jollyrog

This was published today.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/...ee__g_bbbk.cfm

Superpilot

Here's a similar accident from 10 years ago.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/...per_501911.cfm

Both are a vivid depiction of press-on-ititis.

moggiee

Not beyond belief at all - in fact all too believable (and all too common).

Look at the lamentable list of failings:

1. No serviceable nav kit.
2. Not IMC rated yet took-off into IMC!
3. Didn't check the weather before setting off from Exeter.
4. Planned to land in IMC at Blackpool, after sunset (although it's not officially night until sunset + 30 minutes).
5. Didn't carry enough fuel to get to an alternate airfield.
6. Either didn't check or didn't understand the Blackpool ATIS.
7. Apparently got no advice, or got bad advice, from someone who had nearly 1800 hours on a (lapsed) BCPL.

I know that we should not expect too much from low hours pilots and relatively inexperienced BCPL/CPL holders but this is truly dreadful. Anyone with a degree of common sense and half decent training should have been able to work out that Blackpool was unfit.

It also raises questions about the FTO that let him have the aeroplane. Whilst the arrangement was a "private" one, and responsibility for adherence to the rules and regulations rests with the aircraft commander, you do have to ask what advice was given to them by the FTO/acting CFI? You have a moral, if not legal, responsibility to attempt to persuade them not to go. They could, of course, have refused to hire the aeroplane out to them. Poor supervision, I'm afraid.

Sky Wave

26 years old, Very Sad.

Hopefully others will learn from this.

jollyrog

Not just "pressonitis" - it was the bit where he took off into a 200-300ft cloud base without an IMCR/IR that amazed me. Everything that followed just seemed to be compounded stupidity with an inevitable conclusion.

I'm a low hours PPL and I'm pretty sure that at my airfield, they just wouldn't let me do that. Someone would stop me. Earlier this year, the admin (not a pilot as far as I know) wasn't sure it was a good idea for me to go up and sent an instructor out to speak with me whilst I was prepping the aircraft. Following discussion, we agreed it was OK to fly as planned, but the point is, people were watching me, they cared and were paying attention.

In this case, his CFI seemed to arrange and encourage the flight. Not exactly an advert for that FTO.

clearfinalsno1

Yes, very very sad. For all PPLs the AAIB report is essential reading.

I remember the accident happening. Reported here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/6329637.stm

Life's a Beech

I worked for a flying school that was not bad, but far from the most careful or strict I ever came across, especially under my first CFI. However they would never have allowed, let alone encouraged, anyone to take off in a Cherokee 140 with 4 adults on board! Full fuel just compounds the stupidity. Encouraging a basic PPL holder to fly into IMC, when it was clear that VFR flight was impossible, well it beggars belief. Even that CFI, who flew some marginal VFR himself, would not have flown VFR much less allowed a hirer to fly in the conditions (hirers were monitored until the club was happy, usually 100 hours or so. Other clubs they are always counter-signed).

Check weight, check fuel, check weather. Every flight.

eharding

I'm confused: is this the

a) "I've got sod-all hours, but I'm glad the flying club administrator keeps me on the ground so I can spend more time posting holier-than-thou finger pointing threads on the Proon" thread...

or the

b) "Call me Nostradamus, but 4 up on a warm day in a Cherokee 140 filled to the gills with fuel isn't a good idea" thread?

I might have misread the timbre of the postings above, but personally picking out an AAIB report and crowing over the findings doesn't strike me as a productive, or tasteful, exercise.

kiwi chick

What an interesting read.

I was going to say "everyone can learn something from this" but I haven't.

TheGorrilla

Perhaps a more constructive thread involving an analysis of the commanders descision making processes and factors influencing the flight would lead to better feedback and contributions from other posters here chaps. The "I told you so" and "I wouldn't have done that" comments are nothing short of pointless.

Not much is beyond belief in aviation. This is no exception.

moggiee

Yes you have missed the point.

The AAIB report catalogues a series of errors which were completely avoidable if the pilot in question had been better trained, better supervised by the FTO which hired out the aeroplane or if he had just applied a little common sense.

For kiwi chick - there is plenty to be learned if your mind is open, not least of all for companies which hire out aeroplanes to inexperienced pilots. The FTO at which I work, for example, retains the right to refuse to let someone use one of our aeroplanes if it's inappropriate to fly.

For The Gorilla - let's look at those decisions then.

1. The decision by an inexperienced, non-IMC rated pilot to take-off from BPL in conditions that were below VFR minima shows a failure to understand (or adhere to) the limits for VFR flight.

