Light Aircraft Strikes Fin on Cable During PFL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Stewart
I have always maintained descending this low to strike a cable was very poor airmanship. As far as rule 5 goes, I think yo can go down to scuff the grass, provided you are 500' from a structure etc etc etc so reclassifying the legislation is not necessary.
Whether a cable and it's associated telegraph poles or pylons is a structure remains to be proven.
I have always maintained descending this low to strike a cable was very poor airmanship. As far as rule 5 goes, I think yo can go down to scuff the grass, provided you are 500' from a structure etc etc etc so reclassifying the legislation is not necessary.
Whether a cable and it's associated telegraph poles or pylons is a structure remains to be proven.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Classification of Incident
The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 states
"serious incident" means an incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.
therefore it might not be classify this as being minor incident.
"serious incident" means an incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.
therefore it might not be classify this as being minor incident.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Broome
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been some excellent points made on this subject recently. Ones that I will certainly consider and use when demonstrating PFLs. However, I may have missed something here, who, initially, said it was described as a minor incident by the club? There have been no emails to my knowledge describing this event in such a manner.
Navoff
Navoff
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm curious to know just how many writing on this thread and making suggestions about how PFLs should be taught have actually had an engine failure.
I was taught to make sure I could get into the field that I had chosen. If this meant going low then going low it was. In many years of flying I never had a check flight that included a pre chosen field by my instructor.
This came into very good use when I actually had an engine failure. I was confident that I would and I did get into my field without mis-hap.
I agree that it could be a good idea to initially practise PFLs at a known location to build up confidence, but this has limited use further in training.
I'm glad to see that the real information is now being discussed and agree with Nav that there is no 'cover-up' with those of us who have posted in support of the club involved here. It is by far, one of the most professionally run clubs I have come across and doesn't deserve some of the mis-information that has occured on this thread.
I was taught to make sure I could get into the field that I had chosen. If this meant going low then going low it was. In many years of flying I never had a check flight that included a pre chosen field by my instructor.
This came into very good use when I actually had an engine failure. I was confident that I would and I did get into my field without mis-hap.
I agree that it could be a good idea to initially practise PFLs at a known location to build up confidence, but this has limited use further in training.
I'm glad to see that the real information is now being discussed and agree with Nav that there is no 'cover-up' with those of us who have posted in support of the club involved here. It is by far, one of the most professionally run clubs I have come across and doesn't deserve some of the mis-information that has occured on this thread.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pamcc,
Well done on surviving your engine failure.
You are quite correct in your assumtpion that I have not had an engine failure (I can't speak for the others on this forum). Modern engines are very reliable, and failures very rare, which is probably why so few of us have experienced them.
They are not so rare that it is not important to train for them, of course, and that training should be as realistic as possible, including the selection of a field (which, in my experience, is the area where many students and PPLs struggle the most, especially if they are spoilt for choice).
But when an event is as rare as engine failures are nowadays, it is also important that the risks involved in training for the failure are not greater than the risks associated with the real failure. Everyone has their own personal view of risk, based on their own experiences, but for me, there is a level below which I will not go on a PFL (which, as I said, varies from field to field, and with other factors too). Going below this level will certainly make the PFL more realistic, but I don't feel the risk is worth it is possible to see from a safe height whether the approach would have been successful or not, and when it is possible to practice the final stages of the approach in a safe environment, i.e. at an airfield.
Others' view of the risk involved might well be different to mine, but the risks must at the very least be carefully considered before deciding whether they should be taken or not.
FFF
--------------
Well done on surviving your engine failure.
You are quite correct in your assumtpion that I have not had an engine failure (I can't speak for the others on this forum). Modern engines are very reliable, and failures very rare, which is probably why so few of us have experienced them.
They are not so rare that it is not important to train for them, of course, and that training should be as realistic as possible, including the selection of a field (which, in my experience, is the area where many students and PPLs struggle the most, especially if they are spoilt for choice).
But when an event is as rare as engine failures are nowadays, it is also important that the risks involved in training for the failure are not greater than the risks associated with the real failure. Everyone has their own personal view of risk, based on their own experiences, but for me, there is a level below which I will not go on a PFL (which, as I said, varies from field to field, and with other factors too). Going below this level will certainly make the PFL more realistic, but I don't feel the risk is worth it is possible to see from a safe height whether the approach would have been successful or not, and when it is possible to practice the final stages of the approach in a safe environment, i.e. at an airfield.
Others' view of the risk involved might well be different to mine, but the risks must at the very least be carefully considered before deciding whether they should be taken or not.
