KingAir crash near Chigwell?

[flybycheese]

Don't beat yourself up empty cruise you've do e a great job in helping some of the incredible number of experienced pilots who have recently quit good jobs (half the legacy crews alone .. 13 recently!!!) To say nothing of all the other crews and ops staff who could stand the culture no more . you are quite right Frances wanted out too..he often told us exactly what he thought

[Noiffsorbuts]

According to the Baltic awards pictures ..no award and indeed no presence of PMR. A decent and appreciated gesture by him.

[flynowpaylater]

other determined by AAIB most probably to a sudden death incap in poor weather.

Selective reading there. Just because it couldn't be ruled out, doesn't mean it was most probable. Read the report properly and take your rose tinted glasses off.

1) Questionable performance from an airfield simply unsuitable for CAT. Under EASA regulations, it needs better than perfect conditions to justify Stapleford with a King Air CAT.
2) Poor weather, with no professional way of measuring it aside from being able to see some trees. No decent information on cloud base etc...
3) A non-type rated pilot in the RHS. I don't care how experienced he was, he was not licensed or qualified to be there, and there were no multi crew SOP's to follow.
4) An inexperienced pilot. Not only inexperienced on type, but his first proper commercial flying job and fresh to line.
5) Subjective training on this new pilot. The same trainer who trained him, signed him off too....really???? That's unbelievably subjective, certainly not best practice, and in reality not in compliance.
6) Commercial Pressure. - Whether directly or indirectly, the guy was under pressure to get going with the ops and management watching from their office. Picking up the owner of West Ham who is a good client of the company. Risking him missing kick off. Definitely commercial pressure going on, with an inexperienced commercial pilot.
7) Before anyone pipes up that this wasn't a CAT flight, it was. It was positioning to a live leg CAT, therefore it is a commercial flight. Check the EASA rules. This was also the case under EU OPS and CAP360 before that.
8) Ineffective regulation by the CAA. Their rules (Pilots assistants, Perf B, tech log entries etc...) and they failed to enforce it, despite over 5 years since the publication of FODCOM 2010/21. What the hell were they looking for when they did their 6 monthly audits??
9) A 20+ year old King Air, that probably flew 500 hours pa yet no notable snags in the tech log? Again, what were the CAA doing on the audits? Wouldn't anyone with half a brain not realise that a 20+ y/o King Air without any snags recorded in the tech log is too good to be true? There is little excuse to carry snags, that aren't recorded in the book or MEL'd, from the aircraft home base. Just get the base engineers to rectify the snags before next flight.....or maybe that's the problem. There weren't any licensed engineers from the 145 available to do it perhaps??? Has the 145 company be brought to task by the CAA over their involvement in this practice of not reporting snags in the TL?

This has nothing to do with the aircraft type, or the very slim chance that the P1 suffered SDS. It's to do with the regulator allowing standards to slip to a very dangerous level, and the operator allowing the commercial pressure to rule over good practice and safety. Had Mr Sullivan arranged to board this flight at Stapleford instead of Brize, the AAIB report would read very differently, and there would be a lot of sweating at LEA and the CAA.

[Globally Challenged]

Had Mr Sullivan arranged to board this flight at Stapleford instead of Brize, the AAIB report would read very differently, and there would be a lot of sweating at LEA and the CAA.

Sad but true.

As crew we would appear to be far less 'damaging' to a company / regulator than a passenger.

[flybycheese]

Just imagine the furore had the challenger flight with the pitot covered crashed.... I dont doubt Lionel Richie's lawyers would have stopped at nothing and nobody in seeking answers ....and compensation..

[BuzzB]

A very good post flynow......

i am quite disturbed that the report has made no reference to the role of the CAA ops inspector and made comment as to his oversight over so many aspects of this......

The training and testing by one guy , if true, is one hell of a revelation....and surely should have been commented on.

Reference the engineering company that maintained the aircraft.....I am told that the company belonged to the main man at LEA!!!!! If that is true then it is highly relevant and quite unbelievable.....

Someone know if this is true?

