the accident? Do not blame one or the other; a balance is required from which we need to learn to prevent tragedy.

[Mowgli]

STANDTO - I worked with John and you now have the facts. I was junior to him when I knew him and your title actually describes him well - inspirational - but in a completely understated sort of way. A mild mannered "gentleman" who was talented in the air and on the ground.

Some of the replies here suggest they thought it unwise to let him fly in a Jaguar, but wasn't that the point - to prove that you could fly in a fast jet after having a heart and lung transplant? It must give great confidence to those needing the operation - that's his legacy to them.

His funeral was in Norwich cathedral and if I remember correctly, a man who'd recieved John's heart was there.

When we are so often disappointed with our leaders and so called "role models" in public life, I feel privileged to have known John when I was younger.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

WorkingHard - I disagree I am afraid.

I would apportion the blame with the Cessna pilot.

Never mind about what's legal - what about airmanship? To be doing what he was, where he was, when he was - was to invite a disaster that killed two other good men and so nearly wiped out a village primary school.

I know the Cessna pilot didn't wake up that morning with that intent. I know a chain of events and random happenings led him to be there. I know he was probably a nice bloke with a loving family and acres of mates.

But professionally he was culpable and no amount of being nice about it can change the fact.


WWW

[WorkingHard]

WWW - I have to disagree with the conclusion. IF the Cessna pilot was photographing for commercial gain then that was and is clearly illegal and needs to be dealt with elsewhere. Other than that he was perfectly legal in what he was flying and how. The fact is he was taken out by an a/c that he had never any chance of seeing so how can it be morally correct to state that the accident was caused by neither pilot seeing each other? The jaguar was no doubt also perfectly legal in what he was doing. So I asked the question as to who (if anyone) is to blame. I see your view but it is not mine. Should he have not been there because he may conflict with the RAF? Should the RAF not be there because they may conflict with civilian a/c? Is there finally a case for restricting low level FJ to designated areas? I do not have the answers BUT I do know it was not the fault of the Cessna pilot to the extent that is portrayed

[Jackonicko]

Standto:

The legality of what the Cessna pilot was doing is a grey area, but his lack of basic airmanship is beyond question.

1) At 500 ft he was probably in breach of the ANO. What legitimate reason did he have to be so low?
2) Why would he have been photographing houses (SOLO) if not for commercial gain? (If it was a mate's house, where was the mate?)
3) How can anyone maintain a proper lookout while taking photos using a handheld camera (it wasn't a glider type turning point photo rig)?
4) How can anyone be stupid enough to think its OK to take photos under such circumstances?
5) How can anyone be stupid enough to fly at 500 ft in that area?

He wasn't grabbing an opportunity photo, he'd been orbiting the area for a sustained period, and wasn't flying runs with clearing turns at each end.

The fact that he was his from his seven o clock is completely immaterial. Where was his lookout? Even civilian PPLs should maintain a degree of SA, even if most of us don't use that acronym!

No-one deserves to die, but had he survived, he should have had the book thrown at him. Hard.

[Daifly]

If anything good came out of this incident it was the fact that this, and the subsequent Tornado/Jetranger crash in Cumbria, led to the introduction of the CANP (Civil Aircraft Notification Procedures) which have helped protect many low level operators since then.

It also led to the, now industry standard, pilot and photographer, rather than one guy doing the lot.

It was such a sad incident because he'd been featured heavily on both TV and Radio in the previous few months following his return after the transplant.

I was the last person to speak to the C152 pilot on his way across Welshpool - he did at least call up on the way through the ATZ. Whilst what he was doing was very much a grey area, you have to think back to that time - nobody ever batted an eyelid that single pilot photography was happening, usually by PPL's building up hours for the Self Improver route.

Sadly, it's an emotive subject so I have a feeling this isn't going to be won by either side.

