Inspirational jaguar pilot story

[STANDTO]

Some years ago, I read a story about a jag pilot who underwent pretty major surgery, in the shape of a heart transplant or similar, and actually returned to flying duties. He later died in a flying accident.

I think it was in the readers digest of all places! Can anyone point me in the direction of the full story. It struck me as something special at the time, and I have not been able to find it since

Ta

STANDTO

[treadigraph]

Think this chap was a back-seater in a two-seat Jag which had a mid-air with a Cessna 152. It wasn't all that long ago...

[Magic Mushroom]

STANDTO,

I believe that the chap in question underwent a heart and lung transplant before regaining his aircrew med cat (although he was only allowed to fly twin stick jags with another pilot.

At the time of the flying accident (around 92/93 I think), he was OC Ops at Coltishall and was highly active in raising money for organ donor charities.

I believe that he was actually in the front seat of the Jag when it had a mid air with a Cessna that was illegally conducting air-ground photography over Wales. Both RAF guys banged out although only the backseater (OC 41 I believe) survived. The Cessna pilot (who'd got a record for breaking CAA rules regarding low level photograhy activities) was also killed.

I think that these details are fairly acurate, although I await corrections from any Jag mate.

Regards,
M2

[STANDTO]

That'll be the one. Absolutely incredible story. I find it incredible on two fronts: the first being the amazing feat of human bravery insofar as to return to flying at all, and the second being the fact that the RAF ever let him near a Chippy again, let alone a Jag. Notwithstanding the built in safety angle (another pilot) I would have simply thought an 'apply the book' mentality to be the default position.

You just wouldn't belive that after being given that second chance he would be taken away so soon. Somebody upstairs obviously wanted him for greater things.........

[moony]

I think his name was John Marden, he was part of my station commissioning board at Coltishall in 88.

[Pie Man]

The accident happen on 29 August 1991 at Carno in Wales. The Jaguar was in collision with a Cessna 152 G-BMHI, details are in the AAIB Accident Report 2/92. Sorry can't find details in the web.

Regards

Pie

[Jackonicko]

The back-seater was Bill Pixton, and the Cessna (being flown single-crew) was flying a 'photograph rich people's houses' sortie.

The Cessna was being flown by a single pilot/photographer (who was therefore undertaking no effective lookout) at 500 ft in a known LFA.

Pilot Magazine had the audacity to publish articles criticising the Jag crew, implying that this Neanderthal had been 'murdered by the RAF'. In this instance, I joined the chorus of contempt for journos.

Mardon was a real loss, but the Cessna pilot (while no-one deserves to die) seems to have been a Darwin Awards nominee......

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I remember this very well. I lived just down the valley, a piece of the Jag engine landed in my Nans garden and I had just appeared in the local paper as being 'local boy sponsored by RAF'.

The valley in question was indeed a notified exit point from a very busy at the time LFA. It was in the middle of the working week during a peak time of year for military exercises. The Cessna was at or about 500' agl, circling in a high wing aircraft with a single pilot conducting aerial photography.

The crass absence of any hint of airmanship was only marginaly less contemptable than the local medias instant condemnation of the RAF. There was a local political agenda running along the lines of 'we said this would happen - the RAF is risking our lives flying over our houses so fast and low'.

That nobody on the ground in Carno was injured really does merit the tag of miracle. A significant chunk of engine/fuselage landed in the local primary school playground 10 minutes before break. A turbine embedded itself 2ft in the ground of a council house back garden within which a 2yr old was playing at the time.

That the RAF carried 99% of the media blame for an accident that was 99% not its fault was and is galling in the extreme.

At the time I managed to get a letter published in the local rag pointing out the obvious. Unfortunately it was mostly drowned out by the plethora of liberal do-gooders and compensation junky farmers wagging gleeful sneering fingers at the Royal Air Force.

It was with great delight in 1999 that I found myself at a local function with the journalist who has written and led the ignorant diatribe against military low flying at the time of the Carno collision. I took the opportunity to lambast him into next week about the whole deal. I catalogued his errors, demolished his arguments and condemned his partisan bias for about an hour. He promised to write a retrospective on the next anniversary taking on board all my comments.

