ZK-FGA Fouga Firth of Thames accident report
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Auckland
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does a MiG 21 count?
Well it depends if you have flown it, or flown "in" it.
So how many hours do you have flying a MiG 21 and how much did it involve ACM?
The reason I'm asking is that I really don't care that they were undisciplined/unprofessional as all it does is add to the risk, men are men and if they want to do a high risk exercise then as along as they do it over a safe area (I realise that this is a contentions point however they did crash over water so I'll give them that) then good luck to them.
I'd like to try and understand why you don't seem to accept or believe that and I feel that the report was written by people who also believe that the accident could have been avoided completely, by meeting the CAA criteria.
I don't agree with that, I think that the accident could have happened to you or me if the aircraft had of been placed into the same situation, which could have happened without any grossly incorrect handling.
I believe that, based off a similar accident in OZ that I described before, with a fully qualified pilot, current , "professional" and "disciplined" pilot at the controls were essentially the same thing happened and he was saved by ejecting.
As for questioning my understanding of the those words, if you knew me and I'm not hard to track down, you might reconsider that opinion.
Well it depends if you have flown it, or flown "in" it.
So how many hours do you have flying a MiG 21 and how much did it involve ACM?
The reason I'm asking is that I really don't care that they were undisciplined/unprofessional as all it does is add to the risk, men are men and if they want to do a high risk exercise then as along as they do it over a safe area (I realise that this is a contentions point however they did crash over water so I'll give them that) then good luck to them.
I'd like to try and understand why you don't seem to accept or believe that and I feel that the report was written by people who also believe that the accident could have been avoided completely, by meeting the CAA criteria.
I don't agree with that, I think that the accident could have happened to you or me if the aircraft had of been placed into the same situation, which could have happened without any grossly incorrect handling.
I believe that, based off a similar accident in OZ that I described before, with a fully qualified pilot, current , "professional" and "disciplined" pilot at the controls were essentially the same thing happened and he was saved by ejecting.
As for questioning my understanding of the those words, if you knew me and I'm not hard to track down, you might reconsider that opinion.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 20 and yes. It was a tandem version, so I had help!
I do accept and believe that "men are men" and if they do dangerous stuff in a safe area, so be it. My point is that this is not a desirable justification, because such men will inevitably end up hurting someone if they don't kill themselves first. Sadly, it is also the sort of ethos that leads to these accidents, because it reinforces the "give it death" mentality that these people seem to thrive on. It seems to come from the organisations concerned, tacitly supported by the CAA.
The difference is that I (and hopefully you) would never place ourselves in that situation, ie where any departure of the aircraft would inevitably lead to death. It isn't wartime, there is absolutely no need for that kind of risk-taking, and it proves nothing (other than the much-mentioned quality of the pilot, or lack thereof).
... an option not open to the Fouga guy... so why take the risk, with no safety net?
Really a little too busy to try and track you down, just PM your real name and what you think those words mean...
I'd like to try and understand why you don't seem to accept or believe that
I don't agree with that, I think that the accident could have happened to you or me if the aircraft had of been placed into the same situation, which could have happened without any grossly incorrect handling.
essentially the same thing happened and he was saved by ejecting.
Really a little too busy to try and track you down, just PM your real name and what you think those words mean...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Auckland
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate your time and promise not to rabbit on much more.
For me I think I understand your point of view, however just because you wouldn’t be prepared to take those risks (and for the record, neither would I without a bang seat) doesn’t mean that you are an unprofessional or ill-disciplined pilot, however I gather that not much is going to make you change your mind so let me leave you with this.
I fly a warbird, the biggest one, will be a Wanaka this year as I was at Omarka last year, I teach at Adrmore and have the odd drink on a Sunday afternoon at the bar with the "give it death" people.
From my direct experience, you are wrong with your assumptions about them.
As a relatively experienced professional aviator, I always respect my environment, machinery, assess my risks and encourage all my students to do the same so please take comfort in that.
Cheers Wombat
For me I think I understand your point of view, however just because you wouldn’t be prepared to take those risks (and for the record, neither would I without a bang seat) doesn’t mean that you are an unprofessional or ill-disciplined pilot, however I gather that not much is going to make you change your mind so let me leave you with this.
I fly a warbird, the biggest one, will be a Wanaka this year as I was at Omarka last year, I teach at Adrmore and have the odd drink on a Sunday afternoon at the bar with the "give it death" people.
From my direct experience, you are wrong with your assumptions about them.
