FIT TO FLY??
As a sufferer of Ankylosing Spondylitis I find this report so sad and, am absolutely amazed that the pilot was not only permitted to continue flying but was foolish not to retire voluntarily.
My Class 1 medical, which is a basic requirement for a licensed ATCO (no medical = no licence), was withdrawn in 2000 when I was aged 53 at SRG Gatwick by a visiting specialist. He was in fact a serving RAF doctor of Group Captain rank, later an AM I believe. His take was that due to my limited mobility, similar to the pilot in this case ie poor neck movement and sideways flexing at the hips and,in my case associated constant fatigue,it would be unsafe for me to continue, particularly as I worked in the tower at LHR.
At my 2 or 3 previous annual medicals with Doc Morgan, retired aviation medicine specialist at Boscombe and CAA licensed doctor,he had told me that had I been a pilot he could no longer continue to sign me fit. He thought that I would not have been able to cope with extra loading of flying controls in various emergencies.
The examination at Gatwick had come about because my GP and Rheumatologist were sure my health would be better if I retired.
As for the 'burn out' mentioned in the report, this is a bit of a misnomer because, although the sufferer may no longer have any active symptoms of AS, the fusing and calcification is there forever.
My Class 1 medical, which is a basic requirement for a licensed ATCO (no medical = no licence), was withdrawn in 2000 when I was aged 53 at SRG Gatwick by a visiting specialist. He was in fact a serving RAF doctor of Group Captain rank, later an AM I believe. His take was that due to my limited mobility, similar to the pilot in this case ie poor neck movement and sideways flexing at the hips and,in my case associated constant fatigue,it would be unsafe for me to continue, particularly as I worked in the tower at LHR.
At my 2 or 3 previous annual medicals with Doc Morgan, retired aviation medicine specialist at Boscombe and CAA licensed doctor,he had told me that had I been a pilot he could no longer continue to sign me fit. He thought that I would not have been able to cope with extra loading of flying controls in various emergencies.
The examination at Gatwick had come about because my GP and Rheumatologist were sure my health would be better if I retired.
As for the 'burn out' mentioned in the report, this is a bit of a misnomer because, although the sufferer may no longer have any active symptoms of AS, the fusing and calcification is there forever.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And so is the fragility of the spinal column. Someone asked:
Was any comment made at the inquest as to what may have happened to incapacitate the instructor?
cats five:
Indeed:
"14. The impact of the collision probably fractured the Tutor pilot's spine, leaving him incapacitated" (P83 "The mid air collision", last bullet point):-
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1394.pdf
I suspect his back broke, possibly in several places, with the shock of the collision, and that incapcitated him.
"14. The impact of the collision probably fractured the Tutor pilot's spine, leaving him incapacitated" (P83 "The mid air collision", last bullet point):-
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1394.pdf
This is a very sorry story but explains why 'Pilot Incapacitation' is figuring so highly on various risk registers.......
More importantly, having been involved with various ac escape systems, I found the procedure and the physical effort required to exit a tutor, probably one of the hardest of any platform past or present. One can only imagine the terror the young lad was subjected too trying to get out!!!
Also, with the thread touching on jobs for the boys, the Med Cat was auth'd by a civvy doctor. Surely, in light of various admissions a more robust and independent medical system needs to be introduced?
RIP
More importantly, having been involved with various ac escape systems, I found the procedure and the physical effort required to exit a tutor, probably one of the hardest of any platform past or present. One can only imagine the terror the young lad was subjected too trying to get out!!!
Also, with the thread touching on jobs for the boys, the Med Cat was auth'd by a civvy doctor. Surely, in light of various admissions a more robust and independent medical system needs to be introduced?
RIP
the shock of the collision
This is a very sorry story but explains why 'Pilot Incapacitation' is figuring so highly on various risk registers
No answers as to why the Tutor apparently flew on for so long?
Gentleman Aviator
Re abandonment training:
had a trip a few years ago in a US Navy Turbomentor T-34 at Pensacola - more of a Tucano equivalent I guess.
They had static line 'chutes rather than bang seats, and before my trip I had to do the "sim ride" from a mock-up aircraft high up on a scaffold in a hangar, egress the cockpit and then "dive for the trailing edge" in classic style - into a safety net!
Gave a lot of confidence in the system, did that. I guess we haven't (hadn't) advanced much since the "Jump John Jump" Chipmunk days ...
had a trip a few years ago in a US Navy Turbomentor T-34 at Pensacola - more of a Tucano equivalent I guess.
