6 seater a/c crash Somerset
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SF
I personally think it is healthy for pilots to speculate on What COULD have happened because with the accident fresh in our minds it makes us more open to consider what mistakes or aircraft failures MIGHT have lead to a crash like this and hopefully avoid a similar situation ourselves.
To state anything as fact is a different matter as that would be WRONG but to discuss the possibilities can only be positive. Like all of these accidents when the AAIB reports are complete the incident has gone to the back of our minds from the initial horror. Its the initial horror! There for the grace of God go I which makes us open to take note
The Malibu did have a spate of accidents when it was first released and I believe it was limited to VFR flight only for a short time.
the Cirrus too has a comprehensive training schedule in place as that too was having more than its fair share of accidents
We are all probably aware of the V tail Bonanza known as the Doctor Killer
All of them are relatively fast complex aircraft and many wealthier individuals jumped straight from the PA28 or Cessna 172s into these faster less forgiving aircraft without the currency on type or experience and detailed knowledge hence the more rigorous training demanded by the insurance companies
It was not the aircraft at fault but the pilots flying them in the majority of cases
Pace
I personally think it is healthy for pilots to speculate on What COULD have happened because with the accident fresh in our minds it makes us more open to consider what mistakes or aircraft failures MIGHT have lead to a crash like this and hopefully avoid a similar situation ourselves.
To state anything as fact is a different matter as that would be WRONG but to discuss the possibilities can only be positive. Like all of these accidents when the AAIB reports are complete the incident has gone to the back of our minds from the initial horror. Its the initial horror! There for the grace of God go I which makes us open to take note
The Malibu did have a spate of accidents when it was first released and I believe it was limited to VFR flight only for a short time.
the Cirrus too has a comprehensive training schedule in place as that too was having more than its fair share of accidents
We are all probably aware of the V tail Bonanza known as the Doctor Killer
All of them are relatively fast complex aircraft and many wealthier individuals jumped straight from the PA28 or Cessna 172s into these faster less forgiving aircraft without the currency on type or experience and detailed knowledge hence the more rigorous training demanded by the insurance companies
It was not the aircraft at fault but the pilots flying them in the majority of cases
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 19th Nov 2015 at 10:29.
weather on the day
I am living only some miles away - West Dorset on high ground too.
the weather on Saturday was not much different to that what is happening this week - especially yesterday which was likened to Saturday
high winds - strong gusts
low viz less then 1- 2km in fog sometimes (as is today)
very low cloud base less than 500 feet
dew point same as temp and the forecast for Saturday was not set to improve during daylight
more or less the whole area from Dunkerswell to say Compton Abbas was the same - downright awful
he was coming from Fairoaks and the wx there was not much better - worsening as he went West.
i fly from Compton Abbas sometimes with a friends Bulldog and there is no way in the past 10 days would any PPL'er would have likely gone anywhere, nothing few from CA on Saturday.
its been howling and lashing with very low cloud and some fog for a week and a half round here - surely a phone call before take off to Dunkerswell would have secured a decision not to go?
this is a tragedy and i cannot fathom why anyone flew down here this way that day unless you were very very experienced and rated accordingly
the weather on Saturday was not much different to that what is happening this week - especially yesterday which was likened to Saturday
high winds - strong gusts
low viz less then 1- 2km in fog sometimes (as is today)
very low cloud base less than 500 feet
dew point same as temp and the forecast for Saturday was not set to improve during daylight
more or less the whole area from Dunkerswell to say Compton Abbas was the same - downright awful
he was coming from Fairoaks and the wx there was not much better - worsening as he went West.
i fly from Compton Abbas sometimes with a friends Bulldog and there is no way in the past 10 days would any PPL'er would have likely gone anywhere, nothing few from CA on Saturday.
its been howling and lashing with very low cloud and some fog for a week and a half round here - surely a phone call before take off to Dunkerswell would have secured a decision not to go?
this is a tragedy and i cannot fathom why anyone flew down here this way that day unless you were very very experienced and rated accordingly
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are elements in this accident similar to the JFK junior Piper Saratoga accident. Namely a wealthy individual, possibly relatively inexperienced, buying a high performance single. Then there were circumstances on the day such as family pressures and weather that limited visual contact with the runway and airport surroundings that would have meant dependence on instruments at low level.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland & Abu Dhabi
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by runway30 View Post
Pilot wasn't shy in announcing on social media obtaining his PPL and his new aeroplane. No mention of an IMC rating or I/R. Many instances of VFR pilots getting into difficulties in IMC in this aeroplane.