It never happened.

Swine the lot of them.

RIP John Marden, Sir,


WWW

[Airbedane]

Standto,

Not sure why you criticise the RAF for letting John Marden get back to flying a Jag. He was an outstanding guy, and an outstanding pilot - I speak from personal experience as I shared two tours with him on each of Jaguar and Hawk.

You can't keep a good guy on the ground and his heart-lung transplant had been fully successful. The latter didn't take away his pilot skill, indeed, it gave him the physical strength and stamina to enable him to practice it. So full marks to the RAF for letting him continue to practice his art. He was also a good instructor, so had he continued he would have passed on his skills to the next generation, which is a good investment for the RAF, n'est ce pas?

Just prior to his death he was planning a charity flight in a light aircraft from John O'Groats (sp??) to Lands End. He told me about it during a conversation when he also challenged me to a game of squash. Unfortunately, neither came to fruition.

I missed him, and I still do - he was a great loss to the team.

A

[WorkingHard]

Carno

To quote the AAIB report the cause of the accident "Was the failure of the 2 pilots to see each other." Any loss of life, civilian or military, is a tragedy and all possible steps should be taken to avoid such tragedies. The AAIB report does point out that the Cessna was hit from about the 7 o'clock position by the jaguar at about 450k. Whilst the cause is a fact it is misleading in the extreme to say the civilian pilot contributed to his own death because he did not see the jaguar. He never had any chance of seeing the jaguar from that position. And before anyone jumps please remember both a/c were in the open FIR and the Cessna was perfectly legal. What was the cause of the accident? Do not blame one or the other; a balance is required from which we need to learn to prevent tragedy.

[Mowgli]

STANDTO - I worked with John and you now have the facts. I was junior to him when I knew him and your title actually describes him well - inspirational - but in a completely understated sort of way. A mild mannered "gentleman" who was talented in the air and on the ground.

Some of the replies here suggest they thought it unwise to let him fly in a Jaguar, but wasn't that the point - to prove that you could fly in a fast jet after having a heart and lung transplant? It must give great confidence to those needing the operation - that's his legacy to them.

His funeral was in Norwich cathedral and if I remember correctly, a man who'd recieved John's heart was there.

When we are so often disappointed with our leaders and so called "role models" in public life, I feel privileged to have known John when I was younger.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

WorkingHard - I disagree I am afraid.

I would apportion the blame with the Cessna pilot.

Never mind about what's legal - what about airmanship? To be doing what he was, where he was, when he was - was to invite a disaster that killed two other good men and so nearly wiped out a village primary school.

I know the Cessna pilot didn't wake up that morning with that intent. I know a chain of events and random happenings led him to be there. I know he was probably a nice bloke with a loving family and acres of mates.

But professionally he was culpable and no amount of being nice about it can change the fact.


WWW

[WorkingHard]

Carno

WWW - I have to disagree with the conclusion. IF the Cessna pilot was photographing for commercial gain then that was and is clearly illegal and needs to be dealt with elsewhere. Other than that he was perfectly legal in what he was flying and how. The fact is he was taken out by an a/c that he had never any chance of seeing so how can it be morally correct to state that the accident was caused by neither pilot seeing each other? The jaguar was no doubt also perfectly legal in what he was doing. So I asked the question as to who (if anyone) is to blame. I see your view but it is not mine. Should he have not been there because he may conflict with the RAF? Should the RAF not be there because they may conflict with civilian a/c? Is there finally a case for restricting low level FJ to designated areas? I do not have the answers BUT I do know it was not the fault of the Cessna pilot to the extent that is portrayed

[Jackonicko]

Standto:

The legality of what the Cessna pilot was doing is a grey area, but his lack of basic airmanship is beyond question.