[Chronus]

fly now says read the report properly. I did. The report is not for attributing blame now is it.
There were two pilots at the controls. What difference could it possibly have made if he had the type rating stamped. Was that a factor. Me thinks not. The chap with the stamp was low houred. So what, lots of guys with zillions of hours have come to grief. Was that also a factor. Again me thinks not. Commercial pressures, is there any commercial operation without pressure, it is implicit, it is flying to earn revenues. That`s what everybody does, stress, strain, pressure, it all goes with the territory.
What about pilot incapacitation, clearly it is in the report. The most puzzling and important question must be why didn`t the other chap do something about it. Did he try and couldn`t intervene in time. We will never know. Am afraid this one is another to add to aviation`s cold cases. Can`t really say we have learned much from it.

[flynowpaylater]

What difference could it possibly have made if he had the type rating

Ha ha, that's hilarious that you posted that!! and the rest of the drivel in your post Chronos. Your clearly have no idea about this industry.

[BuzzB]

The guy claims to live in "Plunketville"

Chronus that would make you a "Plunker"

How very appropriate!!

[flybycheese]

Something the report fails to highlight isthe fact this aircraft with its 57 unrecorded defects was owned by the operator.as a result any maintenance costs had to be carried right out of profits and there was no owner to hand them too.the commercial pressure to cut costs on maintenance is obvious.we all know the companys old citation bravo was very unreliable with many issues carried(remember the small matter of the fire extinguishers that were found to have been inop !!) All the more worrying since this was sometimes used for VVIP royals on the household contract.

[noflynomore]

I'm afraid this whole scenario brings back memories of almost identical operating conditions and pressures at a now thankfully defunct airline I used to work for. They too did not write up defects, you passed a scrap(s) of paper with them listed to the next guy. Nothing got mended, hazardous faults remained for months. Primary flight instruments did not work properly. Overloading was normal - indeed objecting to it considered a career inhibiting move, minima were numbers written on an approach plate, not on an altimeter, duty hours and days off were fudged, non rated pilots flew and a significant spectacular accident (scheduled AOC with pax) in full public view was not reported to the CAA once they saw the press had not picked it up.

I know for certain the Flight Ops Inspector knew all this and apparently took no action. I'm assured that many have reported these matters over the years yet nothing was ever done as far as I could tell. Any time they were questioned on dodgy or cheeky practices (usually by us) they whined that they were the smallest fish in the pond and they needed to be cut some slack or the bigger fish would have them for breakfast. They used that one regularly to excuse any deviation from the legal or normal. I noted with wry amusement that the fish that finally did swallow them choked soon after.

The CAA is utterly worthless when it comes to compliance and enforcement. When I reported this to the FOI he refused to speak to me on record and thus excused himself from taking any action but warned me (though it sounded more like a threat at the time) that if I foolishly chose to make an official complaint I'd inevitably a) not be believed and b) never find work in aviation again. If the FOI is in on it what chance of any report getting actioned? The CAA subsequently knew in full and documented detail well before that august gentleman's (scheduled) retirement a few months later yet still nothing was done. The chairman of an august and universally trusted safety organisation said that this was amongst the worst such example he'd ever seen and that he'd had several similar on the same company. How can this be in a modern "civilised" N European country?

Fifteen years later I was still hearing identical tales to mine from some of my FOs so it was evidently never stopped - 20 ton aircraft being ferried single pilot etc. The reluctance to write up defects and carry them for months was evidently still there too.

Sadly I have to say that LEA featured in such night malaga FO's horror stories just as much as my old outfit did so this thread hardly comes as a surprise.

Rien plus ēa change.

It seems it takes a body count to do that, and evidently a fare paying pax's body too rather than mere crew.

[noflynomore]

That's a very smug and very unhelpful post small cog.

I take it you are of a superior race that has never has to fight tooth and nail for years to obtain that first job, (daddy bought it for you did he?) and then fight tooth and nail to retain it with debts and the dole looming if you lose it? Have you never been under intense financial pressure? As you clearly know nothing of the pressures and imperatives of working at that end of the industry (are you even a pilot at all?) you'd do far better to keep your ill considered bletherings to yourself before condemning every one of the scores/hundreds of pilots from my old outfit and similar companies (perhaps all those at LEA too) as having no backbone. Believe me, it takes backbone, balls and moxie in spades for a Professional to endure that sort of regime because he cannot do otherwise. Who do you think you are? How dare you?

