ZK-FGA Fouga Firth of Thames accident report
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Aotearoa
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZK-FGA Fouga Firth of Thames accident report
Pilot in fatal crash 'breached civil aviation rules'
08 March 2006
By HANNAH LAWRENCE
The pilot of a jet which crashed in 2004 while preparing for an air show, killing both occupants, had little experience in aerobatics and breached numerous civil aviation rules, an accident report released today says.
The vintage plane, a Potez Air Fouga CM 170 Magister jet, crashed into the Firth of Thames near Kaiaua on March 19, 2004, killing pilot Chris Timms, 56, and crewmember Kerry Campbell, 57, chief executive of Aucklande's Ardmore Airport.
It was reported at the time the two men had been practising manoeuvres for the Wings and Wine Lake Taupo Airshow.
The aircraft was owned by a syndicate, including Mr Timms and Warbirds Association president Trevor Bland.
An accident report released by the Civil Aviation Authority today made a number of conclusions on the crash, including that the pilot had little or no experience performing aerobatic manoeuvres at low level in jet aircraft.
It said the manoeuvres were not authorised by the New Zealand Warbirds Association, and were performed in an area that had the potential to impact on public safety.
Both men were members of the New Zealand Warbirds Association (inc).
The report said they were conducting a flight in preparation for an air display routine when the plane was seen by witnesses to climb and enter cloud.
"A short time later, the aircraft was observed to exit cloud in a steep spiralling dive that continued until the aircraft struck the sea. Both occupants were killed on impact." it said.
The plane crashed about 200m from shore.
The objective of the flight was to be "a critique of the pilot's suitability to perform an air display" in the plane at the Taupo show scheduled for the next day.
After a 48 minute test flight the previous night the pilot, Mr Timms, declared it was the first time he had carried out low level aerobatics in the aircraft, the report said.
His most recent low level flying authorisation stipulated no aerobatics below 1500 feet and low level flypasts not below 200 feet.
The aircraft was airworthy and operating normally until the accident, the report said.
Mr Timms was appropriately licensed, rated and medically fit to fly the plane.
Crewmember Mr Campbell had not been in the aircraft before the fatal flight.
His role was to assess the flight and report to Warbirds that Mr Timms had performed as briefed.
Under Warbirds rules a prerequisite for that role was that it be carried out by a qualified flight instructor. Mr Campbell was not an instructor and was not type rated on the aircraft, but the association considered his background – including flying Skyhawks for the RNZAF– made him suited for the exercise.
"Given the speed of events, it is unlikely that the crewmember would have been able to take over and effect a recovery, regardless of flying ability or qualifications," the report said.
The report said the location of the accident exposed the general public of the Kaiaua township to unnecessary risk.
It said Mr Timms breached numerous civil aviation rules including that he was not authorised to operate below 1500 feet and perform low level aerobatics, did not ensure the safe operation of the aircraft and safety of its occupants, was not authorised by Warbirds to be at a low level in the area, violated minimum heights, did not maintain the aircraft clear of cloud and performed aerobatics too close to a town.
He was currently rated for the aircraft type, "however, 48-minutes flying in a jet aircraft after a period of five months' absence is not considered suitable preparation for a pilot intent on performing a low-level air display at an airshow," the report said.
One of the safety actions listed in the report was that the Civil Aviation Authority will review its advisory to include "flight recency requirements" and guidelines for aerobatic flight.
The Warbirds association will also review advisories and accepted a recommendation it should strengthen its control and influence over private owners of warbirds aircraft who intend to use them in air displays.
The RNZAF has launched a display flight training programme for military and civilian pilots, which will run annually over a weekend.
After the crash Mr Timms' wife, Susanne, said her husband gave all to his interests – be it yachting, flying or growing rhododendrons.
An industrial chemist by trade, he won gold for New Zealand at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics with Rex Sellars in the Tornado class of yachting. The pair then won a silver medal four years later in Seoul.
Mr Campbell, from Pakuranga, flew Skyhawks in the RNZAF before working as airport manager at Hamilton Airport and becoming chief executive at Ardmore.
He was operations manager at Hamilton Airport for four years until 1997.
