Inspirational jaguar pilot story
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
I have a friend who was due to fly just such a flight this weekend. He's a pro photographer and the pilot was a PPL holder.
When the Flying School they had booked with found out the purpose of the flight, they told the PPL that he could be construed as flying for hire and reward. They promptly terminated the arranged self-fly-hire. Maybe it's because of that kind of behaviour that the Darwin nominees go out solo?
I have a friend who was due to fly just such a flight this weekend. He's a pro photographer and the pilot was a PPL holder.
When the Flying School they had booked with found out the purpose of the flight, they told the PPL that he could be construed as flying for hire and reward. They promptly terminated the arranged self-fly-hire. Maybe it's because of that kind of behaviour that the Darwin nominees go out solo?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: ISLE OF MAN
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Boys and Girls - just back in from 2 weeks in the Med
Just to clear up any misunderstanding from my original post - I am in no way critical of the decision to let your man back in the cockpit - I think it was bl**dy marvellous. what struck me was the fact he had cheated death, been sewn together by brilliant people, got back to the top of his game only to be wiped out so unnecessarily.
Reminds me of a bloke I knew, and some of you might have known - went by the name of Hughes - ex ATCO flt lt and was then ATCO at Blackpool. Big skydiver and a lovely bloke. Day before retirement at 49 - wired up a mower the wrong way and electrocuted himself.
The lord indeed moves in mysterious ways.
Wouldn't the Mardon story make a truly excellent film?
Just to clear up any misunderstanding from my original post - I am in no way critical of the decision to let your man back in the cockpit - I think it was bl**dy marvellous. what struck me was the fact he had cheated death, been sewn together by brilliant people, got back to the top of his game only to be wiped out so unnecessarily.
Reminds me of a bloke I knew, and some of you might have known - went by the name of Hughes - ex ATCO flt lt and was then ATCO at Blackpool. Big skydiver and a lovely bloke. Day before retirement at 49 - wired up a mower the wrong way and electrocuted himself.
The lord indeed moves in mysterious ways.
Wouldn't the Mardon story make a truly excellent film?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: ISLE OF MAN
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes it is amazing how things turn up
I was doing a life laundry this week, prior to moving post, and I found a cutting from our local rag that I kept, which had coverage about an awards ceremony some of our lot were at. Lo and behold, on the other, previously unread side, an article about transplants, and indeed, John Mardon.
Turns out that he was brought up in Colby, here on the Isle of Man, and worked as a delivery lad for the people who deliver our milk to the office!
He was awarded the DSM for a rescue in Oman, got the MBE in 1987 and then in 1990 the transplant took place.
I was doing a life laundry this week, prior to moving post, and I found a cutting from our local rag that I kept, which had coverage about an awards ceremony some of our lot were at. Lo and behold, on the other, previously unread side, an article about transplants, and indeed, John Mardon.
Turns out that he was brought up in Colby, here on the Isle of Man, and worked as a delivery lad for the people who deliver our milk to the office!
He was awarded the DSM for a rescue in Oman, got the MBE in 1987 and then in 1990 the transplant took place.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
In terms of seeing and avoiding each other, then you have it spot on.
Poor airmanship and possible breaches of law (unconnected with the laws regarding the prevention of collisions) can't be condoned.
But perhaps the best line is to take that of the AAIB whose reporting is never intended to attach blame, merely highlight the causal factors and provide recommendations to prevent reoccurences.
Neither of these rules are relevant to the rules for preventing aerial collisions. They are just part of the numerous factors which placed two aircraft in the same piece of sky with neither crew seeing the other aircraft. There are a whole host of factors we could point to which would have broken the chain leading up to the crash.
No notification was required, it is not mandatory. I would presume that both crews would be operating in the belief that other aircraft were likely to be encountered during their flights. The wisdom of the Cessna pilot is indeed questionable but he was just as entitled to be there as the Jaguar pilots were.
Again, very poor airmanship. No question. But even with 100% attention to lookout, you can't guarantee to see every aircraft out there. The limitations, both in respect of human performance and physical characteristics (aircraft and terrain) in both this accident and as a general rule are well documented. We know that in this accident the chance of either pilot seeing each other was very small and the time available for the sighting to occur was a very small one. The odds were against them from the start.