FFF
--------------
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said it was a minor incident?
I was writing in response to a previous post which states the club had called it a minor incident hence my post and follow up quote from the AAIB guidlines.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Back in civilisation
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that this thread is in danger of causing a lot more problems than it is solving. I fly out of this club and know the people in question but also know that there is a segment of the membership who really want their own flying club at an RAF base, very cheap!
I do not agree with the actions taken by the pilot in an airmanship capacity but i have also seen and heard good things about the club and person in question. There seems to be too many people ready to stick the knife in without checking the facts, wait for the results of the enquiry then you can have your say.
If said person is exonnerated will certain members of this thread apologise for some of their comments, i dont expect so!
My hope is that this will not put off people using the club as many people at Kinloss have started their aviation careers there and would probably not have if it was not there?
As for the story in the sun the journalist in question has the credability of a wet kipper, he was the one that got the name of one of the crew of the tornado shot down by the american patriot battery wrong!
I do not agree with the actions taken by the pilot in an airmanship capacity but i have also seen and heard good things about the club and person in question. There seems to be too many people ready to stick the knife in without checking the facts, wait for the results of the enquiry then you can have your say.
If said person is exonnerated will certain members of this thread apologise for some of their comments, i dont expect so!
My hope is that this will not put off people using the club as many people at Kinloss have started their aviation careers there and would probably not have if it was not there?
As for the story in the sun the journalist in question has the credability of a wet kipper, he was the one that got the name of one of the crew of the tornado shot down by the american patriot battery wrong!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting thread developing.
I learned at Moray. I have may good things to say, but the one bad thing was the stifling attitude of the CFI to safety. I know you can't be 'too safe'. but there does come a point where a qualified CPL or even PPL should be able to go flying without having their planning scrutinised by instructors.
As an aside, all those defending him I would ask: are you somehow justifying an instructor striking a power cable in a normal flight?
I learned at Moray. I have may good things to say, but the one bad thing was the stifling attitude of the CFI to safety. I know you can't be 'too safe'. but there does come a point where a qualified CPL or even PPL should be able to go flying without having their planning scrutinised by instructors.
As an aside, all those defending him I would ask: are you somehow justifying an instructor striking a power cable in a normal flight?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting you say that sk8erboi because the thread was started by someone who made suggestions of CRM issues etc but then did not return to answer their critics. I joined to discuss the issue of PFL's with regards to the PPL syllabus, I also felt that some were trying to prevent the discussion taking place - quite obviously people who are colleagues and friends of the instructor.
Above all there is much to be learned from this incident, I don't think people are defending the actions of the instructor more they see him as a skilled and highly proficient aviator. It's very unfortuante for this incident to occur and more unfortunate for the status of the instrutor concerned but we should learn from it and move forward.
Above all there is much to be learned from this incident, I don't think people are defending the actions of the instructor more they see him as a skilled and highly proficient aviator. It's very unfortuante for this incident to occur and more unfortunate for the status of the instrutor concerned but we should learn from it and move forward.
Last edited by high voltage; 1st Mar 2006 at 15:51.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just caught up with this thread after some time surfing the air over foreign lands I was interested to read the AAIB report on the cable strike. I think the conclusion says all that needs to be said - 20 feet is too low.
It is reckless in the extreme to assume too much in aviation - you may think something's safe but the reality is often different. Safety is what is paramount.
Scapegoat searches are often driven by a desire to get one's own back - I detected that here. But there are disturbing issues in the defence shown by some club/RAF members - let's have the truth out in the open to see what can be done to improve things for EVERYONE. If all can learn from what happened at this club, knuckles gently wrapped and practices changed for the better then we should all be happy.
That will leave Moray FC to continue with their remarkably cheap flying (only for RAF members I believe) at this major RAF front line airbase.
Nice to know my taxes are being spent so wisely and fairly keeping so many in the air who may not otherwise want to afford the pleasure.
It is reckless in the extreme to assume too much in aviation - you may think something's safe but the reality is often different. Safety is what is paramount.
Scapegoat searches are often driven by a desire to get one's own back - I detected that here. But there are disturbing issues in the defence shown by some club/RAF members - let's have the truth out in the open to see what can be done to improve things for EVERYONE. If all can learn from what happened at this club, knuckles gently wrapped and practices changed for the better then we should all be happy.
That will leave Moray FC to continue with their remarkably cheap flying (only for RAF members I believe) at this major RAF front line airbase.