[Titan Locked]

The RAF investigation was carried out in parallel with that of the AAIB. The accident occurred in uncontrolled airspace at low level and in good visibility. The front-seat pilots medical category was not considered to be a contributory factor. The cause of the accident was considered to be the failure of the Jaguar crew and the pilot of the Cessna to see each other's aircraft in time to take avoiding action. There was a number of contributory factors. The Jaguar pilots were considered to have planned and briefed their sortie correctly. Civil operators who intend to carry out aerial work at altitudes of 500ft agl or below, if permission is granted, can notify such flights to the Tactical Booking Cell. The Cessna pilot did not do this . Had he done so, a warning under the terms of the Civil Aircraft Notification Procedure (CANP) would have been issued and the Jaguar would have been required to avoid the notified area. The Jaguar was assessed as being between 300 and 400ft agl at the time of the collision and complying with military low flying regulations. The Cessna was operating in contravention of the Air Navigation Order in that aircraft should not fly closer than500ft to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure . With both aircraft flying about 350ft agl, the Cessna would have remained hidden form the Jagyar pilots by the terrain until about 10secs before collision. At between 10secs and 5secs to collision, the theoretical chance of the Jaguar pilots detecting the Cessna was about 60%, assuming a continuous, unrestricted search. However, the pilots were probably looking to the left of track and the probability of detection was further reduced because the Cessna was 10.5deg right of the Jaguars nose and in this position would have been partly obscured by the windscreen and HUD support struts in the front and rear cockpits repectively. In the last 5 secs before collision, the chance of detection rose significantly but was still adversely affected by the canopy obstructions. It was extremely unlikely that the Cessna pilot would have seen the Jaguar approaching from a constant bearing in his rear left quarter when his attention was most likely focused on the ground ahead. Despite the high theoretical probability of detection in the last 5 secs, the attention of one or both Jaguar pilots was directed away from the Cessna for at least part of the critical period by a particular ground feature. However, a minimum of 5 secs would have been required to detect and avoid another aircraft and the collision was probably already unavoidable when the ground feature was sighted.

Not withstanding the facts and figures, IMHO, the bottom line is that had the Cessna pilot complied with the rules in force at the time this accident would not have happened and he, and a very noble service pilot, would not be dead.

TL

[Daifly]

CANP wasn't in existence until after this accident and what proof was there that he was in breach of Rule 5? After all, one can be a 1' above a field and still not be in breach of it if you are not near the said Vessel, Vehicle or Structure.

I'm really not trying to start an argument over this, it is meant entirely as a question.

[BEagle]

Nonsense. The CANP procedure was around long before this accident.

Having back-plotted the relative geometry of the ac in this accident, the C152 with its high wing layout was 'blind' for most of its manoeuvre profile. The rate of optical spin of the C152 relative to the Jaguar was very low and it might well have appeared as immobile in the Jaguar's field of view until too late.

This was a tragic accident, but to state that the C152 pilot infringed Rule 5 is probably incorrect. That he operated the aeroplane in an avoidably hazardous manner is perhaps correct.

I recall the Jag crew as having been very experienced aviators; no rules were broken, but 3 people died and very nearly many more on the ground. The light aircraft world learned many things from this accident - the professionalism of RAF low flying was never in doubt.

Please let us not tarnish the memory of the deceased by perpetuating the unnecessary name-calling which sadly was all too evident at the time.

[WorkingHard]

TL - "Civil operators who intend to carry out aerial work at altitudes of 500ft agl or below, if permission is granted, can notify such flights to the Tactical Booking Cell."

You seem to be under some misaprehension Sir. I agree with much of what Beagle has said and as I said before we ALL must learn from such tragic accidents. That said, from whom do you suppose we need permission and for what? I am most intrigued. Rule 5 may or may not have been broken by the C152 pilot; that is a matter of conjecture whatever the AAIB findings. There is NO PROOF that he was below 500 ft.

TL - I see you're a Mil FJ pilot. As such I would have expected more accuracy in your posting here. I repeat permission is not necessary to fly a civilian a/c at any height and certainly not from the military CANP section. IF rule 5 is broken and can be proved then it is for the CAA to prosecute and guess what - it is still nothing to do with the military. You don't control the open FIR just yet.

[Jackonicko]

"Permission is not necessary to fly a civilian a/c at any height and certainly not from the military CANP section."

Maybe so, but what would good airmanship dictate in this case?

"Rule 5 may or may not have been broken by the C152 pilot; that is a matter of conjecture whatever the AAIB findings. There is NO PROOF that he was below 500 ft."

Maybe so, but what height would good airmanship suggest that he should have been flying at?

"Nobody ever batted an eyelid that single pilot photography was happening, usually by PPL's building up hours for the Self Improver route."