Nope, I don't like the views from some that the RAF crew could do no wrong.
There will always be the taking of sides. It's human nature to be tribal. But as in all things the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
The professionalism of the RAF at low level is of course second to none.
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?
But perhaps the best line is to take that of the AAIB whose reporting is never intended to attach blame, merely highlight the causal factors and provide recommendations to prevent reoccurences.
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?
There will always be the taking of sides. It's human nature to be tribal. But as in all things the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
The professionalism of the RAF at low level is of course second to none.
You get cowboys in military and civilian flying, but I do think that THIS RAF crew (Pixton and Marden) were exemplary professionals.
I also think that to go to such lengths to avoid the core fact is absolutely disgraceful. The Cessna pilot was acting with such gratuitously stupid and cavalier disregard to basic airmanship and common sense that he was criminally negligent - whether or not he remained just within the letter of the law). Whether or not he was technically entitled to be flying at the height he was (and in view of the 500 ft rule that's dubious) and whether or not he was legally taking photos (not for hire or reward) as he blundered aimlessly around over Carno he did have a duty to maintain a proper lookout, which his actions made impossible. Exercising a legal entitlement can sometimes just be pig headed stupidity. It's like stepping out onto a zebra crossing without looking first. The car driver should stop, cos you are entitled to step out into the road, but who is really to blame when he hits you? Notification may not have been mandatory, but it would have been wise. Why did he NEED to be where he was, doing what he was doing, in other words? Even if he was legally entitled to be flying at 350 ft where he was doing, he should not have been there without good reason. Had he been somewhere else a good man would still be with us.
This isn't about tribal loyalty. I have no tribal loyalty to RAF aircrew, whatsoever. In this context I'm just a PPL (so I'm part of the Cessna pilot's tribe), and I know what I'd have done in this idiot's position. If anything I'm angry because his behaviour reflects badly on me and people like me, and does so unfairly. Most of us do have some vestiges of common sense, and do try and maintain some semblance of basic airmanship.
Your attitude reminds me of the coverage in Pilot at the time, and I'm frankly astonished that any professional pilot could be quite so perverse. This bloke's poor airmanship and total lack of common sense were to blame for this accident, and yet you won't condemn it, but will make snide remarks about "the views from some that the RAF crew could do no wrong."
It sounds almost as if you don't think they could do anything right.....
Do you have some kind of resentment towards military aircrew, perhaps? Were you turned down by OASC? Did someone in a zip-up green romper suit molest you in your pram?
Sorry to harp on, but this really grips.....
I also think that to go to such lengths to avoid the core fact is absolutely disgraceful. The Cessna pilot was acting with such gratuitously stupid and cavalier disregard to basic airmanship and common sense that he was criminally negligent - whether or not he remained just within the letter of the law). Whether or not he was technically entitled to be flying at the height he was (and in view of the 500 ft rule that's dubious) and whether or not he was legally taking photos (not for hire or reward) as he blundered aimlessly around over Carno he did have a duty to maintain a proper lookout, which his actions made impossible. Exercising a legal entitlement can sometimes just be pig headed stupidity. It's like stepping out onto a zebra crossing without looking first. The car driver should stop, cos you are entitled to step out into the road, but who is really to blame when he hits you? Notification may not have been mandatory, but it would have been wise. Why did he NEED to be where he was, doing what he was doing, in other words? Even if he was legally entitled to be flying at 350 ft where he was doing, he should not have been there without good reason. Had he been somewhere else a good man would still be with us.
This isn't about tribal loyalty. I have no tribal loyalty to RAF aircrew, whatsoever. In this context I'm just a PPL (so I'm part of the Cessna pilot's tribe), and I know what I'd have done in this idiot's position. If anything I'm angry because his behaviour reflects badly on me and people like me, and does so unfairly. Most of us do have some vestiges of common sense, and do try and maintain some semblance of basic airmanship.
Your attitude reminds me of the coverage in Pilot at the time, and I'm frankly astonished that any professional pilot could be quite so perverse. This bloke's poor airmanship and total lack of common sense were to blame for this accident, and yet you won't condemn it, but will make snide remarks about "the views from some that the RAF crew could do no wrong."
It sounds almost as if you don't think they could do anything right.....