This was an N reg. If my memory serves me right, many years ago, an FAA PPL was required and when these hot ships first came out an IR was thrown in for good measure for the buyer. Then some bits and pieces started falling out of the sky and some new rules and training requirements were introduced. To get me out of trouble IMC rating, not recognised on the Continent, was hotly debated for many years and remained with a don`t try this yourselves at home warning. PPL`s with FAA IR`s could only opt for IFR after crossing the foreign FIR`s and the same for the return. They could not exercise the privileges of their FAA IR `s in UK controlled airspace in UK reg aircraft.
Without a valid IR, when an IFR routing is a must, it cannot be planned. By definition therefore it becomes a VFR plan. I don`t know the wx conditions on the day for the whole of the planned/intended routing, but if vis and cloud base were not present to conduct the flight under VFR then mechanical malfunction or not risk was significantly increased and flight safety margins were reduced if not compromised.
Originally Posted by runway30 View Post
Pilot wasn't shy in announcing on social media obtaining his PPL and his new aeroplane. No mention of an IMC rating or I/R. Many instances of VFR pilots getting into difficulties in IMC in this aeroplane.
This was an N reg. If my memory serves me right, many years ago, an FAA PPL was required and when these hot ships first came out an IR was thrown in for good measure for the buyer. Then some bits and pieces started falling out of the sky and some new rules and training requirements were introduced. To get me out of trouble IMC rating, not recognised on the Continent, was hotly debated for many years and remained with a don`t try this yourselves at home warning. PPL`s with FAA IR`s could only opt for IFR after crossing the foreign FIR`s and the same for the return. They could not exercise the privileges of their FAA IR `s in UK controlled airspace in UK reg aircraft.
Without a valid IR, when an IFR routing is a must, it cannot be planned. By definition therefore it becomes a VFR plan. I don`t know the wx conditions on the day for the whole of the planned/intended routing, but if vis and cloud base were not present to conduct the flight under VFR then mechanical malfunction or not risk was significantly increased and flight safety margins were reduced if not compromised.
An FAA IR on its own has never been sufficient for flying a G-reg aircraft under the IFR.
On a further note, the FAA allows a pilot to fly an N-reg aircraft in a given state with only the pilot licence of that state....so it is possible to fly an N-reg under the IFR in the UK without any FAA licence if you have a UK issued EASA licence...note this does not allow said pilot to fly to say France or anywhere outside the UK (in this example)...there has been some conjecture as to whether the FAA will allow an N-reg to be flown under the IFR by a pilot with only an IMC rating (known as an IR(R) under EASA) and not a full IR...
AQ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland & Abu Dhabi
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without a valid IR, when an IFR routing is a must, it cannot be planned. By definition therefore it becomes a VFR plan.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awkward, this part of the quote you have copied was not mine
"Originally Posted by runway30 View Post
Pilot wasn't shy in announcing on social media obtaining his PPL and his new aeroplane. No mention of an IMC rating or I/R. Many instances of VFR pilots getting into difficulties in IMC in this aeroplane."
The following part was mine
"This was an N reg. If my memory serves me right, many years ago, an FAA PPL was required and when these hot ships first came out an IR was thrown in for good measure for the buyer. Then some bits and pieces started falling out of the sky and some new rules and training requirements were introduced. To get me out of trouble IMC rating, not recognised on the Continent, was hotly debated for many years and remained with a don`t try this yourselves at home warning. PPL`s with FAA IR`s could only opt for IFR after crossing the foreign FIR`s and the same for the return. They could not exercise the privileges of their FAA IR `s in UK controlled airspace in UK reg aircraft.
Without a valid IR, when an IFR routing is a must, it cannot be planned. By definition therefore it becomes a VFR plan. I don`t know the wx conditions on the day for the whole of the planned/intended routing, but if vis and cloud base were not present to conduct the flight under VFR then mechanical malfunction or not risk was significantly increased and flight safety margins were reduced if not compromised."