Simply incorrect. I heard many people condemning this kind of foolhardiness in the bar at Booker and at Elstree - and such condemnation was aimed at people who were not taking photos in known areas of intense military FJ activity, but over leafy Borehamwood or Henley on Thames. Anyone with any grasp of airmanship, or common sense, would not have done this.

It's easy to get sucked into the technicality of whether the Cesnna pilot was, or was not, technically in breach of the ANO. I can see that there's room for argument on that fact.

There is, however, no such argument as to whether or not he was operating sensibly, nor as to whether he was displaying proper airmanship. He may have been within his legal rights to have been flying where he was, at the height he was, without notification, but to have been doing so by choice was foolish, and this error was compounded by his negligent attitude in flying this sortie without a safety pilot or a dedicated photographer.

Anyone who would deliberately go out and fly a photographic sortie, solo, using a hand-held camera, is, almost by definition, a complete liability. What he was doing required him to focus far too much of his attention down the camera viewfinder, and he was flying at low level unnecessarily. I'm a PPL myself, and I'm by no means a Saint, but I wouldn't for one moment consider going off to photograph houses from 500 ft. If I did need to fly at that height in that area, I'd notify - it's common sense and basic airmanship, even if it's not a legal requirement. The ANO expects pilots to display basic common sense, and to exercise proper airmanship AND to obey the rules. One out of three is not sufficient, even if the rules were obeyed.

My suspicion is that the rules were breached, however. Flying at 350 ft would make it difficult to avoid flying closer than 500ft to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure (especially while your attention was focused on photography) while I can't imagine that the pilot was not intending to charge for the photos he took, even if only to defray some of his flying costs.

Finally, I think that the accident took only two lives, since the Jag backseater, Bill P, survived and thrived.

[teeteringhead]

Final point correct Jacko - Bill Pix still with us.

John Mardon (note correct spelling) was a rotary mate before getting a fast jet crossover, so figures in my logbook lots - and we lost many braincells together, although he nevr looked old enough to drink legally!

It was indeed his lungs that needed changing, but the state of the art then meant that you had to do a heart and lung job, which leaves servicable ticker on the shelf at stores. Which was duly given to (I think) a London taxi-driver who was indeed at the funeral....... quite odd to meet him.

And then there was the Chinook mate who hit wires in Australia and provided 2 servicable kidneys - I guess they get well used in Oz, we were all amazed they were still usable.

[WorkingHard]

Jackonicko – You are of course quite right in what you have said, very poor airmanship was displayed and I agree that it is completely idiotic to do anything but fly the aircraft. It is very sad that 2 people had to die. I just wanted to make the point that if TL, who by his profile is a FJ pilot, believes that civilians need permission from the military to carry out certain tasks/flights etc then we may have a very real problem in that when no such record of permissions exist the FJs may think all is clear. And before I get “shot down” it was TL that made the statement not I. I personally get straight up to cruising level whenever/ wherever possible so I rarely see or know of FJs, but the issue needs to be crystal clear. WE DO NOT NEED PERMISSION FROM THE MILITARY

[Jackonicko]

Fair enough. I read "We don't legally need" as "we shouldn't seek to get..."

We all seem to be on the same page of the hymn sheet....

[Daifly]

Beagle Whilst we can't all be totally correct all of the time, I wouldn't just dismiss what I said as "nonsense" quite so quickly.

You are correct in that it did not instigate the whole Procedure - I believed it did, but the accident resulted in a change to the CANP to include all flying up to 1000' AGL, please refer to http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP625.pdf from pdf Page 30, document page 44, and a greater publicity campaign in the Civil world. This campagin is made my assumption that it did introduce the Procedure.

Indeed it also led to the tightening up on procedures for camera aircraft.

"The light aircraft world learned many things from this accident - the professionalism of RAF low flying was never in doubt" Agreed, but what I posted was not "nonsense".

[You want it when?]

I've read about the Jaguar pilot, and it is inspirational to read about someone who overcame the odds, adapted to his surroundings to keep doing osmething he loved. It would have been "easy" to have taken a desk job or sold his story to the trade comics.