As a relatively experienced professional aviator, I always respect my environment, machinery, assess my risks and encourage all my students to do the same so please take comfort in that.
Cheers Wombat
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The majority of fixed wing accidents in Oz involving lighties and "warbirds" are caused by pilot error - a lot are weather related and most of the others are because the pilot has got outside of his capability box re aircraft handling. Invariably the pilot is described by his peers/family/friends as extremely careful/"professional" (wtftm) etc - crap! Yes I've met a number of PPL holders (I was one once - it frightens me now years later how much I didn't know) who clearly know their limits but I've met others who are accidents waiting to happen. Before someone can own/operate a high performance (any ex-mil jet) aircraft that person should demonstrate that he has a lot more going for him than just the funds to acquire it.
I would add that CAA/CASA et al probably don't want to know until the day someone ploughs into the middle of an airshow crowd.
GAGS
E86
I would add that CAA/CASA et al probably don't want to know until the day someone ploughs into the middle of an airshow crowd.
GAGS
E86
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just because you wouldn’t be prepared to take those risks (and for the record, neither would I without a bang seat) doesn’t mean that you are an unprofessional or ill-disciplined pilot
The question of risk is very subjective. When I go blasting down the road on my big Japanese sports bike, I feel perfectly in control, however many people would label those bikes intrinsically dangerous. If that bike does depart, I'm going to get hurt, and yet I ride the thing and enjoy going fast on it - although I don't take stupid risks. I guess many emergency room doctors wish those bikes didn't exist.
When flying aircraft, I always take the approach that you can't be too careful/disciplined/professional, because the consequences of a lapse are apt to hurt you. Fly by the SOPs as much as you possibly can, and when you aren't, act to the highest standards of professionalism. So I guess there is a bit of a paradox there.
Most of my exposure to warbirds and display flying was in the UK - I spent a bit of time flying a B25 over there. My take on the display pilot scene was that it was sharply divided between the extremely competent and professional (the Ray/Mark Hannas of this world), and those who had enormous piles of cash, bought the aircraft, and then proceeded to show off in them. They wouldn't let other pilots fly them, so if you wanted to see them displayed, they were going to do it. Having seen two Spitfires destroyed at airshows, as well as a Hurricane very nearly destroyed at Old Warden, I wish somebody would stop the carnage. There aren't that many of these aircraft left.
Anyway... which is bigger, the Catalina or the Dak?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Aotearoa
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZ CAA Advisory Circular 91-1 Aviation Events
NZ CAA Advisory Circular 91-1 Aviation Events (19 January 2006) makes interesting reading. It's only one acceptable means of compliance with Part 91 but it answers some of the points made on this thread.
You can't regulate against ego or wealth.
You can't regulate against ego or wealth.
Silly Old Git
You can't regulate against ego or wealth.
In an industry that thrives on it (Aeroclubs, flying schools etc) dare I suggest Ardmore produces more than its fair share of unadulterated bull****/****ters?
Fat cheque books lead to...
the fouga, the eurocopter, the navajo out of fielding, the 182 into the sea off canterbury, the first catalina attempt, that TV interviewer/personality, the NBR rich list member that wrote his squirrel off at mechanics bay about 10years ago
the fouga, the eurocopter, the navajo out of fielding, the 182 into the sea off canterbury, the first catalina attempt, that TV interviewer/personality, the NBR rich list member that wrote his squirrel off at mechanics bay about 10years ago
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I don't, but it is a relatively simple philosophical decision on the part of the CAA. They can either adopt their usual hands-off, safety-is-the-operators-responsibility stance, or they can start to insist on higher standards. The warbirds guys may all be jolly fine chaps and snappy dressers, but they clearly have difficulty self-regulating, which is hardly surprising.
If it was me, I would insist that pilots are checked out by someone qualified to do so - and by that, I mean somebody who is qualified, and at least reasonably current, on type. It may be necessary to give these people temporary CAA validations to allow them to fly here, as they will probably all be based overseas, but at least then the local pilots are being checked by people who actually know the aircraft.
The basis of the "check" being carried out when this accident happened is absolutely laughable. One guy, not familiar with the aircraft and having not flown fast jets for many years, checking a guy who is not current on type but is nevertheless conducting low-level aeros. It could probably only happen in NZ...
If it was me, I would insist that pilots are checked out by someone qualified to do so - and by that, I mean somebody who is qualified, and at least reasonably current, on type. It may be necessary to give these people temporary CAA validations to allow them to fly here, as they will probably all be based overseas, but at least then the local pilots are being checked by people who actually know the aircraft.