I have always wondered as to why the FAA PPL/IR and a N reg is such an attractive proposition for private flying in the UK and the near Continent. Given that costs would not be expected to be of any significant consequence to a businessman who can afford to buy a sophisticated aircraft and will use it over this side of the pond, and as they say "in anger", why not go for a UK IR. Would it not be better. It is not just the ticket that matters, it is after all just another piece of paper? What really matters is the rigorous training,the tough exams and tests and the knowledge gained, the appreciation and the respect for the inherent risks to flight, that gives a good understanding and ability to plan and make that all too important decision to embark on a flight on a given day. In so many words Pace has said it all, it takes a lot more than success in business to also succeed in flying. It is difficult to devote the required amount of time in the correct measures to be successful at both at all times. I have known busy businessmen who employ chauffeurs for their cars not because they want to advertise their big success, but because they admit that it is safer for them and all who travel with them. It is so difficult to serve two masters. Best to choose one and stick with him through thick and thin I`d say.
"Originally Posted by runway30 View Post
Pilot wasn't shy in announcing on social media obtaining his PPL and his new aeroplane. No mention of an IMC rating or I/R. Many instances of VFR pilots getting into difficulties in IMC in this aeroplane."
The following part was mine
"This was an N reg. If my memory serves me right, many years ago, an FAA PPL was required and when these hot ships first came out an IR was thrown in for good measure for the buyer. Then some bits and pieces started falling out of the sky and some new rules and training requirements were introduced. To get me out of trouble IMC rating, not recognised on the Continent, was hotly debated for many years and remained with a don`t try this yourselves at home warning. PPL`s with FAA IR`s could only opt for IFR after crossing the foreign FIR`s and the same for the return. They could not exercise the privileges of their FAA IR `s in UK controlled airspace in UK reg aircraft.
Without a valid IR, when an IFR routing is a must, it cannot be planned. By definition therefore it becomes a VFR plan. I don`t know the wx conditions on the day for the whole of the planned/intended routing, but if vis and cloud base were not present to conduct the flight under VFR then mechanical malfunction or not risk was significantly increased and flight safety margins were reduced if not compromised."
I have always wondered as to why the FAA PPL/IR and a N reg is such an attractive proposition for private flying in the UK and the near Continent. Given that costs would not be expected to be of any significant consequence to a businessman who can afford to buy a sophisticated aircraft and will use it over this side of the pond, and as they say "in anger", why not go for a UK IR. Would it not be better. It is not just the ticket that matters, it is after all just another piece of paper? What really matters is the rigorous training,the tough exams and tests and the knowledge gained, the appreciation and the respect for the inherent risks to flight, that gives a good understanding and ability to plan and make that all too important decision to embark on a flight on a given day. In so many words Pace has said it all, it takes a lot more than success in business to also succeed in flying. It is difficult to devote the required amount of time in the correct measures to be successful at both at all times. I have known busy businessmen who employ chauffeurs for their cars not because they want to advertise their big success, but because they admit that it is safer for them and all who travel with them. It is so difficult to serve two masters. Best to choose one and stick with him through thick and thin I`d say.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland & Abu Dhabi
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies Chronus, I messed up the quote function on that one....
You are quite right about the requirement for rigorous, thorough and relevant training coupled with frequent use and recurrent training. Yes the FAA only requires one written 20 question exam for the IR versus a minimum of 7 exams for a PPL IR in the UK...but the training is about the same and in fact whereas a UK IR holder can do a revalidation flight and then not fly at all, let alone conduct approaches to minimums, for 364 days and still be legal to fly, an FAA IR holder must have conducted 6 approaches in actual or simulated IMC in the preceding 6 calendar months to remain current....this can be difficult for a pilot not flying for a living and as a result many if not most will undertake an IPC roughly every 6 months. So the main difference is the huge effort required to pass the exams. Only two exams can be taken in a given sitting and they can only be held at a limited number of inconvenient locations. Their value (vs the FAA approach) is questionable and they are a legacy from the fact that the UK training industry is set up for basic VFR PPLs or airline pilots...PPL IRs are not really catered for. So that is one of the drivers for private individuals with a life who can't take six months to live in a residential training facility like aspiring airline pilots.
But as I mentioned in my previous post, EASA has made it a requirement that regardless of aircraft registration, if you are a resident of one of the EASA states then you must have an EASA licence. Most (all?) EASA states elected to claim the available derogation t extend the deadline for this implementation and the latest extension has taken it to April next year, although it may be extended further.
Also although the more readily obtained FAA IR may no longer be a driver for business people flying an N-reg aircraft, there are many benefits to operating an N-reg aircraft over a G or F or D with regards to the available STCs for various mods, the direct owner control over maintenance which contrary to popular European myth, follows the same manufacturer recommended schedules and although for example, the UK allows engines to run on-condition past their TBO, many other EASA states do not.