And thank you so, so much for the patronising and superfluous advice on filing reports. I'll warrant not one proper pilot here didn't know that either. You are being a help, aren't you?

File an ASR or MOR in a company like that? Is this an attempt at wit? Man, what have you been smoking? On planet Earth companies like that probably don't even have ASRs or MOR forms, and if they don't (file a) report (of) a notifiable accidents do you really, truly imagine they'd actually pass on reports that could/should shut them down? Why not just write up your own P45 and go back to the Jobcentre? Your naiivety is simply staggering.

[Noiffsorbuts]

Remember the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale about "The Emperors new clothes"??

Does it not rather strike an alarming chord of similarity to the perception of LEA in the light of revelations from this accident.....despite the increasingly strident reassurances of the newly promoted chief Schmoozer......( dont worry Im in charge now...etc)

For the sake of those who dont remember it......here it is.....( perceptive people....these Danes...eh Charlotte?)

Here it is:-


The Emperor's New Clothes" (Danish: Kejserens nye Klęder) is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, no one dares to say that they don't see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as "unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent". Finally, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"

Go figure.....as they say

[Noiffsorbuts]

Thanks for addressing your remarks to me Small Cog. Short term memory issue perhaps?

As it happens I agree almost entirely with what noflynomore says.....

(lea does have forms for asrs)

[flybycheese]

Worth noting that the Lea flight attendant who filed the asr ref the challenger pitot incident no longer works for the company .....but the skipper is now a fleet manager....
Clearly not a good career move on the FAs part who had the presence of mind to record the master warning messages and cautions as well as photograph the melted pitot cover remains at destination before they were buried at the bottom of the rubbish sack

[noflynomore]

Always worked small companies and nothing else...so you know "all about" the facts of life as a pilot from that do you? Hmm. I see...That explains quite a lot.

[Chronus]

So kind of Fly and BUZZ, am truly flattered by their praise. They do so add worthy comment to the discussion to such a disturbing event.

Here are a couple of extracts from the AAIB report.
"The post-mortem examination of the pilot found evidence of an acute dissection of a
coronary artery the presence of which indicated that he might have suffered symptoms
ranging from impaired consciousness to sudden death. The coronary artery dissection
might have occurred spontaneously or have been the result of forces transmitted through the body during the accident sequence, and pathology alone was unable to resolve these opposing possibilities. However, the report stated that:
‘if there is no other cause identified for the crash then it is both possible and
plausible that this was the precipitating factor.’
Acute dissection of a coronary artery is a rare event which can occur spontaneously and is difficult to predict through medical examinations or ECGs."

And finally:

"On the balance of probabilities, however, it was likely that the pilot lost control of the aircraft due to medical incapacitation and the additional crew member was unable to recover the aircraft in the height available."

Is the above to also be deemed drivel by industry experts of such profound wisdom, knowledge and experience.

[Sepp]

Could we keep things professional, people? Emotions are understandably running pretty hot, but let's not add to any poor standards that may already be a part of this sad tale.

[Intrance]

I have no personal knowledge of the company, aircraft or pilots involved in this crash. I just happened upon this thread while browsing and read the report and comments here.

Some of them mirror experiences I had in my first commercial flying job for a small company. They were even employing the same kind of tactics with a separate defect reporting system to avoid AOG situations if it was put in the tech log. I very much understand and have felt the pressures involved when you have nothing else to fall back on and have financial obligations to meet. And yet I still fully agree with the remark Small Cog made about having a backbone.

If you stay with a company out of fear for losing your job if you do something the right way, I'd suggest you need to do some thinking about your future, as nothing good can come from that. And certainly don't fool yourself into thinking that 'enduring that regime' means that you have a backbone or are a "Professional". You know which standards should be met but you deliberately not meet them yourself, and then blame it all on the company being rotten. Been there, done that, learned from it, took control (I quit that company with nothing else lined up or any other form of income to pay of my loans), moved on.

[BuzzB]

LEA got SMS approval a couple of years ago and as such demonstrated to the satisfaction of the CAA that they had robust quality and standards management systems in place....and a manager responsible for oversight.

Was he asleep on the job or did he turn a blind eye to these practises......or was he otherwise engaged?