Do you have some kind of resentment towards military aircrew, perhaps? Were you turned down by OASC? Did someone in a zip-up green romper suit molest you in your pram?
Sorry to harp on, but this really grips.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: ISLE OF MAN
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey, I only started this thread to find out a little bit more about an incredible human story.
It was a tragic end, and people died. The aviation world is sadder for their passing, but has hopefully learned lessons, and moved on.
Please don't let this thread become a war zone
It was a tragic end, and people died. The aviation world is sadder for their passing, but has hopefully learned lessons, and moved on.
Please don't let this thread become a war zone
Guest
Posts: n/a
but will make snide remarks about "the views from some that the RAF crew could do no wrong."
And I'm not sniping at the MIL system, It's just a sincere concern about FS.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
Try and read what is written.
For the observence of doubt, I am entirely satisfied that the Jaguar crew were acting professionally.
However professionalism is not a guarantee of spotting another aircraft in a situation such as that of the accident. A situation where BOTH crews have an equal responsibility to see and avoid. You really need to grasp this last point if you are a pilot as you claim. Because if you and I are flying in the same piece of airspace, then I am depending on you as much as you are on me.
The core point is nothing to do with where the collision took place. It could have been a collision with a microlight taking off from a farm strip (which the RAF crew would not necessarily have known about). It could have been a glider landing out. A helicopter off to a hotel for lunch. A pipeline survey. One of a myriad of different kinds of flights. Why the pilot was there is beside the point, because aircraft are entitled to fly in UK airspace within the constraints of the airspace system. In Class G airspace those constraints are very limited. You don't have to have a good reason to fly in it, as you seem to think, you just can. It's one of the freedoms our military pilots help defend.
The core point is that the geometry of the crash ensured that neither pilot was able to see the other in sufficient time to prevent a collision, both due to terrain shielding and the physical characteristics of their aircraft (speed, cockpit structures, etc). It's all in the AAIB report.
You also seem to misunderstand the 500' rule. I can quite legally fly at 10' or less in the vicinity of any person, vehicle or structure. The 500' is nothing to do with height, it's a minimum separation distance. With the reported height of the collision being 350' to 400' then you can use a little Pythagoras to work out how far horizontally you would need to be from something on the ground to give you your 500' minimum distance. It's not very far. The RAF pilots on the site will understand exactly what I mean, they are cleared to operate on MSDs all the time.
I say again, for your benefit, the airmanship of the Cessna pilot was extremely poor. It was a bad advert for civilian GA pilots. And it caused a tightening up of the rules which was long overdue. Some good came out of the tragic events which cost the lives of two brother aviators. The price was still too high though.
You seem to think the entire accident was caused solely by the Cessna pilots poor airmanship and lack of common sense. Do you have a different AAIB report from the one I have read ?? It does not give them as the sole cause. So do I take your expert accident investigation skills and opinions as the gospel, or theirs ?? No, don't answer, it was rhetorical. You see, accidents never ever have a single cause. We can't take the poor airmanship of the Cessna pilot in isolation, any more than we can take into account solely the poor visibility from both cockpits, or the fact that an overtaking aircraft is supposed to give way in accordance with the rules of the air.
Finally, and I am happy for you to quote me from my posts ... where did I say the Jaguar crew did did nothing right ? My position has always been one that both crews had equal responsibility in the 'see and be seen' environment. I sincerely hope that the same thing was drummed in to you when you were trained for your PPL. I also reiterate that the physical factors in this collision prevented either crew from having a chance to spot the other aircraft in sufficient time. And that would have been the case if they were fully aware of each other before hand and searching diligently for contact, or sitting in the cockpit reading the Sun.
Quite happy to continue this with you via other channels. I think we have both made our points.
PS as for your peurile comments about resentment. I work with the RAF every day of my professional life. We work in an environment where it is a team game, where common sense and 'can do' attitude is to the fore. Professionalism you could call it. Sure, I come across some of them who make mistakes and do stupid things from time to time (like our Cessna pilot ?), but then I have the same from civil pilots as well. And remember we are talking about professionals here. Even they screw up now and then. Sometimes, I even have to formally report them (shock, horror), though for most cases a chat and pointing out the error of their ways is usually all that is needed. No harm done and the working relationship remains cordial.
