Inspirational jaguar pilot story

[teeteringhead]

Final point correct Jacko - Bill Pix still with us.

John Mardon (note correct spelling) was a rotary mate before getting a fast jet crossover, so figures in my logbook lots - and we lost many braincells together, although he nevr looked old enough to drink legally!

It was indeed his lungs that needed changing, but the state of the art then meant that you had to do a heart and lung job, which leaves servicable ticker on the shelf at stores. Which was duly given to (I think) a London taxi-driver who was indeed at the funeral....... quite odd to meet him.

And then there was the Chinook mate who hit wires in Australia and provided 2 servicable kidneys - I guess they get well used in Oz, we were all amazed they were still usable.

[WorkingHard]

Jaguar/C152 fatalities

Jackonicko – You are of course quite right in what you have said, very poor airmanship was displayed and I agree that it is completely idiotic to do anything but fly the aircraft. It is very sad that 2 people had to die. I just wanted to make the point that if TL, who by his profile is a FJ pilot, believes that civilians need permission from the military to carry out certain tasks/flights etc then we may have a very real problem in that when no such record of permissions exist the FJs may think all is clear. And before I get “shot down” it was TL that made the statement not I. I personally get straight up to cruising level whenever/ wherever possible so I rarely see or know of FJs, but the issue needs to be crystal clear. WE DO NOT NEED PERMISSION FROM THE MILITARY

[Jackonicko]

Fair enough. I read "We don't legally need" as "we shouldn't seek to get..."

We all seem to be on the same page of the hymn sheet....

[Daifly]

Beagle Whilst we can't all be totally correct all of the time, I wouldn't just dismiss what I said as "nonsense" quite so quickly.

You are correct in that it did not instigate the whole Procedure - I believed it did, but the accident resulted in a change to the CANP to include all flying up to 1000' AGL, please refer to http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP625.pdf from pdf Page 30, document page 44, and a greater publicity campaign in the Civil world. This campagin is made my assumption that it did introduce the Procedure.

Indeed it also led to the tightening up on procedures for camera aircraft.

"The light aircraft world learned many things from this accident - the professionalism of RAF low flying was never in doubt" Agreed, but what I posted was not "nonsense".

[You want it when?]

I've read about the Jaguar pilot, and it is inspirational to read about someone who overcame the odds, adapted to his surroundings to keep doing osmething he loved. It would have been "easy" to have taken a desk job or sold his story to the trade comics.

As a recent PPL "look out" is up their as critical, if you're flying somewhere where others might be then doubly so, if my neck doens't hurt after an hour or two of circuits then I've not been watching enough. Irrepsective of what the air boards said - the C152 was flying in congested airspace, maybe with an enhanced lookout or a different angle for the sun the Jaguar could have avoided it...

But as is see it (IMHO of course) if you play on a motorway and get hit by a car then you're a twit. Still sad to see three lives wiped out.

[BEagle]

Daifly, you wrote "...CANP wasn't in existence until after this accident". That was nonsense; it had existed for years at the levels used by this C152.

[spekesoftly]

I seem to recall that 'CANP' was first introduced in the mid 1970s?

[PPRuNe Radar]

spekesoftly

You are correct ..CANP has been in existence since the 70's and the breakdowns of this system feature regularly in the AIRMISS reports (now called AIRPROX) where some one at 'Sqdn Ops' is sometimes blamed for misplotting and hence Mil crews fly through CANP notified areas (occasionally the aircrew get blamed too, but surely it can't be their fault ).

Let's cut to bottom line here ... not what journos (whose knowledge of the rules panders to public opinion) or what other vested parties who should know the rules of the air better than they state on these pages, think.

BOTH aircraft were entitled to be in the airspace. FACT

Commanders of BOTH aircraft were charged with lookout to ensure that they did not collide with other aircraft.FACT

The Jaguar was (by the geometry of the collision) overtaking the Cessna and arguably by rules of the air should have given way (however, the see and be seen principle ALWAYS relys on either seeing or being seen). FACT

All that is certain is that 2 airmen are now dead because of a tragic collision. It could have been preventable .. there again, as both were entitled to be there, then it was possibly one of those which was bound to happen eventually. Somewhere, sometime.

Those that seem to think every rule is black and white should perhaps seek an appointment with our own Flying Lawyer at the next bash .... he has some excellent stories and cases which can shoot your opinion out of the water .. whatever it might happen to be .. trust me I hereby renounce all commission

[Jackonicko]

PPRuNe radar,

Just so I have this clear, you're stating the belief that there was some kind of equivalence in the responsibility of both captains?

And that being the case you don't think that the Cessna pilot's conduct of his flight warrants any condemnation?

And that you therefore see nothing wrong with flying at 350 ft for no good reason in a known area of military low flying, and while doing so, undertaking an activity which guaranteed that it would be impossible to maintain a reasonable lookout?

And you don't think that there's any evidence to suggest that the Cessna pilot was stretching the rules wrt the 500 ft bubble and flying for hire and reward?

This idiot went off and deliberately flew at 350 ft in an area in which military activity was likely, failing to give proper notification, and then cruised around taking photos with a hand held camera, thereby ensuring that any lookout he maintained would be, at best, cursory. FACT!

Or don't you like that one?

[16 blades]

WorkingHard,

So there's "NO PROOF" that the C152 pilot was flying below 500'?

.........so how on earth do you suppose he was tailgated by a Jag at 350-400' (presumably this height would have been pulled off the ADR trace)??? One to ponder......

The question of lookout is a tricky one - you'd think having 4 pairs of eyes and lots of big windows makes a huge differece at low level, but it's not as advantageous as you might think. If you are on constant bearing to another aircraft, you probably won't notice it even if you're staring right at it until it's too late.