Hope that explains it!
You are quite right about the requirement for rigorous, thorough and relevant training coupled with frequent use and recurrent training. Yes the FAA only requires one written 20 question exam for the IR versus a minimum of 7 exams for a PPL IR in the UK...but the training is about the same and in fact whereas a UK IR holder can do a revalidation flight and then not fly at all, let alone conduct approaches to minimums, for 364 days and still be legal to fly, an FAA IR holder must have conducted 6 approaches in actual or simulated IMC in the preceding 6 calendar months to remain current....this can be difficult for a pilot not flying for a living and as a result many if not most will undertake an IPC roughly every 6 months. So the main difference is the huge effort required to pass the exams. Only two exams can be taken in a given sitting and they can only be held at a limited number of inconvenient locations. Their value (vs the FAA approach) is questionable and they are a legacy from the fact that the UK training industry is set up for basic VFR PPLs or airline pilots...PPL IRs are not really catered for. So that is one of the drivers for private individuals with a life who can't take six months to live in a residential training facility like aspiring airline pilots.
But as I mentioned in my previous post, EASA has made it a requirement that regardless of aircraft registration, if you are a resident of one of the EASA states then you must have an EASA licence. Most (all?) EASA states elected to claim the available derogation t extend the deadline for this implementation and the latest extension has taken it to April next year, although it may be extended further.
Also although the more readily obtained FAA IR may no longer be a driver for business people flying an N-reg aircraft, there are many benefits to operating an N-reg aircraft over a G or F or D with regards to the available STCs for various mods, the direct owner control over maintenance which contrary to popular European myth, follows the same manufacturer recommended schedules and although for example, the UK allows engines to run on-condition past their TBO, many other EASA states do not.
Hope that explains it!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Awkward, it does explain things well. Now in my after life, since the end of my flying days and the stage of well past ripeness, I am left with much time and inclination to reflect on many memories of those days. There were many sad occasions, one of which was a UK PPL for whom along with the spanking brand new PA46 came an FAA IR and not so long thereafter came the grief of a sudden encounter with a mountain peak in VMC whilst out on a VFR FP. It was then discovered by all and sundry that he had 400 hrs tt including his initial training, duals and IMC. Nothing was said or found about his instrument time. Such an important thing I thought this so called instrument time was.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New to the forum in terms of posting, but felt compelled to say something, so here goes.
I flew a Seneca in UK and Europe as a businessman with a UK PPL IR. I am same age roughly as this pilot and like everyone very saddened at the brutal finality of this accident. The images of this family, and the family in the PA34 that crashed in Kentucky earlier this year (little girl survived in 3rd row), stick with me as being so familiar to my own experiences.
I very nearly killed myself once when I made an awful decision, in an N registered aircraft. The plane was a seaplane equipped with very basic (VFR) instruments, but I had my trusty G-reg Seneca fully equipped for IFR and I was in current instrument practice. I chose to fly the seaplane in bad conditions relying (rationalizing) that my instrument rating allowed me to do this safely.
The story makes me shiver still and fortunately I turned the plane around and landed VFR safely, but with very little fuel left. This is a specific example of a terrible decision (to go in the first place) that did not end in tragedy, but could (and would) have done. I don't know how this helps other than to confirm the old adage about aviation being very unforgiving of poor decision making.
Actually I think the problem I encountered was blurring the line between a well planned IFR flight (typical Seneca trip) and a VFR jolly (seaplane trip). My totally flawed seaplane plan (on the bad wx trip) was to descend to near sea level and land VFR. This would never have worked, the sea would have been too rough etc etc. Melding these 2 familiar scenarios (IFR cruise and VFR approach) into one impossible trip was nearly fatal.
I flew a Seneca in UK and Europe as a businessman with a UK PPL IR. I am same age roughly as this pilot and like everyone very saddened at the brutal finality of this accident. The images of this family, and the family in the PA34 that crashed in Kentucky earlier this year (little girl survived in 3rd row), stick with me as being so familiar to my own experiences.
I very nearly killed myself once when I made an awful decision, in an N registered aircraft. The plane was a seaplane equipped with very basic (VFR) instruments, but I had my trusty G-reg Seneca fully equipped for IFR and I was in current instrument practice. I chose to fly the seaplane in bad conditions relying (rationalizing) that my instrument rating allowed me to do this safely.