As a recent PPL "look out" is up their as critical, if you're flying somewhere where others might be then doubly so, if my neck doens't hurt after an hour or two of circuits then I've not been watching enough. Irrepsective of what the air boards said - the C152 was flying in congested airspace, maybe with an enhanced lookout or a different angle for the sun the Jaguar could have avoided it...

But as is see it (IMHO of course) if you play on a motorway and get hit by a car then you're a twit. Still sad to see three lives wiped out.

[BEagle]

Daifly, you wrote "...CANP wasn't in existence until after this accident". That was nonsense; it had existed for years at the levels used by this C152.

[spekesoftly]

I seem to recall that 'CANP' was first introduced in the mid 1970s?

[PPRuNe Radar]

spekesoftly

You are correct ..CANP has been in existence since the 70's and the breakdowns of this system feature regularly in the AIRMISS reports (now called AIRPROX) where some one at 'Sqdn Ops' is sometimes blamed for misplotting and hence Mil crews fly through CANP notified areas (occasionally the aircrew get blamed too, but surely it can't be their fault ;) ).

Let's cut to bottom line here ... not what journos (whose knowledge of the rules panders to public opinion) or what other vested parties who should know the rules of the air better than they state on these pages, think.

BOTH aircraft were entitled to be in the airspace. FACT

Commanders of BOTH aircraft were charged with lookout to ensure that they did not collide with other aircraft.FACT

The Jaguar was (by the geometry of the collision) overtaking the Cessna and arguably by rules of the air should have given way (however, the see and be seen principle ALWAYS relys on either seeing or being seen). FACT

All that is certain is that 2 airmen are now dead because of a tragic collision. It could have been preventable .. there again, as both were entitled to be there, then it was possibly one of those which was bound to happen eventually. Somewhere, sometime.

Those that seem to think every rule is black and white should perhaps seek an appointment with our own Flying Lawyer at the next bash .... he has some excellent stories and cases which can shoot your opinion out of the water .. whatever it might happen to be .. trust me ;) I hereby renounce all commission :)

[Jackonicko]

PPRuNe radar,

Just so I have this clear, you're stating the belief that there was some kind of equivalence in the responsibility of both captains?

And that being the case you don't think that the Cessna pilot's conduct of his flight warrants any condemnation?

And that you therefore see nothing wrong with flying at 350 ft for no good reason in a known area of military low flying, and while doing so, undertaking an activity which guaranteed that it would be impossible to maintain a reasonable lookout?

And you don't think that there's any evidence to suggest that the Cessna pilot was stretching the rules wrt the 500 ft bubble and flying for hire and reward?

This idiot went off and deliberately flew at 350 ft in an area in which military activity was likely, failing to give proper notification, and then cruised around taking photos with a hand held camera, thereby ensuring that any lookout he maintained would be, at best, cursory. FACT!

Or don't you like that one?

[16 blades]

WorkingHard,

So there's "NO PROOF" that the C152 pilot was flying below 500'?

.........so how on earth do you suppose he was tailgated by a Jag at 350-400' (presumably this height would have been pulled off the ADR trace)??? One to ponder......

The question of lookout is a tricky one - you'd think having 4 pairs of eyes and lots of big windows makes a huge differece at low level, but it's not as advantageous as you might think. If you are on constant bearing to another aircraft, you probably won't notice it even if you're staring right at it until it's too late.

Whilst acknowledging that civvies do not need 'permission' to fly in Mil LFAs that are in class G, do you not agree that it is very foolhardy to put yourself in this height bracket at a known choke point on a weekday? You don't need 'permission' to slap a wild tiger's b***ocks either, but I'd wouldn't recommend it........

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

350' or 3500', it matters not. Single pilot taking photos of pretty houses on the ground whilst orbitting is not good airmanship.

[WorkingHard]

16 - Yes of course it was stupid of the Cessna pilot to do what he was doing and as others have said very poor airmanship indeed. I do not think the conclusions by the AAIB and the RAF Board of Enquiry portrays the correct "picture". Indeed it is a fact that the accident was the failure of the two pilots to see each other just as it is a fact that the Cessna had no chance of seeing the Jaguar approaching at that speed and from that angle. The Mil LFA covers the whole of the UK so it is rather difficult to avoid such areas.
Earlier in this thread a FJ pilot stated that we needed permission (presumably from CANP) to fly (where and when was not stated) so if no "permission" was sought do the FJ pilots think it is all clear? It was a sad and terrible accident in which 2 people were killed and that is what we must keep in mind. I would not be so presumptious as to apportion "blame" and I believe others should do the same where loss of life or serious injury is concerned. We need to dispel some obvious incorrect beliefs though.
A last question please - how was it established that the Jaguar was at 350 -400 feet at the time of the collision?