Whilst acknowledging that civvies do not need 'permission' to fly in Mil LFAs that are in class G, do you not agree that it is very foolhardy to put yourself in this height bracket at a known choke point on a weekday? You don't need 'permission' to slap a wild tiger's b***ocks either, but I'd wouldn't recommend it........

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

350' or 3500', it matters not. Single pilot taking photos of pretty houses on the ground whilst orbitting is not good airmanship.

[WorkingHard]

CANP

16 - Yes of course it was stupid of the Cessna pilot to do what he was doing and as others have said very poor airmanship indeed. I do not think the conclusions by the AAIB and the RAF Board of Enquiry portrays the correct "picture". Indeed it is a fact that the accident was the failure of the two pilots to see each other just as it is a fact that the Cessna had no chance of seeing the Jaguar approaching at that speed and from that angle. The Mil LFA covers the whole of the UK so it is rather difficult to avoid such areas.
Earlier in this thread a FJ pilot stated that we needed permission (presumably from CANP) to fly (where and when was not stated) so if no "permission" was sought do the FJ pilots think it is all clear? It was a sad and terrible accident in which 2 people were killed and that is what we must keep in mind. I would not be so presumptious as to apportion "blame" and I believe others should do the same where loss of life or serious injury is concerned. We need to dispel some obvious incorrect beliefs though.
A last question please - how was it established that the Jaguar was at 350 -400 feet at the time of the collision?

[Mowgli]

Workinghard - to answer your last question - you'd have to ask AIBB - they're experts in that sort of thing - as far as ADR trace (from an earlier reply from someone)- there wasn't one.

I think it's sad that this thread has gone this way. The title suggests a thread about an inspirational pilot, but has deteriorated into an unqualified investigation into who's to blame for what was a tragic accident.

There was an inquiry, conducted by experts, and there were lessons for all of us to learn.

These guys were unlucky, but the Cessna pilot had shortened the odds. Good airmanship would require the Cessna captain to notify his intentions through CANPs, and to take a crewmember or photographer - whatever - one flies and looksout while the other takes the photos.

All of these things could have been done, but that still doesn't stop aircraft hitting each other - it just reduces the chances. If you've heard of Dr James Reason's accident model you'll know what I mean.

There are no 100% guarantees. As a fellw aviator said to me recently "All you need to remember is - don't hit anything."

Respect to all who died in this accident.

Workinghard - Just let it rest will you? You say you don't want to apportion blame, so why did you bring it up in the first place? No one expected the Cessna pilot to see an aircraft in his 7 o clock, but it was still a failure that led to an accident. Accidents rarely happen through just one "failure". The human eye as Beagle has alluded to is poor at detecting small objects which have zero relative movement.

Lessons have been learnt, and I'm sure Workinghard displays excellent airmanship.

This was an inspirational story.

[WorkingHard]

Jaguar

Mowgli - well put subject closed

[Steve Davies]

Does anyone recall why Mardon did not survive? Seat failure? impact injury?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

This accident nearly cost the lives of hundreds of people in Carno. When bits of engines start landing at high velocity in primary school playgrounds then people have the right to start pointing fingers.

Which they did.

It was unfortunate and unfair that they via the media they mostly pointed their fingers at the RAF.

It is not inappropriate, on a specialist military aviation internet forum, to discuss the pros and cons of this, decade old, tragic accident.

Whilst all professional aviators, be they airborne or groundborne, have a natural tendency to see both sides in these instances - I am convinced that the Cessna pilot attracts the vast majority of blame for this accident.

How readily would people resort to stating the FACTS if that engine shroud had landed 55ft short and maimed class 2C instead of the corner of their playground next to their swings?

Cheers

WWW

[Jackonicko]

And to some extent, people's readiness to point the finger at the clown flying the Cessna on this thread merely balances some of the disgraceful coverage at the time - especially in Pilot.

My understanding is that Mardon ejected outside seat parameters, whereas Bill Pixton did not, due to the dynamic situation of the catastrophically damaged and departing Jaguar.

I met Bill Pixton a couple of times, and knew of him from others. He seems to have been an extremely inspirational bloke, - as a senior officer who could think outside the box, who fought like a Tiger for those he commanded, and who conducted himself with dignity, good humour and charm. He could certainly fool journos, anyway!

[ShyTorque]

I had my doorbell rung late one evening by someone trying to sell me an aerial photograph of my house. It had obviously been taken from about 300-400 ft agl, which meant the aircraft from which it was taken was probably on finals to the minor airfield near to which I live. I told the would-be vendor that I was not interested in buying; he then got quite agitated and demanded to know why.

I pointed out that as an amateur photographer (I didn't mention that I was a professional pilot), I thought it was badly out of focus and asked him who took the photo. He said that he took it himself whilst flying the aircraft. He then offered to sell me the photo unframed for less than half the original price. I declined.

Shortly afterwards, this pilot was excluded from the membership of, or the hiring of aircraft, from the flying club at the nearby airfield, of which I was a member. He had been followed "on a navex" by the CFI in another aircraft after allegations of illegal low flying, now substantiated.

Shortly after that he began hiring aircraft from another airfield in the area. Shortly after that he was killed in a mid-air collision with a Tornado in north Nottinghamshire, orbitting a village, flying at low level with a camera in what I would call fast jet alley.

Nuff said. Darwin rules.

[Jackonicko]

What I've never quite understood is why these blokes don't take a mate to either fly the aircraft (free flying would be payment enough for PPL holders) or to take the pix.

[MightyGem]

Working Hard, I don't think that TL was implying that you need permission from the military to fly below 500', but you do need it from the CAA.