I was actually fortunate to be accepted by OASC (now I bet that really really really grips you Jacko !!), however I was also offered a civil career at the same time. The civil side offered (to my values) more benefits and opportunities so I actually turned the RAF down. Maybe they resent me for it ??
PPS I still think that for John Marden to do what he did was inspirational and is a shining example to people every where that, with courage and determination, you can fight back and overcome what life throws at you. That he has the respect and admiration of his peers as witnessed by some posts on this thread is testimony to how great a man he was.
Try and read what is written.
For the observence of doubt, I am entirely satisfied that the Jaguar crew were acting professionally.
However professionalism is not a guarantee of spotting another aircraft in a situation such as that of the accident. A situation where BOTH crews have an equal responsibility to see and avoid. You really need to grasp this last point if you are a pilot as you claim. Because if you and I are flying in the same piece of airspace, then I am depending on you as much as you are on me.
The core point is nothing to do with where the collision took place. It could have been a collision with a microlight taking off from a farm strip (which the RAF crew would not necessarily have known about). It could have been a glider landing out. A helicopter off to a hotel for lunch. A pipeline survey. One of a myriad of different kinds of flights. Why the pilot was there is beside the point, because aircraft are entitled to fly in UK airspace within the constraints of the airspace system. In Class G airspace those constraints are very limited. You don't have to have a good reason to fly in it, as you seem to think, you just can. It's one of the freedoms our military pilots help defend.
The core point is that the geometry of the crash ensured that neither pilot was able to see the other in sufficient time to prevent a collision, both due to terrain shielding and the physical characteristics of their aircraft (speed, cockpit structures, etc). It's all in the AAIB report.
You also seem to misunderstand the 500' rule. I can quite legally fly at 10' or less in the vicinity of any person, vehicle or structure. The 500' is nothing to do with height, it's a minimum separation distance. With the reported height of the collision being 350' to 400' then you can use a little Pythagoras to work out how far horizontally you would need to be from something on the ground to give you your 500' minimum distance. It's not very far. The RAF pilots on the site will understand exactly what I mean, they are cleared to operate on MSDs all the time.
I say again, for your benefit, the airmanship of the Cessna pilot was extremely poor. It was a bad advert for civilian GA pilots. And it caused a tightening up of the rules which was long overdue. Some good came out of the tragic events which cost the lives of two brother aviators. The price was still too high though.
You seem to think the entire accident was caused solely by the Cessna pilots poor airmanship and lack of common sense. Do you have a different AAIB report from the one I have read ?? It does not give them as the sole cause. So do I take your expert accident investigation skills and opinions as the gospel, or theirs ?? No, don't answer, it was rhetorical. You see, accidents never ever have a single cause. We can't take the poor airmanship of the Cessna pilot in isolation, any more than we can take into account solely the poor visibility from both cockpits, or the fact that an overtaking aircraft is supposed to give way in accordance with the rules of the air.
Finally, and I am happy for you to quote me from my posts ... where did I say the Jaguar crew did did nothing right ? My position has always been one that both crews had equal responsibility in the 'see and be seen' environment. I sincerely hope that the same thing was drummed in to you when you were trained for your PPL. I also reiterate that the physical factors in this collision prevented either crew from having a chance to spot the other aircraft in sufficient time. And that would have been the case if they were fully aware of each other before hand and searching diligently for contact, or sitting in the cockpit reading the Sun.
Quite happy to continue this with you via other channels. I think we have both made our points.
PS as for your peurile comments about resentment. I work with the RAF every day of my professional life. We work in an environment where it is a team game, where common sense and 'can do' attitude is to the fore. Professionalism you could call it. Sure, I come across some of them who make mistakes and do stupid things from time to time (like our Cessna pilot ?), but then I have the same from civil pilots as well. And remember we are talking about professionals here. Even they screw up now and then. Sometimes, I even have to formally report them (shock, horror), though for most cases a chat and pointing out the error of their ways is usually all that is needed. No harm done and the working relationship remains cordial.
I was actually fortunate to be accepted by OASC (now I bet that really really really grips you Jacko !!), however I was also offered a civil career at the same time. The civil side offered (to my values) more benefits and opportunities so I actually turned the RAF down. Maybe they resent me for it ??