The story makes me shiver still and fortunately I turned the plane around and landed VFR safely, but with very little fuel left. This is a specific example of a terrible decision (to go in the first place) that did not end in tragedy, but could (and would) have done. I don't know how this helps other than to confirm the old adage about aviation being very unforgiving of poor decision making.
Actually I think the problem I encountered was blurring the line between a well planned IFR flight (typical Seneca trip) and a VFR jolly (seaplane trip). My totally flawed seaplane plan (on the bad wx trip) was to descend to near sea level and land VFR. This would never have worked, the sea would have been too rough etc etc. Melding these 2 familiar scenarios (IFR cruise and VFR approach) into one impossible trip was nearly fatal.
Decisions
As a general statement, as we do not know the background to this particular incident.
I believe it is beholden on all of us professional and experienced pilots to say something when we see someone about to try and operate beyond their ability, but in practice very few people ever do.
Some years ago I was present when a PPL IMC chap was about to to try and take off to get home in a single engine piston 6 seater without any airframe anti or deicing equipment. The weather was freezing fog and stratus with embedded icing. Incredibly there were other professional pilots around who turned their back and hid by the coffee machine when I was trying to persuade this chap not to fly. They just kept quiet and did not want to get involved. I am still fairly confident that I prevented the chap from having an accident that day.
Please be prepared to help each other carefully and sensibly, even if it means sticking your neck out sometimes.
MM
I believe it is beholden on all of us professional and experienced pilots to say something when we see someone about to try and operate beyond their ability, but in practice very few people ever do.
Some years ago I was present when a PPL IMC chap was about to to try and take off to get home in a single engine piston 6 seater without any airframe anti or deicing equipment. The weather was freezing fog and stratus with embedded icing. Incredibly there were other professional pilots around who turned their back and hid by the coffee machine when I was trying to persuade this chap not to fly. They just kept quiet and did not want to get involved. I am still fairly confident that I prevented the chap from having an accident that day.
Please be prepared to help each other carefully and sensibly, even if it means sticking your neck out sometimes.
MM
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MMagister
When I was getting my multiengine piston many moons ago my instructor had to take a Baron 55 up north to Scotland. He offered to let me left seat the trip for the experience. We landed in Inverness and departed again south at night in Horrendous weather and straight into snow blizzards
When we lined up ATC announced that they wanted it recorded that they did not approve of this departure as apart from the snow blizzards there was severe low level turbulence in the forecast.
Rather than taxi back he calmly announced we were departing and overruled the warning. We took off and the snow was so heavy you could not look forward but only at the panel as the swirling snow was so intense and the turbulence was severe.
To look out ahead was completely disorientating
It was such a relief breaking out near Glasgow and seeing a mass of twinkling city lights below.
I am not sure whether you can stop a takeoff ? He was a very cool relaxed pilot as comfortable in the air as on the ground and we survived so another notch on the experience belt. I do remember clearly thinking if we lost an engine that there was no way you could hold it all together in that turbulence
Pace
When I was getting my multiengine piston many moons ago my instructor had to take a Baron 55 up north to Scotland. He offered to let me left seat the trip for the experience. We landed in Inverness and departed again south at night in Horrendous weather and straight into snow blizzards
When we lined up ATC announced that they wanted it recorded that they did not approve of this departure as apart from the snow blizzards there was severe low level turbulence in the forecast.
Rather than taxi back he calmly announced we were departing and overruled the warning. We took off and the snow was so heavy you could not look forward but only at the panel as the swirling snow was so intense and the turbulence was severe.
To look out ahead was completely disorientating
It was such a relief breaking out near Glasgow and seeing a mass of twinkling city lights below.
I am not sure whether you can stop a takeoff ? He was a very cool relaxed pilot as comfortable in the air as on the ground and we survived so another notch on the experience belt. I do remember clearly thinking if we lost an engine that there was no way you could hold it all together in that turbulence
Pace
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely, ATC can only withhold take off clearance if instructed by a higher authority. When it comes to weather the airport authority could close the airport but if the airport is open the Captain's decision is final, the warnings of ATC might have relevance for the subsequent enquiry/court case though.
You will find the R/T messages for withholding clearances in CAP 413 2.76
CAP 493 Section 1 Chapter 4: Control of Traffic
Withholding Clearance
4.31 The Aerodrome Operator and certain other persons are empowered to
prohibit flight and they may instruct controllers to withhold a clearance.