[Mowgli]

Workinghard - to answer your last question - you'd have to ask AIBB - they're experts in that sort of thing - as far as ADR trace (from an earlier reply from someone)- there wasn't one.

I think it's sad that this thread has gone this way. The title suggests a thread about an inspirational pilot, but has deteriorated into an unqualified investigation into who's to blame for what was a tragic accident.

There was an inquiry, conducted by experts, and there were lessons for all of us to learn.

These guys were unlucky, but the Cessna pilot had shortened the odds. Good airmanship would require the Cessna captain to notify his intentions through CANPs, and to take a crewmember or photographer - whatever - one flies and looksout while the other takes the photos.

All of these things could have been done, but that still doesn't stop aircraft hitting each other - it just reduces the chances. If you've heard of Dr James Reason's accident model you'll know what I mean.

There are no 100% guarantees. As a fellw aviator said to me recently "All you need to remember is - don't hit anything."

Respect to all who died in this accident.

Workinghard - Just let it rest will you? You say you don't want to apportion blame, so why did you bring it up in the first place? No one expected the Cessna pilot to see an aircraft in his 7 o clock, but it was still a failure that led to an accident. Accidents rarely happen through just one "failure". The human eye as Beagle has alluded to is poor at detecting small objects which have zero relative movement.

Lessons have been learnt, and I'm sure Workinghard displays excellent airmanship.

This was an inspirational story.

[WorkingHard]

Mowgli - well put subject closed

[Steve Davies]

Does anyone recall why Mardon did not survive? Seat failure? impact injury?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

This accident nearly cost the lives of hundreds of people in Carno. When bits of engines start landing at high velocity in primary school playgrounds then people have the right to start pointing fingers.

Which they did.

It was unfortunate and unfair that they via the media they mostly pointed their fingers at the RAF.

It is not inappropriate, on a specialist military aviation internet forum, to discuss the pros and cons of this, decade old, tragic accident.

Whilst all professional aviators, be they airborne or groundborne, have a natural tendency to see both sides in these instances - I am convinced that the Cessna pilot attracts the vast majority of blame for this accident.

How readily would people resort to stating the FACTS if that engine shroud had landed 55ft short and maimed class 2C instead of the corner of their playground next to their swings?

Cheers

WWW

[Jackonicko]

And to some extent, people's readiness to point the finger at the clown flying the Cessna on this thread merely balances some of the disgraceful coverage at the time - especially in Pilot.

My understanding is that Mardon ejected outside seat parameters, whereas Bill Pixton did not, due to the dynamic situation of the catastrophically damaged and departing Jaguar.

I met Bill Pixton a couple of times, and knew of him from others. He seems to have been an extremely inspirational bloke, - as a senior officer who could think outside the box, who fought like a Tiger for those he commanded, and who conducted himself with dignity, good humour and charm. He could certainly fool journos, anyway!

[ShyTorque]

I had my doorbell rung late one evening by someone trying to sell me an aerial photograph of my house. It had obviously been taken from about 300-400 ft agl, which meant the aircraft from which it was taken was probably on finals to the minor airfield near to which I live. I told the would-be vendor that I was not interested in buying; he then got quite agitated and demanded to know why.

I pointed out that as an amateur photographer (I didn't mention that I was a professional pilot), I thought it was badly out of focus and asked him who took the photo. He said that he took it himself whilst flying the aircraft. He then offered to sell me the photo unframed for less than half the original price. I declined.

Shortly afterwards, this pilot was excluded from the membership of, or the hiring of aircraft, from the flying club at the nearby airfield, of which I was a member. He had been followed "on a navex" by the CFI in another aircraft after allegations of illegal low flying, now substantiated.

Shortly after that he began hiring aircraft from another airfield in the area. Shortly after that he was killed in a mid-air collision with a Tornado in north Nottinghamshire, orbitting a village, flying at low level with a camera in what I would call fast jet alley.