08 March 2006
By HANNAH LAWRENCE
The pilot of a jet which crashed in 2004 while preparing for an air show, killing both occupants, had little experience in aerobatics and breached numerous civil aviation rules, an accident report released today says.
The vintage plane, a Potez Air Fouga CM 170 Magister jet, crashed into the Firth of Thames near Kaiaua on March 19, 2004, killing pilot Chris Timms, 56, and crewmember Kerry Campbell, 57, chief executive of Aucklande's Ardmore Airport.
It was reported at the time the two men had been practising manoeuvres for the Wings and Wine Lake Taupo Airshow.
The aircraft was owned by a syndicate, including Mr Timms and Warbirds Association president Trevor Bland.
An accident report released by the Civil Aviation Authority today made a number of conclusions on the crash, including that the pilot had little or no experience performing aerobatic manoeuvres at low level in jet aircraft.
It said the manoeuvres were not authorised by the New Zealand Warbirds Association, and were performed in an area that had the potential to impact on public safety.
Both men were members of the New Zealand Warbirds Association (inc).
The report said they were conducting a flight in preparation for an air display routine when the plane was seen by witnesses to climb and enter cloud.
"A short time later, the aircraft was observed to exit cloud in a steep spiralling dive that continued until the aircraft struck the sea. Both occupants were killed on impact." it said.
The plane crashed about 200m from shore.
The objective of the flight was to be "a critique of the pilot's suitability to perform an air display" in the plane at the Taupo show scheduled for the next day.
After a 48 minute test flight the previous night the pilot, Mr Timms, declared it was the first time he had carried out low level aerobatics in the aircraft, the report said.
His most recent low level flying authorisation stipulated no aerobatics below 1500 feet and low level flypasts not below 200 feet.
The aircraft was airworthy and operating normally until the accident, the report said.
Mr Timms was appropriately licensed, rated and medically fit to fly the plane.
Crewmember Mr Campbell had not been in the aircraft before the fatal flight.
His role was to assess the flight and report to Warbirds that Mr Timms had performed as briefed.
Under Warbirds rules a prerequisite for that role was that it be carried out by a qualified flight instructor. Mr Campbell was not an instructor and was not type rated on the aircraft, but the association considered his background – including flying Skyhawks for the RNZAF– made him suited for the exercise.
"Given the speed of events, it is unlikely that the crewmember would have been able to take over and effect a recovery, regardless of flying ability or qualifications," the report said.
The report said the location of the accident exposed the general public of the Kaiaua township to unnecessary risk.
It said Mr Timms breached numerous civil aviation rules including that he was not authorised to operate below 1500 feet and perform low level aerobatics, did not ensure the safe operation of the aircraft and safety of its occupants, was not authorised by Warbirds to be at a low level in the area, violated minimum heights, did not maintain the aircraft clear of cloud and performed aerobatics too close to a town.
He was currently rated for the aircraft type, "however, 48-minutes flying in a jet aircraft after a period of five months' absence is not considered suitable preparation for a pilot intent on performing a low-level air display at an airshow," the report said.
One of the safety actions listed in the report was that the Civil Aviation Authority will review its advisory to include "flight recency requirements" and guidelines for aerobatic flight.
The Warbirds association will also review advisories and accepted a recommendation it should strengthen its control and influence over private owners of warbirds aircraft who intend to use them in air displays.
The RNZAF has launched a display flight training programme for military and civilian pilots, which will run annually over a weekend.
After the crash Mr Timms' wife, Susanne, said her husband gave all to his interests – be it yachting, flying or growing rhododendrons.
An industrial chemist by trade, he won gold for New Zealand at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics with Rex Sellars in the Tornado class of yachting. The pair then won a silver medal four years later in Seoul.
Mr Campbell, from Pakuranga, flew Skyhawks in the RNZAF before working as airport manager at Hamilton Airport and becoming chief executive at Ardmore.
He was operations manager at Hamilton Airport for four years until 1997.
A better question might be, what do you need to add to one PPL with a large cheque book and a small fast plane to equal one safe operation?
Or,
Safe operation - small fast plane - well off PPL = ?
More training?
More thorough oversight from the Warbirds community?
More oversight from CAA?
Or do we already have adequate protection in place, and was this one man just an unfortunate blip in the system? After all, PPLs have been operating warbirds for sometime and they don't all plunge into the sea.