They had static line 'chutes rather than bang seats, and before my trip I had to do the "sim ride" from a mock-up aircraft high up on a scaffold in a hangar, egress the cockpit and then "dive for the trailing edge" in classic style - into a safety net!
Gave a lot of confidence in the system, did that. I guess we haven't (hadn't) advanced much since the "Jump John Jump" Chipmunk days ...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of putting my head above the parapet, I knew the pilot in question and his skills cannot be questioned. Above all, my sincere condolences to the family who lost their youngster,
Even with full mobility, flying can be hazardous to your health. I took the risk as a kid. I took the risk as a consenting adult. I loved every minute. If we really want to take up military flying as a lifetime vocation we take that risk.
I must be mad. I still do!
Even with full mobility, flying can be hazardous to your health. I took the risk as a kid. I took the risk as a consenting adult. I loved every minute. If we really want to take up military flying as a lifetime vocation we take that risk.
I must be mad. I still do!
Last edited by Geehovah; 22nd Feb 2012 at 18:55.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ex-RAF aircrew member and now a CO of an ATC Sqn. I would question the capability of someone I suspected to be unfit if they were to fly my cadets. But the majority of cadet CO's do not have the knowledge that I have and trust in the AEF staff to ensure their cadets are going to be safe.
The cadets 3822 (record of service) is signed by the CO to the effect bthat the parents have given their consent for the cadet to fly in a variety of aircraft. The parents do not have the slightest understanding of the fitness of the pilots, again, they put their trust in the ATC staff and those flying their children.
Its a great shame that it took these accidents to trigger action to be taken but this is not the first and I doubt it will be the last time that such an event occurs. But thats what military flight safety does, it improves things to try and prevent further occurences.
There has been a dramatic review of the regulations and monitoring of the conduct of flights and supervision since these accidents. I have witnessed the briefings and they are now very comprehensive and there is a good check of understanding.
The cadets 3822 (record of service) is signed by the CO to the effect bthat the parents have given their consent for the cadet to fly in a variety of aircraft. The parents do not have the slightest understanding of the fitness of the pilots, again, they put their trust in the ATC staff and those flying their children.
Its a great shame that it took these accidents to trigger action to be taken but this is not the first and I doubt it will be the last time that such an event occurs. But thats what military flight safety does, it improves things to try and prevent further occurences.
There has been a dramatic review of the regulations and monitoring of the conduct of flights and supervision since these accidents. I have witnessed the briefings and they are now very comprehensive and there is a good check of understanding.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It didn't. It entered a spin, recovered on it's own and entered a dive right down to the ground. If I read the report correctly there was slightly over 20 seconds from collision to impact, nearly all of which was in a dive.
Geehovah - I wasn't questioning the instructor's skill, just his suitability for the job given his medical condition.
cat five - fair enough. Still it does seem like a long time given it was still under power and didn't crash that far away from the point of collision.
cat five - fair enough. Still it does seem like a long time given it was still under power and didn't crash that far away from the point of collision.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to the time - the collision was at approx. 4,000'. Work out the average speed to cover that distance in 20 seconds and I don't think you will wonder why it took the time it did.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ST
"Some will undoubtedly disagree with this, but perhaps inside the MATZ might actually be a less congested place for AEF aeros, rather than in a choke point in Class G airspace."
Minimum height for aerobatics (for AEF sorties) is 3000' agl - ie the top of the MATZ. You cannot, legally, perform aeros in the MATZ.
Duncs
"Some will undoubtedly disagree with this, but perhaps inside the MATZ might actually be a less congested place for AEF aeros, rather than in a choke point in Class G airspace."
Minimum height for aerobatics (for AEF sorties) is 3000' agl - ie the top of the MATZ. You cannot, legally, perform aeros in the MATZ.
Duncs
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's correct to point to the drinking MO or a conspiracy to suggest that Mike was allowed to fly as a fiddle of some sort - he flew Nimrods whilst significantly affected, and was genuinely passed fit to fly regularly by a variety of people, over an extended period of time. That the paperwork trail was not completely as it should be is not a sign of devilry, in any walk of life perfect paperwork is the exception rather than the rule.
With respect I think - were I an MO - I'd be reticent about grounding somebody for a condition that had been repeatedly tested over many years, with the condition being described as (essentially) stable...