Nuff said. Darwin rules.

[Jackonicko]

What I've never quite understood is why these blokes don't take a mate to either fly the aircraft (free flying would be payment enough for PPL holders) or to take the pix.

[MightyGem]

Working Hard, I don't think that TL was implying that you need permission from the military to fly below 500', but you do need it from the CAA.

[Steve Davies]

Jacko,

I have a friend who was due to fly just such a flight this weekend. He's a pro photographer and the pilot was a PPL holder.

When the Flying School they had booked with found out the purpose of the flight, they told the PPL that he could be construed as flying for hire and reward. They promptly terminated the arranged self-fly-hire. Maybe it's because of that kind of behaviour that the Darwin nominees go out solo?

[STANDTO]

Sorry Boys and Girls - just back in from 2 weeks in the Med

Just to clear up any misunderstanding from my original post - I am in no way critical of the decision to let your man back in the cockpit - I think it was bl**dy marvellous. what struck me was the fact he had cheated death, been sewn together by brilliant people, got back to the top of his game only to be wiped out so unnecessarily.

Reminds me of a bloke I knew, and some of you might have known - went by the name of Hughes - ex ATCO flt lt and was then ATCO at Blackpool. Big skydiver and a lovely bloke. Day before retirement at 49 - wired up a mower the wrong way and electrocuted himself.

The lord indeed moves in mysterious ways.

Wouldn't the Mardon story make a truly excellent film?

[STANDTO]

Sometimes it is amazing how things turn up

I was doing a life laundry this week, prior to moving post, and I found a cutting from our local rag that I kept, which had coverage about an awards ceremony some of our lot were at. Lo and behold, on the other, previously unread side, an article about transplants, and indeed, John Mardon.

Turns out that he was brought up in Colby, here on the Isle of Man, and worked as a delivery lad for the people who deliver our milk to the office!

He was awarded the DSM for a rescue in Oman, got the MBE in 1987 and then in 1990 the transplant took place.

:ok:

[PPRuNe Radar]

Jackonicko

Just so I have this clear, you're stating the belief that there was some kind of equivalence in the responsibility of both captains?

In terms of seeing and avoiding each other, then you have it spot on.

And that being the case you don't think that the Cessna pilot's conduct of his flight warrants any condemnation?

Poor airmanship and possible breaches of law (unconnected with the laws regarding the prevention of collisions) can't be condoned.

But perhaps the best line is to take that of the AAIB whose reporting is never intended to attach blame, merely highlight the causal factors and provide recommendations to prevent reoccurences.

And you don't think that there's any evidence to suggest that the Cessna pilot was stretching the rules wrt the 500 ft bubble and flying for hire and reward?

Neither of these rules are relevant to the rules for preventing aerial collisions. They are just part of the numerous factors which placed two aircraft in the same piece of sky with neither crew seeing the other aircraft. There are a whole host of factors we could point to which would have broken the chain leading up to the crash.

This idiot went off and deliberately flew at 350 ft in an area in which military activity was likely, failing to give proper notification

No notification was required, it is not mandatory. I would presume that both crews would be operating in the belief that other aircraft were likely to be encountered during their flights. The wisdom of the Cessna pilot is indeed questionable but he was just as entitled to be there as the Jaguar pilots were.

and then cruised around taking photos with a hand held camera, thereby ensuring that any lookout he maintained would be, at best, cursory. FACT!

Again, very poor airmanship. No question. But even with 100% attention to lookout, you can't guarantee to see every aircraft out there. The limitations, both in respect of human performance and physical characteristics (aircraft and terrain) in both this accident and as a general rule are well documented. We know that in this accident the chance of either pilot seeing each other was very small and the time available for the sighting to occur was a very small one. The odds were against them from the start.

Or don't you like that one?

Nope, I don't like the views from some that the RAF crew could do no wrong.

There will always be the taking of sides. It's human nature to be tribal. But as in all things the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

The professionalism of the RAF at low level is of course second to none.

[Jackonicko]

You get cowboys in military and civilian flying, but I do think that THIS RAF crew (Pixton and Marden) were exemplary professionals.