Nice to know my taxes are being spent so wisely and fairly keeping so many in the air who may not otherwise want to afford the pleasure.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: outer space
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the guy in charge if the club called it a MINOR INCIDENT. the guy who hit the wire also did a barrel roll in the circuit. defend that. dont call me a a fool for bringing the subject up, i am allowed to as it is reasonable to do so. Heard in the pub a PAN was not declared, buth that might just be a pprumour.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: some were in the southern hemisphere
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in my ppl flighttest i was 500 feet and told the testing bloke ye i get in allright, wich i did believe. and tought righto thats the forced landing bit out off the way. he replyed is that so? you better show me. so we decent and decent. when i tought that my weels were bruching the maize crop he told me to go around. when we were back at 500 feet he said righto you did get in. BUT you would have totaly F
d the plane. and most likely anded up with some insuries. so we went up and he showed me and next time i got in ok. and i learned a lot from that. The testing bloke DID know the aerea really well tough. so we were not unsave. and he wanted to prove a point. in my cpl training i had a top instructor who pulled the power a few times near strips and we did get in ok.
come cpl test we anded up arguing with old mate wich bloody paddock i had picked. since i had to go around at 500 feet because that is the rule. let alone being able to tell wether i got in ok.
I think an instructor should know the area, and the wires and other traps, but than let the student go as low as he can prefble in a strip he hasnt been before so they get used to being that low and knowing for sure they can get in when they do things right and all goes a bit silent up front.
i think this would be a comfort boster for when it goes wrong.
just make sure they dont do it on there own!!!
d the plane. and most likely anded up with some insuries. so we went up and he showed me and next time i got in ok. and i learned a lot from that. The testing bloke DID know the aerea really well tough. so we were not unsave. and he wanted to prove a point. in my cpl training i had a top instructor who pulled the power a few times near strips and we did get in ok. come cpl test we anded up arguing with old mate wich bloody paddock i had picked. since i had to go around at 500 feet because that is the rule. let alone being able to tell wether i got in ok.
I think an instructor should know the area, and the wires and other traps, but than let the student go as low as he can prefble in a strip he hasnt been before so they get used to being that low and knowing for sure they can get in when they do things right and all goes a bit silent up front.
i think this would be a comfort boster for when it goes wrong.
just make sure they dont do it on there own!!!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest the debate which I think is long over due on PFL's is getting spoiled by the internal politics of the club which I might add have been going on for years.
The incident which has been described will have happened many times before but luckly for the FI they have managed to have ball left in the bag of luck and got away with it.
In my days as a FI I felt my duty of care meant I had to teach and make sure that a student could get a PFL in. This wasn't really a duty of care to the student. It was a duty of care to all the unqualified people who would put there trust in the system that the person was able to fly when they go flying with them. And I believe that most if not all PPL examiners are the same. Which is why they tend to take it to the deck.
The problem with PFL's is that after very few go's most can do the circuit, deal with the checks and get it somewhere near the field at 500ft. The real work occured below this level. And the last 20 ft to be honest is not only the most dangerous to those involved but also the place where all the small mistakes earlier are exposed. The student then also has to deal with ground rush of fences getting nearer, trees and all those other things people don't generally have next to runways, low level wind changes etc . A very common fault is to pull the control stick back to keep away from the ground prolonging the glide with the resulting problem with a high drag stall to spin. Now how to expose the students to that situation without going below 50ft? You don't want them to experence it on there first engine failure.
And if you think doing PFL's is dangerous go and watch some helo's doing auto's there accident rate is far worse than the fixed wing PFL's exercises.
There is (or wasn't in my day) no set guidelines for PFL's, if the CAA stated that all examiners have to knock PFL's off at 500ft its no problem thats what they will be done to, with the resulting hole in the training for the student. Currently examiners and FI's are trying to train you to the best that they can within a very loose set of guidlines which leave much to the individual.
The incident which has been described will have happened many times before but luckly for the FI they have managed to have ball left in the bag of luck and got away with it.
In my days as a FI I felt my duty of care meant I had to teach and make sure that a student could get a PFL in. This wasn't really a duty of care to the student. It was a duty of care to all the unqualified people who would put there trust in the system that the person was able to fly when they go flying with them. And I believe that most if not all PPL examiners are the same. Which is why they tend to take it to the deck.
The problem with PFL's is that after very few go's most can do the circuit, deal with the checks and get it somewhere near the field at 500ft. The real work occured below this level. And the last 20 ft to be honest is not only the most dangerous to those involved but also the place where all the small mistakes earlier are exposed. The student then also has to deal with ground rush of fences getting nearer, trees and all those other things people don't generally have next to runways, low level wind changes etc . A very common fault is to pull the control stick back to keep away from the ground prolonging the glide with the resulting problem with a high drag stall to spin. Now how to expose the students to that situation without going below 50ft? You don't want them to experence it on there first engine failure.