Mentioned elsewhere (can't recall which doc now) several dozen US pilots with this condition had been reviewed and the majority passed fit to fly - now you can argue that anyone significantly affected by AS should not fly, or should not fly without a qualified co pilot, or whatever you wish... but at the time of this accident such a rule did not exist.
My belief is that NOBODY ever realised that Mike could be incapacitated (or killed) by a relatively minor impact - so the potential for tragedy was not appreciated until after the event....hindsight is, as ever, 20:20 vision.
With respect I think - were I an MO - I'd be reticent about grounding somebody for a condition that had been repeatedly tested over many years, with the condition being described as (essentially) stable...
Mentioned elsewhere (can't recall which doc now) several dozen US pilots with this condition had been reviewed and the majority passed fit to fly - now you can argue that anyone significantly affected by AS should not fly, or should not fly without a qualified co pilot, or whatever you wish... but at the time of this accident such a rule did not exist.
My belief is that NOBODY ever realised that Mike could be incapacitated (or killed) by a relatively minor impact - so the potential for tragedy was not appreciated until after the event....hindsight is, as ever, 20:20 vision.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Minimum height for aerobatics (for AEF sorties) is 3000' agl - ie the top of the MATZ. You cannot, legally, perform aeros in the MATZ.
With respect I think - were I an MO - I'd be reticent about grounding somebody for a condition that had been repeatedly tested over many years, with the condition being described as (essentially) stable
On the subject of look-outs, the Tutors I have seen of late usually do a wide orbit before commencing aeros. I'd be interested to know if this was standard practice prior to accident.
My belief is that NOBODY ever realised that Mike could be incapacitated (or killed) by a relatively minor impact - so the potential for tragedy was not appreciated until after the event....hindsight is, as ever, 20:20 vision.
a less congested place by offsetting laterally from the choke point
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: N/W London
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been following this sad tale with interest as I was flying a glider in a competition THAT day and passed through THAT area of the collision only a few minutes before the sad event. Indeed, I heard another pilot report seeing the collision on the radio and there but for the grace of whomever, it could very easily have been my glider rather than the Cirrus that was hit.
To put things into context,this is a VERY busy piece of sky and my logger trace is one of those included within the AAIB report identifying the choke point that others have mentioned. The day in question was also a VERY good day as I recall, with a cloudbase of circa 5,500ft, strong lift, cloud streeting and seemingly anything with wings taking to the air that day. With all this in mind I must question the wisdom of conducting aerobatics in the area that they did.
As an instructor, I like to think my look-out is good, but I can honestly say I wouldn't have been expecting aerobatics there and indeed when I flew through only minutes before, I wasn't especially looking for aircraft doing so and rapidly climbing from beneath me.
A sad event all around though and especially so when it seems that it SHOULD have been survivable.
To put things into context,this is a VERY busy piece of sky and my logger trace is one of those included within the AAIB report identifying the choke point that others have mentioned. The day in question was also a VERY good day as I recall, with a cloudbase of circa 5,500ft, strong lift, cloud streeting and seemingly anything with wings taking to the air that day. With all this in mind I must question the wisdom of conducting aerobatics in the area that they did.
As an instructor, I like to think my look-out is good, but I can honestly say I wouldn't have been expecting aerobatics there and indeed when I flew through only minutes before, I wasn't especially looking for aircraft doing so and rapidly climbing from beneath me.
A sad event all around though and especially so when it seems that it SHOULD have been survivable.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geehovah,
I disagree with you. AOC 22 Gp does as well. He says that lookout is a fundemental and critical skill and the Tutor pilot, sadly, couldn't do it sufficiently. From my stand point as a fighter jock. If you cannot rotate your head so that you can see past vertically upwards, whilst being able to also look wing tip to wing tip, then you cannot look out sufficiently in any vertical manoeuvre, of which the most basic is the loop.
I, along with the 2 star, therefore have no problem questioning his skill.
I also took the risk you identify as a child and continue to do so as an adult. But I don't agree that a child or parent makes the same decision I make. When I did it as a child; I and my parents, both assumed that the risk was mitigated to the correct degree which in this case it wasn't. AOC 22 Gp is again correct when he states that both the medical screening and supervision of the AEF were ineffective.
I would not let my children fly in a unit where that was the case. I would let my children fly with the RAF because (despite the fact that my cloth and their's struggle to get along) I would ordinarily assume the reverse was true, that my children would fly in a system of effective medical screening and supervision.