PPS I still think that for John Marden to do what he did was inspirational and is a shining example to people every where that, with courage and determination, you can fight back and overcome what life throws at you. That he has the respect and admiration of his peers as witnessed by some posts on this thread is testimony to how great a man he was.
Last edited by PPRuNe Radar; 25th Aug 2003 at 10:06.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow....
Just checked out "Standto's" original post in this thread and, well, I must admit I am completely lost as to where this all went.
I was fully expecting a follow on with Douglas Bader stories and similar however, not to be.....
Suddenly we ended up in the pit of denial, blame and post mortem.
I would like to hear some more heroic stories because I know there are many, lets not try to be fun police and lets try to get amongst what this facility is really about. By all means resurect a "who snotted who thread", but not here....please.
I was fully expecting a follow on with Douglas Bader stories and similar however, not to be.....
Suddenly we ended up in the pit of denial, blame and post mortem.
I would like to hear some more heroic stories because I know there are many, lets not try to be fun police and lets try to get amongst what this facility is really about. By all means resurect a "who snotted who thread", but not here....please.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point "Fox",
The recriminations expressed by most of us just reflect our frustration at the needless loss of very highly valued life, not just in the incident under discussion but generally in the highish (?)number of such tragedies and near misses we see in aviation. Read the AIIB reports and we can count our lucky stars that statistics up in the blue generally favour us all. When the chemistry goes wrong, it goes wrong in spades.
I fly from a farm strip in Scotland, when I am home, and could have found myself in exactly the flight situation/parameters as the Cessna Pilot on many occasions, albeit for very different reasons. If I had clanged into an FJ or vice versa, I wonder how the report would read and just how blame would be apportioned, not that myself or the other pilot would be too concerned I suspect ?
I love sharing my air space with Hawks, Tornados and yes, even Jaguars (!) and confess to a childish high on the Ooooh, Aaah Squeak rating whenever I get up close and personal enough to see them at first hand doing what they do best, but not so close that my a
e is munching on my seat cushion. Also, even as a pure VFR pilot, my airmanship is tested on occasions by lots of other light aircraft doing what they do best too. See and avoid has it's limitations but good airmanship does work.
Now, as for Douglas Bader, reading "Reach for the Sky" at the age of about nine was the reason I always wanted to fly aeroplanes and I am sure many others of my generation saw him as a perfect role model despite (or because of ?) his bluff single mindedness and strength of character. I also watched Brian Milton's "Microlight Odyssey" and although I am sure we would end up punching each other's lights out, I saw so much of that strength of character in him too so good on him ! Maybe aviators are of a common ilk whatever their background, and that's why so much of the debate on the forum ends up a in a slagging session - like minds ??
The recriminations expressed by most of us just reflect our frustration at the needless loss of very highly valued life, not just in the incident under discussion but generally in the highish (?)number of such tragedies and near misses we see in aviation. Read the AIIB reports and we can count our lucky stars that statistics up in the blue generally favour us all. When the chemistry goes wrong, it goes wrong in spades.
I fly from a farm strip in Scotland, when I am home, and could have found myself in exactly the flight situation/parameters as the Cessna Pilot on many occasions, albeit for very different reasons. If I had clanged into an FJ or vice versa, I wonder how the report would read and just how blame would be apportioned, not that myself or the other pilot would be too concerned I suspect ?
I love sharing my air space with Hawks, Tornados and yes, even Jaguars (!) and confess to a childish high on the Ooooh, Aaah Squeak rating whenever I get up close and personal enough to see them at first hand doing what they do best, but not so close that my a
e is munching on my seat cushion. Also, even as a pure VFR pilot, my airmanship is tested on occasions by lots of other light aircraft doing what they do best too. See and avoid has it's limitations but good airmanship does work.Now, as for Douglas Bader, reading "Reach for the Sky" at the age of about nine was the reason I always wanted to fly aeroplanes and I am sure many others of my generation saw him as a perfect role model despite (or because of ?) his bluff single mindedness and strength of character. I also watched Brian Milton's "Microlight Odyssey" and although I am sure we would end up punching each other's lights out, I saw so much of that strength of character in him too so good on him ! Maybe aviators are of a common ilk whatever their background, and that's why so much of the debate on the forum ends up a in a slagging session - like minds ??