And if you think doing PFL's is dangerous go and watch some helo's doing auto's there accident rate is far worse than the fixed wing PFL's exercises.
There is (or wasn't in my day) no set guidelines for PFL's, if the CAA stated that all examiners have to knock PFL's off at 500ft its no problem thats what they will be done to, with the resulting hole in the training for the student. Currently examiners and FI's are trying to train you to the best that they can within a very loose set of guidlines which leave much to the individual.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: where it's yellow not green
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rule 5
Right, the 500' rule is that you must always be at least 500' from any person, vehicle, vessel or structure. The only other comments on rule 5 say that above a populated area (ie. flying over a large town or city) you must be at least 1000' and be able to glide to safety in the event of loss of power. Now, with that said, as long as you are at least 500' from any person, vehicle, vessel or structure (pylons not included) you can fly at 1' above the ground. Whether that's good airmanship is another matter. Going around from a PFL at 500' AGL is sometimes not a great exercise, it can be hard to judge whether you'd make it in from that height, and remember what a PFL is- it's an exercise to practice forced landings, what's the point in practising the approach only to find that you're not judging it properly the whole time?
All I'd say about this case is that the captain (and the student - and even more so if he/she is indeed a license holder) showed poor judgement and poor lookout capabilities in not seeing the pylon/cables.
(nb. thanks Radar for pointing out the update, it seems it changed april last year so I have no excuses!)
All I'd say about this case is that the captain (and the student - and even more so if he/she is indeed a license holder) showed poor judgement and poor lookout capabilities in not seeing the pylon/cables.
(nb. thanks Radar for pointing out the update, it seems it changed april last year so I have no excuses!)
Last edited by BongleBear; 14th Mar 2006 at 15:06.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you feel just a little bit stupid?
Buck rodgers,
You started this thread, and I can't say that there hasn't been some useful discussion, because there has. Nevertheless, you made some striking statements at the start, which not surprisingly prompted some vicious discussion. Your original assertion about landing in a field turned out to be complete nonsense. You disappeared for a while, and then returned to a forum which in your absence is having a reasonably fair and balanced discussion.
You maintained throughout that your aim was only to promote safe flying, however on more than one occasion you used words such as 'bully' to describe this individual. On 2 separate occasions you said that you do not want a public lynching, however your repeated assertion of this point indicates two things:
1. That you do in fact want a public lynching. (In verbal terms at least)
2. That your goal is not as honourable as you would suggest, and that in fact you simply don't like this person and have siezed on an opportunity to kick him when down.
Some day it might be you who is down, and I hope that your enemies are more gracious than you have been here.
You started this thread, and I can't say that there hasn't been some useful discussion, because there has. Nevertheless, you made some striking statements at the start, which not surprisingly prompted some vicious discussion. Your original assertion about landing in a field turned out to be complete nonsense. You disappeared for a while, and then returned to a forum which in your absence is having a reasonably fair and balanced discussion.
You maintained throughout that your aim was only to promote safe flying, however on more than one occasion you used words such as 'bully' to describe this individual. On 2 separate occasions you said that you do not want a public lynching, however your repeated assertion of this point indicates two things:
1. That you do in fact want a public lynching. (In verbal terms at least)
2. That your goal is not as honourable as you would suggest, and that in fact you simply don't like this person and have siezed on an opportunity to kick him when down.
Some day it might be you who is down, and I hope that your enemies are more gracious than you have been here.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Grantown Scotland
Age: 70
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the stirrer
I have just joined Prune and found this thread,I am a member of the club.
My background includes 22 years working in flight safety. The incident has been fully investigated by the relevant authority who will issue their own report.
I have no problems with the instructor or the well run club. I do have a huge problem with a small number of stirrers who are having a vendetta against the CFI and his wife who also works at the club.This incident has been used to stir up more ill feeling. And of course the stirrers refuse to be out in the open.They have even sent round robin emails full of lies.
It is a shame because the club has a superb attitude to safety issues.
My background includes 22 years working in flight safety. The incident has been fully investigated by the relevant authority who will issue their own report.
I have no problems with the instructor or the well run club. I do have a huge problem with a small number of stirrers who are having a vendetta against the CFI and his wife who also works at the club.This incident has been used to stir up more ill feeling. And of course the stirrers refuse to be out in the open.They have even sent round robin emails full of lies.
It is a shame because the club has a superb attitude to safety issues.