The basis of the "check" being carried out when this accident happened is absolutely laughable. One guy, not familiar with the aircraft and having not flown fast jets for many years, checking a guy who is not current on type but is nevertheless conducting low-level aeros. It could probably only happen in NZ...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warbirds, PPLs, chequebooks, and so on
This thread is a little old, and possibly of no interest to anyone but me. But it is of intense interest to me, cos I'm a PPL who has been smiled on by Lady Luck, so I can afford high performance aircraft, and I am getting into flying jets. Safely flying jets. Much of the comment here has been along the lines of PPLs with the money for serious aircraft are, ipso facto, dangerous. The issue has been on my mind for some time, as I fly a high performance aircraft already - a Harmon Rocket - (yeah, there goes my anonymity, but whatever. Dunno why we PPRUNERS hide behind pseudonyms anyway, to tell you the truth. I think it encourages an immoderate tone in these discussions, although I guess those of us with aviation jobs need to be careful). I have also had some flying accidents and incidents in my time, which may have resulted from errors of judgement, but I don't think it would be fair to say that they resulted from a lack of discipline. While I do believe that it is easy to BUY more aircraft than you can FLY, I thought some here, especially MOR, may be interested to know that I am right now at a major jet warbird training facility in the US, and it has been very educational. Today we flew sorties in a Fouga, and an L-39. My instructor, who has decades of experience in training "rich boys and their toys" is very, very serious about safety, and we spent much of the day discussing this issue. He said that, on form to date, the most dangerous people by far in the jet warbird world are not, in fact, PPLs with fat wallets - they are ex military pilots, and ex airline pilots, with many thousands of hours flying very high performance aircraft in a highly regulated environment. (Being either military regs or airline SOPs) And often not so fat wallets. He suggested I look up the NTSB reports for jet warbird crashes. I have done so, and he appears to be absolutely correct. Most jet warbird crashes, in the US anyway, appear to be ill disiplined CFIT accidents, where very experienced and highly qualified pilots doing silly stuff fly perfectly good aircraft into the ground. I'm sure we've all met PPLs who take their flying very seriously. In drawing simple conclusions from incidents such as the Fouga accident, the recent helicopter crash in Raglan, and so on, I wonder if MOR and co are overlooking some basic statistics? How many PPLs with high performance aircraft are NOT crashing? My instructor went further in saying that, in his opinion, PPLs are often far MORE careful than the pros, because they are used to a far less regulated environment, have to make complex decisions throughout their flying career, and are aware that they don't have people looking over their shoulder so much. Arguably, we PPLs are subject more to the laws of physics than the laws of man, and I'm not sure it's very sensible to try and bend the former one iota.
Professionals, on the other hand, have professional flight planners, despatchers, engineers, and superior officers or managers to report to. He says some of these people, when they get the freedom that private flying offers, "go crazy". I think the truth is, as usual, far more complex than a simple analysis might imply. Fat wallet + PPL = risk factor. Yes. Said risk can be managed, with the right attitude. Less wallet + huge hours of professional experience ALSO = risk factor. Which also needs to be managed. ALL flying is risky in some way, and ALL the risks need to be acknowledged and appropriately managed.
PPLs bad, CPLs good? I really don't see the evidence to support that. (And I think if PPLs with day jobs got CPLs, we'd still basically be a PPLs, cos we don't fly commercially) Does proving a high level of TECHNICAL skill prevent JUDGEMENT errors? I doubt it. And it certainly doesn't change character, discipline, and so on.
Fat wallets bad? Nope. Not fair, not true. Anyway, I think it's the first part of P of F, isn't it? What is the main factor in generating lift?
Money
PPLs with tighter budgets, it would seem to me, might not be able to afford to stay current, if they don't own their own aircraft, or if they do, might be tempted to skimp on maintenance. I believe this is why CAA tries to keep an eye on professional organsations that aren't making much money. Too tempting to ignore an expensive, 'minor', problem for a while, if fixing it means you can't pay the rent for the month.
MOR, if you're in NZ or Australia, shoot me an email sometime. (I'd suggest PM but I have no idea how it works.) It's [email protected], and my name is Andrew. Maybe we'll discuss this over coffee some time? I'll buy
Hmmmm. Maybe the anonymity thing is so you don't get torn apart in a public forum by the 'anonynyms'. I guess we'll see!!