Or,
Safe operation - small fast plane - well off PPL = ?
More training?
More thorough oversight from the Warbirds community?
More oversight from CAA?
Or do we already have adequate protection in place, and was this one man just an unfortunate blip in the system? After all, PPLs have been operating warbirds for sometime and they don't all plunge into the sea.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take one PPL with large cheque book.
Add one small fast plane.
Results?
A lot of broken hearts.
How many more?
Add one small fast plane.
Results?
A lot of broken hearts.
How many more?
Personally I am amazed that the CAA allow it, but then the CAA have little interest in accident prevention. Not to mention the somewhat incestuous activities of their own staff.
maybe Helen should make the Skyhawks available to PPLs. She could make a fortune out of millionaire thrillseekers.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPLs in small fast planes, bad. CPLs in Cessnas, good.
Um. Am I reading this right? You people are seriously suggesting that PPLs who fly high performance aircraft are, by definition, a safety hazard? Forget training, forget experience, forget attitude...if you can afford a high performance aircraft but don't need a CPL cos you don't fly commercially, you're automatically dangerous? I seem to recall an awful lot of accidents occuring in the CPL environment too, actually. And some pretty dumb accidents, as well as the less easily explicable. Not to mention PPLs in more conventional aircraft. Course, it's easy just to let the old green eyed monster take over eh boys?
Agreed lostpianoplayer, anyone can crash high performance single engine aircraft. Very experienced warbird pilots with ATPLs are quite capable of pranging one, you don't need a PPL to do it.
I've had the honour of flying with Kerry and Chris, and I was more than impressed with their flying, and in particular their safety practices. They were not trying to impress me, but their discipline did.
It is unfortunate that this Fouga flight turned out the way it did. However these men were not reckless types. It was an accident, and these things happen.
I have seen a few CPL, ATPL holders and Military Pilots fly much more dangerously than the majority of PPL holders. The actual licence (or hours) that a pilot holds does not automaticaly equate to his/her professionality or safety.
It is unfortunate that this Fouga flight turned out the way it did. However these men were not reckless types. It was an accident, and these things happen.
I have seen a few CPL, ATPL holders and Military Pilots fly much more dangerously than the majority of PPL holders. The actual licence (or hours) that a pilot holds does not automaticaly equate to his/her professionality or safety.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the report is correct, the pilot exhibited neither discipline nor professionalism, and no more than cursory safety practices. In fact, they essentially laughed at the rules and just did their own thing. The pilot was EXTREMELY reckless in his actions.
It may be that you can class it as an "accident", but it was an accident caused by the failure of the pilot to operate safely and inside his skill level, in other words it was basically his own fault.
A PPL may be able to fly to the same standard as a higher licence holder, however they have never elected to prove their ability by gaining the higher licences. This is because a lot of them are just thrillseekers who want to indulge their hobby with the minimum of interference from the CAA.
In some ways this accident is not surprising, as the pilot exhibited a complete lack of self-discipline, something far less likely in an airline-level pilot (which is why airliners don't crash that often).
Anybody flying high-performance jet fighters (or even a Fouga) should have to vigorously prove their fitness to be allowed that privilege, and that should include at least a CPL.
It may be that you can class it as an "accident", but it was an accident caused by the failure of the pilot to operate safely and inside his skill level, in other words it was basically his own fault.
A PPL may be able to fly to the same standard as a higher licence holder, however they have never elected to prove their ability by gaining the higher licences. This is because a lot of them are just thrillseekers who want to indulge their hobby with the minimum of interference from the CAA.
In some ways this accident is not surprising, as the pilot exhibited a complete lack of self-discipline, something far less likely in an airline-level pilot (which is why airliners don't crash that often).
Anybody flying high-performance jet fighters (or even a Fouga) should have to vigorously prove their fitness to be allowed that privilege, and that should include at least a CPL.
MOR, I'm afraid that having a CPL teaches you jack about flying safe low level aeros, you also don't need to be any more "professional" to get one. The CPL test is a simple skill test, and any old clown can do it. All an ATPL shows is that you can muddle through a few more exams and hold down a job long enough to get the required hours.