I also think that to go to such lengths to avoid the core fact is absolutely disgraceful. The Cessna pilot was acting with such gratuitously stupid and cavalier disregard to basic airmanship and common sense that he was criminally negligent - whether or not he remained just within the letter of the law). Whether or not he was technically entitled to be flying at the height he was (and in view of the 500 ft rule that's dubious) and whether or not he was legally taking photos (not for hire or reward) as he blundered aimlessly around over Carno he did have a duty to maintain a proper lookout, which his actions made impossible. Exercising a legal entitlement can sometimes just be pig headed stupidity. It's like stepping out onto a zebra crossing without looking first. The car driver should stop, cos you are entitled to step out into the road, but who is really to blame when he hits you? Notification may not have been mandatory, but it would have been wise. Why did he NEED to be where he was, doing what he was doing, in other words? Even if he was legally entitled to be flying at 350 ft where he was doing, he should not have been there without good reason. Had he been somewhere else a good man would still be with us.

This isn't about tribal loyalty. I have no tribal loyalty to RAF aircrew, whatsoever. In this context I'm just a PPL (so I'm part of the Cessna pilot's tribe), and I know what I'd have done in this idiot's position. If anything I'm angry because his behaviour reflects badly on me and people like me, and does so unfairly. Most of us do have some vestiges of common sense, and do try and maintain some semblance of basic airmanship.

Your attitude reminds me of the coverage in Pilot at the time, and I'm frankly astonished that any professional pilot could be quite so perverse. This bloke's poor airmanship and total lack of common sense were to blame for this accident, and yet you won't condemn it, but will make snide remarks about "the views from some that the RAF crew could do no wrong."

It sounds almost as if you don't think they could do anything right.....
Do you have some kind of resentment towards military aircrew, perhaps? Were you turned down by OASC? Did someone in a zip-up green romper suit molest you in your pram?

Sorry to harp on, but this really grips.....

[STANDTO]

Blimey, I only started this thread to find out a little bit more about an incredible human story.

It was a tragic end, and people died. The aviation world is sadder for their passing, but has hopefully learned lessons, and moved on.

Please don't let this thread become a war zone

[contact_tower]

but will make snide remarks about "the views from some that the RAF crew could do no wrong."

This is actually a very relevant remark, because I know from experience that some FJ comunitys have less then perfect trackrecord when it comes to moving in a airspace structure, but even when beeing grounded by the MIL authoity, admints to no wrong doing.

And I'm not sniping at the MIL system, It's just a sincere concern about FS. :=

[PPRuNe Radar]

Jackonicko,

Try and read what is written.

For the observence of doubt, I am entirely satisfied that the Jaguar crew were acting professionally.

However professionalism is not a guarantee of spotting another aircraft in a situation such as that of the accident. A situation where BOTH crews have an equal responsibility to see and avoid. You really need to grasp this last point if you are a pilot as you claim. Because if you and I are flying in the same piece of airspace, then I am depending on you as much as you are on me.

The core point is nothing to do with where the collision took place. It could have been a collision with a microlight taking off from a farm strip (which the RAF crew would not necessarily have known about). It could have been a glider landing out. A helicopter off to a hotel for lunch. A pipeline survey. One of a myriad of different kinds of flights. Why the pilot was there is beside the point, because aircraft are entitled to fly in UK airspace within the constraints of the airspace system. In Class G airspace those constraints are very limited. You don't have to have a good reason to fly in it, as you seem to think, you just can. It's one of the freedoms our military pilots help defend.

The core point is that the geometry of the crash ensured that neither pilot was able to see the other in sufficient time to prevent a collision, both due to terrain shielding and the physical characteristics of their aircraft (speed, cockpit structures, etc). It's all in the AAIB report.

You also seem to misunderstand the 500' rule. I can quite legally fly at 10' or less in the vicinity of any person, vehicle or structure. The 500' is nothing to do with height, it's a minimum separation distance. With the reported height of the collision being 350' to 400' then you can use a little Pythagoras to work out how far horizontally you would need to be from something on the ground to give you your 500' minimum distance. It's not very far. The RAF pilots on the site will understand exactly what I mean, they are cleared to operate on MSDs all the time.

I say again, for your benefit, the airmanship of the Cessna pilot was extremely poor. It was a bad advert for civilian GA pilots. And it caused a tightening up of the rules which was long overdue. Some good came out of the tragic events which cost the lives of two brother aviators. The price was still too high though.