Professionals, on the other hand, have professional flight planners, despatchers, engineers, and superior officers or managers to report to. He says some of these people, when they get the freedom that private flying offers, "go crazy". I think the truth is, as usual, far more complex than a simple analysis might imply. Fat wallet + PPL = risk factor. Yes. Said risk can be managed, with the right attitude. Less wallet + huge hours of professional experience ALSO = risk factor. Which also needs to be managed. ALL flying is risky in some way, and ALL the risks need to be acknowledged and appropriately managed.
PPLs bad, CPLs good? I really don't see the evidence to support that. (And I think if PPLs with day jobs got CPLs, we'd still basically be a PPLs, cos we don't fly commercially) Does proving a high level of TECHNICAL skill prevent JUDGEMENT errors? I doubt it. And it certainly doesn't change character, discipline, and so on.
Fat wallets bad? Nope. Not fair, not true. Anyway, I think it's the first part of P of F, isn't it? What is the main factor in generating lift?
Money
PPLs with tighter budgets, it would seem to me, might not be able to afford to stay current, if they don't own their own aircraft, or if they do, might be tempted to skimp on maintenance. I believe this is why CAA tries to keep an eye on professional organsations that aren't making much money. Too tempting to ignore an expensive, 'minor', problem for a while, if fixing it means you can't pay the rent for the month.
MOR, if you're in NZ or Australia, shoot me an email sometime. (I'd suggest PM but I have no idea how it works.) It's [email protected], and my name is Andrew. Maybe we'll discuss this over coffee some time? I'll buy
Hmmmm. Maybe the anonymity thing is so you don't get torn apart in a public forum by the 'anonynyms'. I guess we'll see!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wanaka
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real tragedy of this accident apart from the loss of two lives was the quality of the accident report.
It was compiled by an underqualified inexperienced investigator. I suspect the guy might have had a ppl at one time but he certainly has no aerobatic experience. The accident report fails some of the basic standards of accident reporting. It paints a picture of carelessness and recklessness which is completely false. It draws conclusions not supported by facts and relies heavily on eyewitness accounts from non aviation people. Both pilots were well respected and flew regularly. Chris and Kerry had every reason to believe they were properly authorised by Warbirds and had gone to some trouble to ensure that they were.
The author of the report stated that the crew had endangered the lives of people on the ground near the township of Kaiaua because they were carrying out aerobatics near there. Yet the CAA placed an aerobatic training area with it's southern boundary right on the edge of the township shortly after the accident.
The accident report did not discuss a number of altenate scenarios that might have caused the accident
Chris Timms was wealthy. He won an olympic gold medal in yachting when he had no money... tell me how you do that without discipline while being reckless. He had well over a thousand hours. At least half of those hours were gained in Warbirds aircraft flying aerobatics. He spent an awful lot of money seeking out the most qualified people in Warbirds to give him instruction and guidance to ensure he flew safely. He flew regularly. The reason that he had not flown the Fouga for approx six months was the aircraft was on maintenance.
The list of rules he alledgedly broke is a joke... not one of them would have prevented this accident.
The truth is nobody (including the author of the report) knows why this aircraft crashed. At best it is poorly compiled speculation
It was compiled by an underqualified inexperienced investigator. I suspect the guy might have had a ppl at one time but he certainly has no aerobatic experience. The accident report fails some of the basic standards of accident reporting. It paints a picture of carelessness and recklessness which is completely false. It draws conclusions not supported by facts and relies heavily on eyewitness accounts from non aviation people. Both pilots were well respected and flew regularly. Chris and Kerry had every reason to believe they were properly authorised by Warbirds and had gone to some trouble to ensure that they were.
The author of the report stated that the crew had endangered the lives of people on the ground near the township of Kaiaua because they were carrying out aerobatics near there. Yet the CAA placed an aerobatic training area with it's southern boundary right on the edge of the township shortly after the accident.
The accident report did not discuss a number of altenate scenarios that might have caused the accident
Chris Timms was wealthy. He won an olympic gold medal in yachting when he had no money... tell me how you do that without discipline while being reckless. He had well over a thousand hours. At least half of those hours were gained in Warbirds aircraft flying aerobatics. He spent an awful lot of money seeking out the most qualified people in Warbirds to give him instruction and guidance to ensure he flew safely. He flew regularly. The reason that he had not flown the Fouga for approx six months was the aircraft was on maintenance.
The list of rules he alledgedly broke is a joke... not one of them would have prevented this accident.
The truth is nobody (including the author of the report) knows why this aircraft crashed. At best it is poorly compiled speculation
Last edited by BGQ; 22nd Apr 2006 at 02:05.