Having an ATPL does at least show that you probably have worked commercially so you MAY have learned some self discipline. But not necessarily. I have seen highly respected ATPL holders do some quite stupid things in the heat of the moment. And quite frankly there are some ATPL holders that should never be allowed into any aircraft away from the company imposed SOPs of their airline flying.
Class of licence is a poor measure of a pilot's skills and self discipline.
As I said before, crashing high performance single engine fighters and trainers is not just the domain of the PPL.
Having an ATPL does at least show that you probably have worked commercially so you MAY have learned some self discipline. But not necessarily. I have seen highly respected ATPL holders do some quite stupid things in the heat of the moment. And quite frankly there are some ATPL holders that should never be allowed into any aircraft away from the company imposed SOPs of their airline flying.
Class of licence is a poor measure of a pilot's skills and self discipline.
As I said before, crashing high performance single engine fighters and trainers is not just the domain of the PPL.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quite agree with you, but by the same token allowing PPLs to fly fighter jets with little or no supervision, minimal oversight, and no formal training in the operation of these aircraft, is highly dangerous. In the absence of a proper display licence, having a CPL would at least imply a much better understanding of aerodynamics and so forth than a PPL does, which is such a laughably simple exam that you hardly need to know anything to pass it.
Even the acquistion of higher licences indicates a higher level of self-discipline and motivation to be as aware as possible of the risks involved.
If it was me, I wouldn't allow these clowns near warbirds until they had a CPL, at least 5000 hours, and a clear demonstration of skill (plus being current on type).
Even the acquistion of higher licences indicates a higher level of self-discipline and motivation to be as aware as possible of the risks involved.
If it was me, I wouldn't allow these clowns near warbirds until they had a CPL, at least 5000 hours, and a clear demonstration of skill (plus being current on type).
Yes, you make good points.
I'd probably drop the 5000 hours in favour of strict training and assessment criteria (your "clear demonstration of skill".) I think 1000 of the right hours is more beneficial than 5000 arbitary hours (after all, look at the chaps who get to skoot around in the RAAF's F18s, not much hours, but very good training.)
The New Zealand Warbirds Association certainly has the experience available to give adequate training. Until the CAA step in, it comes down to whether Joe Bloggs has the ability to recognise his or her limitations, and seek the training.
I'd probably drop the 5000 hours in favour of strict training and assessment criteria (your "clear demonstration of skill".) I think 1000 of the right hours is more beneficial than 5000 arbitary hours (after all, look at the chaps who get to skoot around in the RAAF's F18s, not much hours, but very good training.)
The New Zealand Warbirds Association certainly has the experience available to give adequate training. Until the CAA step in, it comes down to whether Joe Bloggs has the ability to recognise his or her limitations, and seek the training.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 5000 hours is just to ensure that the pilot has had exposure to lots of different weather conditions and other factors. If the training is good, it is irrelevant, but how good is PPL training? Pretty average, I would say. Nothing like what you would get in the Air Force, where the penalties for breaking the rules are somewhat more drastic.
I agree it is up to the individual to recognise his or her limits and act accordingly, but in this case, the pilot exhibited a complete lack of character and self-discipline, and look at the results.
I have known four other people who were rich warbird owners, and they were all complete cowboys. Fast aircraft seem to attract them.
It would be a different matter if the CAA did it's job. Maybe if the Warbirds people were a bit more pro-active as well.
I agree it is up to the individual to recognise his or her limits and act accordingly, but in this case, the pilot exhibited a complete lack of character and self-discipline, and look at the results.
I have known four other people who were rich warbird owners, and they were all complete cowboys. Fast aircraft seem to attract them.
It would be a different matter if the CAA did it's job. Maybe if the Warbirds people were a bit more pro-active as well.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as flying high performance jets is concerned, it is not about the licence but all about the training. Chris was definitely a ppl with low time and multiple ratings an Kerry hadn't flown Skyhawks for some 20 years and harvards don't count for neither. Both were out of there depths as shown.
The whole incident never needed to happen and the pressure of up and coming events didn't help.
Wonder how Gavin and Trevor sleep at the moment.
S.Y Guy
The whole incident never needed to happen and the pressure of up and coming events didn't help.
Wonder how Gavin and Trevor sleep at the moment.
S.Y Guy
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Auckland
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
I realise that your primary focus is on the qualifications of the crew and that if they had of been more qualified then this accident would of somehow been avoidable however I would like to raise a point.