I would also assume that they would be thoroughly briefed on abandonment to the point of at least being able to demonstrate touch drills. I have done this whenever I have flown passengers. It seems that no-one really checked to see if the cadets really understood the brief. Given the shock of what happened, the spin and the 24 seconds available I am not convinced it would have saved the poor bloke. But that's besides the point. His friends couldn't explain how to jettison the canopy in a static interview room.
I have only supervised for 9 years. But I (as we all must have) can think of occasions when I told aircrew they weren't going on a sortie because of illness/fitness or frame of mind - and one case of telling the boss that an individual wasn't going flying at all until we'd sought expert advice. People knew that this pilot couldn't look out. His supervisory chain must have known. He must have known.
A point no-one has yet mentioned is, given his condition, would he have jumped anyway? If a parachute opening was likely to be crippling (at best) he was probably pre-disposed to attempting a forced landing as opposed to abandonment. Not directly relevant - but again someone I would not let my children fly with.
An absolutely horrid accident. My condolences to that poor cadet and his family.
I disagree with you. AOC 22 Gp does as well. He says that lookout is a fundemental and critical skill and the Tutor pilot, sadly, couldn't do it sufficiently. From my stand point as a fighter jock. If you cannot rotate your head so that you can see past vertically upwards, whilst being able to also look wing tip to wing tip, then you cannot look out sufficiently in any vertical manoeuvre, of which the most basic is the loop.
I, along with the 2 star, therefore have no problem questioning his skill.
I also took the risk you identify as a child and continue to do so as an adult. But I don't agree that a child or parent makes the same decision I make. When I did it as a child; I and my parents, both assumed that the risk was mitigated to the correct degree which in this case it wasn't. AOC 22 Gp is again correct when he states that both the medical screening and supervision of the AEF were ineffective.
I would not let my children fly in a unit where that was the case. I would let my children fly with the RAF because (despite the fact that my cloth and their's struggle to get along) I would ordinarily assume the reverse was true, that my children would fly in a system of effective medical screening and supervision.
I would also assume that they would be thoroughly briefed on abandonment to the point of at least being able to demonstrate touch drills. I have done this whenever I have flown passengers. It seems that no-one really checked to see if the cadets really understood the brief. Given the shock of what happened, the spin and the 24 seconds available I am not convinced it would have saved the poor bloke. But that's besides the point. His friends couldn't explain how to jettison the canopy in a static interview room.
I have only supervised for 9 years. But I (as we all must have) can think of occasions when I told aircrew they weren't going on a sortie because of illness/fitness or frame of mind - and one case of telling the boss that an individual wasn't going flying at all until we'd sought expert advice. People knew that this pilot couldn't look out. His supervisory chain must have known. He must have known.
A point no-one has yet mentioned is, given his condition, would he have jumped anyway? If a parachute opening was likely to be crippling (at best) he was probably pre-disposed to attempting a forced landing as opposed to abandonment. Not directly relevant - but again someone I would not let my children fly with.
An absolutely horrid accident. My condolences to that poor cadet and his family.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orca, not disagreeing with your points and I appreciate that any counter view in such a tragic situation is fraught. Like you I would never condone a medical being granted where it should not nor would I accept poor supervision. Both are wrong. My point was that the pilot was skilled in his art, albeit his abilities as we now know were limited by his condition. As we both know, lookout in a fighter brings its own problems which are vastly different to that in a light aircraft but I accept the point fully about aeros.
I guess the point I was making, badly, is that there is a danger of such tragic incidents preventing air cadets from enjoying that vital experience that we all took for granted a few years ago. If someone had asked me when I was 15 whether I would still wish to fly knowing that there was a risk of a mid air or an engine failure, I would have been first in line. I would have pestered my parents into submission. I saw the problem first hand when, recently, I offered to fly some local cadets in a light aircraft at my own expense. The Flying Club is well run, the aircraft well maintained and the profile was benign but not risk free. There are no parachutes in a GA aircraft. The offer nearly had to be refused for reasons of risk/insurance. There can be a danger that we lose the very oxygen that attracts kids into the air cadets.
Could a mid air collision happen again? Sadly yes, on even the best run unit.
Again, my thoughts are with the family.