You seem to think the entire accident was caused solely by the Cessna pilots poor airmanship and lack of common sense. Do you have a different AAIB report from the one I have read ?? It does not give them as the sole cause. So do I take your expert accident investigation skills and opinions as the gospel, or theirs ?? No, don't answer, it was rhetorical. You see, accidents never ever have a single cause. We can't take the poor airmanship of the Cessna pilot in isolation, any more than we can take into account solely the poor visibility from both cockpits, or the fact that an overtaking aircraft is supposed to give way in accordance with the rules of the air.

Finally, and I am happy for you to quote me from my posts ... where did I say the Jaguar crew did did nothing right ? My position has always been one that both crews had equal responsibility in the 'see and be seen' environment. I sincerely hope that the same thing was drummed in to you when you were trained for your PPL. I also reiterate that the physical factors in this collision prevented either crew from having a chance to spot the other aircraft in sufficient time. And that would have been the case if they were fully aware of each other before hand and searching diligently for contact, or sitting in the cockpit reading the Sun.

Quite happy to continue this with you via other channels. I think we have both made our points.

PS as for your peurile comments about resentment. I work with the RAF every day of my professional life. We work in an environment where it is a team game, where common sense and 'can do' attitude is to the fore. Professionalism you could call it. Sure, I come across some of them who make mistakes and do stupid things from time to time (like our Cessna pilot ?), but then I have the same from civil pilots as well. And remember we are talking about professionals here. Even they screw up now and then. Sometimes, I even have to formally report them (shock, horror), though for most cases a chat and pointing out the error of their ways is usually all that is needed. No harm done and the working relationship remains cordial.

I was actually fortunate to be accepted by OASC (now I bet that really really really grips you Jacko !!), however I was also offered a civil career at the same time. The civil side offered (to my values) more benefits and opportunities so I actually turned the RAF down. Maybe they resent me for it ?? :8

PPS I still think that for John Marden to do what he did was inspirational and is a shining example to people every where that, with courage and determination, you can fight back and overcome what life throws at you. That he has the respect and admiration of his peers as witnessed by some posts on this thread is testimony to how great a man he was.

[Fox3snapshot]

Just checked out "Standto's" original post in this thread and, well, I must admit I am completely lost as to where this all went.

I was fully expecting a follow on with Douglas Bader stories and similar however, not to be.....

Suddenly we ended up in the pit of denial, blame and post mortem.

I would like to hear some more heroic stories because I know there are many, lets not try to be fun police and lets try to get amongst what this facility is really about. By all means resurect a "who snotted who thread", but not here....please.



:ugh:

[Pilgrim101]

Good point "Fox",

The recriminations expressed by most of us just reflect our frustration at the needless loss of very highly valued life, not just in the incident under discussion but generally in the highish (?)number of such tragedies and near misses we see in aviation. Read the AIIB reports and we can count our lucky stars that statistics up in the blue generally favour us all. When the chemistry goes wrong, it goes wrong in spades.

I fly from a farm strip in Scotland, when I am home, and could have found myself in exactly the flight situation/parameters as the Cessna Pilot on many occasions, albeit for very different reasons. If I had clanged into an FJ or vice versa, I wonder how the report would read and just how blame would be apportioned, not that myself or the other pilot would be too concerned I suspect ?

I love sharing my air space with Hawks, Tornados and yes, even Jaguars (!) and confess to a childish high on the Ooooh, Aaah Squeak rating whenever I get up close and personal enough to see them at first hand doing what they do best, but not so close that my a:mad: e is munching on my seat cushion. Also, even as a pure VFR pilot, my airmanship is tested on occasions by lots of other light aircraft doing what they do best too. See and avoid has it's limitations but good airmanship does work.

Now, as for Douglas Bader, reading "Reach for the Sky" at the age of about nine was the reason I always wanted to fly aeroplanes and I am sure many others of my generation saw him as a perfect role model despite (or because of ?) his bluff single mindedness and strength of character. I also watched Brian Milton's "Microlight Odyssey" and although I am sure we would end up punching each other's lights out, I saw so much of that strength of character in him too so good on him ! Maybe aviators are of a common ilk whatever their background, and that's why so much of the debate on the forum ends up a in a slagging session - like minds ??
:(