A list of the personnel authorised under civil aviation legislation and
the procedures to be adopted when detaining aircraft appear in unit
instructions.
4.32 If a controller is instructed to withhold take-off clearance, he should take
reasonable steps to establish the authenticity and powers of the person
giving the instruction.
4.33 In addition a controller shall withhold clearance to take-off when it is known that an aircraft has been detained by a police or HM Customs officer.
4.34 If a controller has not been instructed to withhold clearance but he has reason to believe that a planned flight is liable to endanger life or involve a breach of legislation, he is to:
1. warn the pilot of the hazardous condition or apparent infringement and obtain an acknowledgement of the message;
2. in the case of an infringement of legislation, warn the pilot that if he does take-off the facts will be reported to the appropriate authority;
3. if the pilot still requests take-off clearance after acknowledging the warning he should be advised, when traffic permits, that there are no traffic reasons to restrict take-off;
4. record the warning and any comment made by the pilot in the ATC Watch Log.
CAP 493 Section 1 Chapter 4: Control of Traffic
Withholding Clearance
4.31 The Aerodrome Operator and certain other persons are empowered to
prohibit flight and they may instruct controllers to withhold a clearance.
A list of the personnel authorised under civil aviation legislation and
the procedures to be adopted when detaining aircraft appear in unit
instructions.
4.32 If a controller is instructed to withhold take-off clearance, he should take
reasonable steps to establish the authenticity and powers of the person
giving the instruction.
4.33 In addition a controller shall withhold clearance to take-off when it is known that an aircraft has been detained by a police or HM Customs officer.
4.34 If a controller has not been instructed to withhold clearance but he has reason to believe that a planned flight is liable to endanger life or involve a breach of legislation, he is to:
1. warn the pilot of the hazardous condition or apparent infringement and obtain an acknowledgement of the message;
2. in the case of an infringement of legislation, warn the pilot that if he does take-off the facts will be reported to the appropriate authority;
3. if the pilot still requests take-off clearance after acknowledging the warning he should be advised, when traffic permits, that there are no traffic reasons to restrict take-off;
4. record the warning and any comment made by the pilot in the ATC Watch Log.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM
When I was training for my MEP must have been 25 years plus ago so don't know what the regs were like then.
Take off minima are very low you can takeoff in fog or into a very low cloud base and it is not the responsibility of ATC to know your qualifications or abilities.
Normally if the weather is unfit for flight! Operations from the airport are delayed!
Going out of Dublin I can remember about 20 jets in front being held as a bad storm crossed the field with multiple lightning strikes, even refuelling was temporarily stopped.
Obviously in CAS you cannot takeoff without a take off clearance and to do so would be an infringement but to withhold that clearance based on a doubt on the ability or qualifications of the pilot??
A pilot could request an IFR clearance and would be given it as its not ATCs responsibility to know if the pilot is qualified to take it.
In my MEP days we had about a 94% mission success rated to weather fog at destination being the main show stopper other weather usually not although a diversion and road trip was sometimes needed
It is also difficult for one PPL to determine what is safe for flight or not safe for flight as what maybe deemed as unsafe by one pilot maybe routine conditions and safe for another, so we are probably talking about extreme weather conditions where ATC will intervene
Pace
When I was training for my MEP must have been 25 years plus ago so don't know what the regs were like then.
Take off minima are very low you can takeoff in fog or into a very low cloud base and it is not the responsibility of ATC to know your qualifications or abilities.
Normally if the weather is unfit for flight! Operations from the airport are delayed!
Going out of Dublin I can remember about 20 jets in front being held as a bad storm crossed the field with multiple lightning strikes, even refuelling was temporarily stopped.
Obviously in CAS you cannot takeoff without a take off clearance and to do so would be an infringement but to withhold that clearance based on a doubt on the ability or qualifications of the pilot??
A pilot could request an IFR clearance and would be given it as its not ATCs responsibility to know if the pilot is qualified to take it.
In my MEP days we had about a 94% mission success rated to weather fog at destination being the main show stopper other weather usually not although a diversion and road trip was sometimes needed
It is also difficult for one PPL to determine what is safe for flight or not safe for flight as what maybe deemed as unsafe by one pilot maybe routine conditions and safe for another, so we are probably talking about extreme weather conditions where ATC will intervene
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 20th Nov 2015 at 08:59.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland & Abu Dhabi
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK licensed airfields have a minimum visibility requirement of 150m for takeoff. This is imposed by the airfield not a limitation on the pilot. A private pilot has no such limitation.... I'm sure you have practised take-offs under the hood... Of course none of this is sensible, especially in a single engine aircraft... a sensible minimum should be the visibility and ceiling required to land back where you took off from.....but even at 200ft an EFATO will leave absolutely no time to assess your landing area....you will break out just in time to see the crash site...