2. The decision by the FTO hiring out the aeroplane to the deceased pilot shows a lack of appreciation by that FTO of the potential risks to which the pilot was exposing itself. It also shows a lack of regard for their duty of care towards someone using one of their aeroplanes - a point which I feel that the AAIB report glosses over.

3. The decision to set off from Exeter without properly checking the weather demonstrates either a lack of appreciation of the potential weather risks, a lack of regard for those risks, a rather poor standard of training or a plain, old fashioned lack of airmanship (or combination of several of the above).

4. The decision to leave Exeter for an airport with marginal weather without enough fuel to get to a suitable alternate airfield shows the same failings mentioned in point 3. In fact "marginal weather" is a charitable assessment - it was actually much worse than that.

5. The failure to check weather en-route quite possibly shows a poor standard of training - I am frequently surprised by the number of CPL holders who have never been made aware of the existence of the "VOLMET" system and the same applies to an even larger percentage of PPL holders. If the weather had been checked, then there would have been an opportunity to divert en-route to somewhere like Welshpool or Liverpool.

6. Failure to appreciate that it would have been better to conduct a Precautionary Forced Landing in a field in VMC to the south than a crash in IMC near home indicates a possible failure in initial training, recurrent training or airmanship.

These comments are not intended to be "holier than thou" but to point out some pretty basic failings in training, supervision and decision making. Poor decision making in the air would not have been an issue if the correct decision had been made on the ground - don't take off.

neilmac

Words really fail me! Im gobsmacked! Very sad 2 people lost their lives

The old question.....why? so many clues and people that could have broken the chain of events.

NM

eharding

Clearly so....

TheGorrilla

The FTO where the pilot learned to fly, the outfit renting him the aeroplane (where he probably did a check ride) and the examiner who last signed his licence obviously all thought he was trained well enough. As a licence holder you are accountable for you own decisions and should not expect to be "spoon fed" or abide by the descisions of an organisation when they tell you "it's ok to go, the ops clerk says so".

Chuck Ellsworth

involving an analysis of the commanders descision

Is a " Commander " the same as a pilot when referring to the person flying these light single engine airplanes??

Or does the term commander require some special training?

TheGorrilla

Yes the commander is a pilot.... Always the case in this country, except in the air force perhaps. A pilot is trained to be a commander in order to get his/her licence as part of the ppl/cpl training as a matter of course. No special training is required in addition to the normal licence requirements Chuck.

Chuck Ellsworth

O.K....it just seems a bit over the top to describe a private pilot as a commander but I guess that is the way it is........

moggiee

As you should know, holding a licence does not necessarily give you all the skills you need. There are a great range of abilities and experience levels amongst PPL holder (indeed holders of all licences) and to simply say that he was a licence holder who had been checked out is a gross oversimplification and misses the point. The aeroplane owner has a responsibility to ensure that the hirer is properly qualified to use the aeroplane in the manner in which he intends. We check licences, medicals and ratings before we let someone loose in one of our aeroplanes - it isn't difficult to do and would have highlighted that the pilot was insufficiently qualified for the flight he planned to undertake.

The point in question is that regardless of whether or not the pilot is accountable for his own actions, the operator of the aeroplane has the right (some would say duty) to advise the hirer that what he intends to do is illegal. His decision to take off into IMC took him outside the privileges of his ratings and thus the FTO lending hi the aeroplane were complicit, given that they would have been aware of the weather at BPL at the time of take off.

If you lend someone an item or piece of equipment knowing that it is to be used illegally then the law regards you as an accomplice to that illegal act.

None of this is rocket science - it's just plain common sense.

kiwi chick

eharding....

I think you may be the only one who understood my comment. Maybe I was too subtle.

Moggiee
My mind is completely open and I never, ever stop learning. I thrive on learning.

I was trying to avoid slagging, but my point was there is nothing that I can learn from this because I would never ever be in that situation from the start.

I was gobsmacked.

Say again s l o w l y

Nah, it's just a nice phrase to work out who's backside to kick in the event of a problem!

Unfortunately this is an accident that was easily preventable and there are lots of things for people to learn.

The first one is use some commonsense.

It is a bit bad taste to throw rocks at someone who perished in an accident like this, but looking at the decision making processes and factors that caused this to happen are very worthwile.

My concerns aren't with the decisions made by the pilot. In my eyes he was very inexperienced and was easily lead by others which probably confused the whole go/no go decision.

The CFI should hang his head in shame really. With a forecast and conditions like that, it is criminal that he allowed a flight to go ahead, especially when the pilot was so far out of currency.

Madness and totally unnecessary.