1) At 500 ft he was probably in breach of the ANO. What legitimate reason did he have to be so low?
2) Why would he have been photographing houses (SOLO) if not for commercial gain? (If it was a mate's house, where was the mate?)
3) How can anyone maintain a proper lookout while taking photos using a handheld camera (it wasn't a glider type turning point photo rig)?
4) How can anyone be stupid enough to think its OK to take photos under such circumstances?
5) How can anyone be stupid enough to fly at 500 ft in that area?

He wasn't grabbing an opportunity photo, he'd been orbiting the area for a sustained period, and wasn't flying runs with clearing turns at each end.

The fact that he was his from his seven o clock is completely immaterial. Where was his lookout? Even civilian PPLs should maintain a degree of SA, even if most of us don't use that acronym!

No-one deserves to die, but had he survived, he should have had the book thrown at him. Hard.

[Daifly]

If anything good came out of this incident it was the fact that this, and the subsequent Tornado/Jetranger crash in Cumbria, led to the introduction of the CANP (Civil Aircraft Notification Procedures) which have helped protect many low level operators since then.

It also led to the, now industry standard, pilot and photographer, rather than one guy doing the lot.

It was such a sad incident because he'd been featured heavily on both TV and Radio in the previous few months following his return after the transplant.

I was the last person to speak to the C152 pilot on his way across Welshpool - he did at least call up on the way through the ATZ. Whilst what he was doing was very much a grey area, you have to think back to that time - nobody ever batted an eyelid that single pilot photography was happening, usually by PPL's building up hours for the Self Improver route.

Sadly, it's an emotive subject so I have a feeling this isn't going to be won by either side.

[Titan Locked]

The RAF investigation was carried out in parallel with that of the AAIB. The accident occurred in uncontrolled airspace at low level and in good visibility. The front-seat pilots medical category was not considered to be a contributory factor. The cause of the accident was considered to be the failure of the Jaguar crew and the pilot of the Cessna to see each other's aircraft in time to take avoiding action. There was a number of contributory factors. The Jaguar pilots were considered to have planned and briefed their sortie correctly. Civil operators who intend to carry out aerial work at altitudes of 500ft agl or below, if permission is granted, can notify such flights to the Tactical Booking Cell. The Cessna pilot did not do this . Had he done so, a warning under the terms of the Civil Aircraft Notification Procedure (CANP) would have been issued and the Jaguar would have been required to avoid the notified area. The Jaguar was assessed as being between 300 and 400ft agl at the time of the collision and complying with military low flying regulations. The Cessna was operating in contravention of the Air Navigation Order in that aircraft should not fly closer than500ft to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure . With both aircraft flying about 350ft agl, the Cessna would have remained hidden form the Jagyar pilots by the terrain until about 10secs before collision. At between 10secs and 5secs to collision, the theoretical chance of the Jaguar pilots detecting the Cessna was about 60%, assuming a continuous, unrestricted search. However, the pilots were probably looking to the left of track and the probability of detection was further reduced because the Cessna was 10.5deg right of the Jaguars nose and in this position would have been partly obscured by the windscreen and HUD support struts in the front and rear cockpits repectively. In the last 5 secs before collision, the chance of detection rose significantly but was still adversely affected by the canopy obstructions. It was extremely unlikely that the Cessna pilot would have seen the Jaguar approaching from a constant bearing in his rear left quarter when his attention was most likely focused on the ground ahead. Despite the high theoretical probability of detection in the last 5 secs, the attention of one or both Jaguar pilots was directed away from the Cessna for at least part of the critical period by a particular ground feature. However, a minimum of 5 secs would have been required to detect and avoid another aircraft and the collision was probably already unavoidable when the ground feature was sighted.

Not withstanding the facts and figures, IMHO, the bottom line is that had the Cessna pilot complied with the rules in force at the time this accident would not have happened and he, and a very noble service pilot, would not be dead.

TL

[Daifly]

CANP wasn't in existence until after this accident and what proof was there that he was in breach of Rule 5? After all, one can be a 1' above a field and still not be in breach of it if you are not near the said Vessel, Vehicle or Structure.