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was getting my multiengine piston many moons ago my instructor had to take a Baron 55 up north to Scotland. He offered to let me left seat the trip for the experience. We landed in Inverness and departed again south at night in Horrendous weather and straight into snow blizzards
When we lined up ATC announced that they wanted it recorded that they did not approve of this departure as apart from the snow blizzards there was severe low level turbulence in the forecast.
Rather than taxi back he calmly announced we were departing and overruled the warning. We took off and the snow was so heavy you could not look forward but only at the panel as the swirling snow was so intense and the turbulence was severe.
To look out ahead was completely disorientating
It was such a relief breaking out near Glasgow and seeing a mass of twinkling city lights below.
I am not sure whether you can stop a takeoff ? He was a very cool relaxed pilot as comfortable in the air as on the ground and we survived so another notch on the experience belt. I do remember clearly thinking if we lost an engine that there was no way you could hold it all together in that turbulence
When we lined up ATC announced that they wanted it recorded that they did not approve of this departure as apart from the snow blizzards there was severe low level turbulence in the forecast.
Rather than taxi back he calmly announced we were departing and overruled the warning. We took off and the snow was so heavy you could not look forward but only at the panel as the swirling snow was so intense and the turbulence was severe.
To look out ahead was completely disorientating
It was such a relief breaking out near Glasgow and seeing a mass of twinkling city lights below.
I am not sure whether you can stop a takeoff ? He was a very cool relaxed pilot as comfortable in the air as on the ground and we survived so another notch on the experience belt. I do remember clearly thinking if we lost an engine that there was no way you could hold it all together in that turbulence
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland & Abu Dhabi
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Awkward, it does explain things well. Now in my after life, since the end of my flying days and the stage of well past ripeness, I am left with much time and inclination to reflect on many memories of those days. There were many sad occasions, one of which was a UK PPL for whom along with the spanking brand new PA46 came an FAA IR and not so long thereafter came the grief of a sudden encounter with a mountain peak in VMC whilst out on a VFR FP. It was then discovered by all and sundry that he had 400 hrs tt including his initial training, duals and IMC. Nothing was said or found about his instrument time. Such an important thing I thought this so called instrument time was.
Hi Chronus, I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that he got his FAA IR without doing the required training...you make it read like it was in the back page of the owner's manual!....In fact during the 80s after a spate of accidents the FAA investigated and basically exonerated the aircraft and recommended type specific training (but fell short of mandating it). In any case, as is often the case, the insurance industry made sure that minimum hours and minimum recurrency training be undertaken by pilots..... You can't realistically just get in one of these aircraft and fly it...especially in Europe where insurance is a legal requirement.....
Have a read of this if you're interested: http://www.mmopa.com/gallery/234_Tra...A46_Pilots.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
awqward
In the UK licensed airfields have a minimum visibility requirement of 150m for takeoff. This is imposed by the airfield not a limitation on the pilot. A private pilot has no such limitation.... I'm sure you have practised take-offs under the hood... Of course none of this is sensible, especially in a single engine aircraft... a sensible minimum should be the visibility and ceiling required to land back where you took off from
In the UK licensed airfields have a minimum visibility requirement of 150m for takeoff. This is imposed by the airfield not a limitation on the pilot. A private pilot has no such limitation.... I'm sure you have practised take-offs under the hood... Of course none of this is sensible, especially in a single engine aircraft... a sensible minimum should be the visibility and ceiling required to land back where you took off from
Also is additional training not required to take-off in less than 400m as it then deemed to be low viz ops.
If you are operating single pilot is it not a requirement to have a minimum of 800 RVR to commence an approach ?
Of course that would not be applicable in a single engine aircraft should the engine fail.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
awqward
Yes but don't confuse AOC operations with private operations...
Yes but don't confuse AOC operations with private operations...
Still, why would you take-off in 150m even if that is the minimum airport RVR without a suitable take-off alternate, when at best the lowest usable single pilot approach Ops RVR is 550m, dependent on equipment installed and increments added to your DA/DH ?