I guess the point I was making, badly, is that there is a danger of such tragic incidents preventing air cadets from enjoying that vital experience that we all took for granted a few years ago. If someone had asked me when I was 15 whether I would still wish to fly knowing that there was a risk of a mid air or an engine failure, I would have been first in line. I would have pestered my parents into submission. I saw the problem first hand when, recently, I offered to fly some local cadets in a light aircraft at my own expense. The Flying Club is well run, the aircraft well maintained and the profile was benign but not risk free. There are no parachutes in a GA aircraft. The offer nearly had to be refused for reasons of risk/insurance. There can be a danger that we lose the very oxygen that attracts kids into the air cadets.
Could a mid air collision happen again? Sadly yes, on even the best run unit.
Again, my thoughts are with the family.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know someone who Mike Blee flew some years ago. He says that MB was a great guy, enthusiastic about flying and keen to encourage young would-be pilots.
Unfortunately it's such great guys who can be a problem to flying clubs, gliding clubs etc. They've been there since God was a lad, probably sent half the club solo, taught the current CFI to fly etc etc.
But medical problems or old age catch up even with great guys, but their enthusiasm makes them want to ignore the reality and keep going.
It's then than "someone" has the difficult job of telling the GG that it's time he stopped instructing, or flying solo, or whatever. And like telling my 95 year old mum that it was time she stopped driving, it's not easy.
It looked to me from the AAIB report that there had been "buck passing" on the issue between the medics and the flying branch. The medics expected the CFI (or equivalent) to tell MB to stop, the Flying supervisors expected the medics to do it, so MB kept flying because he must be OK because no-one had said otherwise.
"Someone" failed to step forward. Very familiar situation, very human. Best of intentions all round. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Hopefully it's fixed now within the AEF scenario but everyone, especially within aviation needs to be aware of the danger of ageing great guys and if ncessary ACT.
It's the poor cadet I really feel for. Very nasty way to end a life.
Unfortunately it's such great guys who can be a problem to flying clubs, gliding clubs etc. They've been there since God was a lad, probably sent half the club solo, taught the current CFI to fly etc etc.
But medical problems or old age catch up even with great guys, but their enthusiasm makes them want to ignore the reality and keep going.
It's then than "someone" has the difficult job of telling the GG that it's time he stopped instructing, or flying solo, or whatever. And like telling my 95 year old mum that it was time she stopped driving, it's not easy.
It looked to me from the AAIB report that there had been "buck passing" on the issue between the medics and the flying branch. The medics expected the CFI (or equivalent) to tell MB to stop, the Flying supervisors expected the medics to do it, so MB kept flying because he must be OK because no-one had said otherwise.
"Someone" failed to step forward. Very familiar situation, very human. Best of intentions all round. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Hopefully it's fixed now within the AEF scenario but everyone, especially within aviation needs to be aware of the danger of ageing great guys and if ncessary ACT.
It's the poor cadet I really feel for. Very nasty way to end a life.
Fly-Friendly
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around the middle
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Such a terrible, preventable accident. I must agree with Orca the systamatic failures from the MO (Doc Wyper oh we could discuss that can of worms for a while but I will stay on target) to the AEFs failing to stand up and say no you can no longer fly in the RAF.
It happens all over the airforce with a 'jobs for the boys' attitude with people comming to the end of their service in a comfortable easy non deployable job which they convieniently engineer into a FTRS post and they leave the regulars and fill as FTRS. When people are on their last tour at aged 55 for the RAF to allow them into the Aux/Res/VR(T) as aircrew they must surely be A1 fit or close to it. I can't believe there is a shortage of pilots to fill these positions so can we not afford to pick the very best?
I realise that the AEF is staffed by VR(T) pilots but surely we need to be perhaps a bit more choosey in who we allow to fly our children? There is no doubting the AEF pilots skill but someone surely must have realised that he shouldn't be flying any more?
A terrible, preventable, tragic accident and my thoughts are with the cadets family.
It happens all over the airforce with a 'jobs for the boys' attitude with people comming to the end of their service in a comfortable easy non deployable job which they convieniently engineer into a FTRS post and they leave the regulars and fill as FTRS. When people are on their last tour at aged 55 for the RAF to allow them into the Aux/Res/VR(T) as aircrew they must surely be A1 fit or close to it. I can't believe there is a shortage of pilots to fill these positions so can we not afford to pick the very best?
I realise that the AEF is staffed by VR(T) pilots but surely we need to be perhaps a bit more choosey in who we allow to fly our children? There is no doubting the AEF pilots skill but someone surely must have realised that he shouldn't be flying any more?
A terrible, preventable, tragic accident and my thoughts are with the cadets family.