I'm really not trying to start an argument over this, it is meant entirely as a question.

[BEagle]

Nonsense. The CANP procedure was around long before this accident.

Having back-plotted the relative geometry of the ac in this accident, the C152 with its high wing layout was 'blind' for most of its manoeuvre profile. The rate of optical spin of the C152 relative to the Jaguar was very low and it might well have appeared as immobile in the Jaguar's field of view until too late.

This was a tragic accident, but to state that the C152 pilot infringed Rule 5 is probably incorrect. That he operated the aeroplane in an avoidably hazardous manner is perhaps correct.

I recall the Jag crew as having been very experienced aviators; no rules were broken, but 3 people died and very nearly many more on the ground. The light aircraft world learned many things from this accident - the professionalism of RAF low flying was never in doubt.

Please let us not tarnish the memory of the deceased by perpetuating the unnecessary name-calling which sadly was all too evident at the time.

[WorkingHard]

CANP

TL - "Civil operators who intend to carry out aerial work at altitudes of 500ft agl or below, if permission is granted, can notify such flights to the Tactical Booking Cell."

You seem to be under some misaprehension Sir. I agree with much of what Beagle has said and as I said before we ALL must learn from such tragic accidents. That said, from whom do you suppose we need permission and for what? I am most intrigued. Rule 5 may or may not have been broken by the C152 pilot; that is a matter of conjecture whatever the AAIB findings. There is NO PROOF that he was below 500 ft.

TL - I see you're a Mil FJ pilot. As such I would have expected more accuracy in your posting here. I repeat permission is not necessary to fly a civilian a/c at any height and certainly not from the military CANP section. IF rule 5 is broken and can be proved then it is for the CAA to prosecute and guess what - it is still nothing to do with the military. You don't control the open FIR just yet.

[Jackonicko]

"Permission is not necessary to fly a civilian a/c at any height and certainly not from the military CANP section."

Maybe so, but what would good airmanship dictate in this case?

"Rule 5 may or may not have been broken by the C152 pilot; that is a matter of conjecture whatever the AAIB findings. There is NO PROOF that he was below 500 ft."

Maybe so, but what height would good airmanship suggest that he should have been flying at?

"Nobody ever batted an eyelid that single pilot photography was happening, usually by PPL's building up hours for the Self Improver route."

Simply incorrect. I heard many people condemning this kind of foolhardiness in the bar at Booker and at Elstree - and such condemnation was aimed at people who were not taking photos in known areas of intense military FJ activity, but over leafy Borehamwood or Henley on Thames. Anyone with any grasp of airmanship, or common sense, would not have done this.

It's easy to get sucked into the technicality of whether the Cesnna pilot was, or was not, technically in breach of the ANO. I can see that there's room for argument on that fact.

There is, however, no such argument as to whether or not he was operating sensibly, nor as to whether he was displaying proper airmanship. He may have been within his legal rights to have been flying where he was, at the height he was, without notification, but to have been doing so by choice was foolish, and this error was compounded by his negligent attitude in flying this sortie without a safety pilot or a dedicated photographer.

Anyone who would deliberately go out and fly a photographic sortie, solo, using a hand-held camera, is, almost by definition, a complete liability. What he was doing required him to focus far too much of his attention down the camera viewfinder, and he was flying at low level unnecessarily. I'm a PPL myself, and I'm by no means a Saint, but I wouldn't for one moment consider going off to photograph houses from 500 ft. If I did need to fly at that height in that area, I'd notify - it's common sense and basic airmanship, even if it's not a legal requirement. The ANO expects pilots to display basic common sense, and to exercise proper airmanship AND to obey the rules. One out of three is not sufficient, even if the rules were obeyed.

My suspicion is that the rules were breached, however. Flying at 350 ft would make it difficult to avoid flying closer than 500ft to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure (especially while your attention was focused on photography) while I can't imagine that the pilot was not intending to charge for the photos he took, even if only to defray some of his flying costs.

Finally, I think that the accident took only two lives, since the Jag backseater, Bill P, survived and thrived.