I have flown single engine jets and performed aerobatics with the RAAF before moving to NZ and from my aspect there are two factors involved here. The first is that yes the got themselves in trouble doing a vertical'ish manoeuvre which lead to a possible disorientation in cloud and yes I agree that more experience might have prevented this from occurring, however jets can sometimes do strange things at low speeds and high AoA that given the height they were at would have been non-recoverable.
Part of our aerobatic sequence was stall turning and the Hoovers being old and bent would often exhibit non standard responses. A case in point was a student practicing aerobatics for his wings test at a safety height of 8000ft began a stall turn which ended up in an inverted spin 16,000ft, this spin was non-recoverable and he ejected passing through 10,000ft, a luxury that these men did not have.
My point, doing these manoeuvres has an inherent risk of the aircraft not behaving in an appropriate manner and without ejection seats, even with the best training and proper recovery techniques their fate was sealed.
Consequently, be careful and always assess your risk (Weather/Currency/Safety height) on the ground before going flying, modify your routine appropriately.
RIP
I realise that your primary focus is on the qualifications of the crew and that if they had of been more qualified then this accident would of somehow been avoidable however I would like to raise a point.
I have flown single engine jets and performed aerobatics with the RAAF before moving to NZ and from my aspect there are two factors involved here. The first is that yes the got themselves in trouble doing a vertical'ish manoeuvre which lead to a possible disorientation in cloud and yes I agree that more experience might have prevented this from occurring, however jets can sometimes do strange things at low speeds and high AoA that given the height they were at would have been non-recoverable.
Part of our aerobatic sequence was stall turning and the Hoovers being old and bent would often exhibit non standard responses. A case in point was a student practicing aerobatics for his wings test at a safety height of 8000ft began a stall turn which ended up in an inverted spin 16,000ft, this spin was non-recoverable and he ejected passing through 10,000ft, a luxury that these men did not have.
My point, doing these manoeuvres has an inherent risk of the aircraft not behaving in an appropriate manner and without ejection seats, even with the best training and proper recovery techniques their fate was sealed.
Consequently, be careful and always assess your risk (Weather/Currency/Safety height) on the ground before going flying, modify your routine appropriately.
RIP
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In some ways this accident is not surprising, as the pilot exhibited a complete lack of self-discipline, something far less likely in an airline-level pilot (which is why airliners don't crash that often).
I do agree however some extra qualification is required to fly such an airplane, dont think the CPL quite cuts it, maybe it should have been part of the first jet type rating? Lets not go overboard though.
Can i also add that some of the few most disciplined persons flying airplanes, that taught me some, were doing so on PPL's.
SH <--- (Wannabe jet pilot scum of earth)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before this degenerates into a "my licence is better than yours" pissing contest, let's at least be clear that how an individual behaves has nothing to do with qualification per se. However, it is true that higher qualifications tend to encourage better behaviour, and they always equip the individual better as they require a greater depth of knowledge.
Yes, there are some very wise PPLs out there, but they are rare. Yes, there are some airline pilot cowboys out there, but they too are rare - the check and training system of most airlines sees to that.
The real issue is rich men buying fast, quirky jets and trying to operate them with the lowest possible qualifications and the least possible training.
I don't agree that "jets can sometimes do strange things at low speeds and high AoA that given the height they were at would have been non-recoverable" is a good excuse. It is up to the pilot to know EXACTLY what could happen during such manoeuvers, and plan accordingly. If he is uncertain, he shouldn't be attempting the manoeuver in the first place. There is certainly no excuse for entering cloud during an aerobatic manoeuver - if the wx isn't good enough, don't try it, or try it at an appropriate altitude.
The conclusions of this report positively scream "unprofessional" and "undisciplined". Trying to cover that up, or excuse it, is reprehensible.
Yes, there are some very wise PPLs out there, but they are rare. Yes, there are some airline pilot cowboys out there, but they too are rare - the check and training system of most airlines sees to that.
The real issue is rich men buying fast, quirky jets and trying to operate them with the lowest possible qualifications and the least possible training.
I don't agree that "jets can sometimes do strange things at low speeds and high AoA that given the height they were at would have been non-recoverable" is a good excuse. It is up to the pilot to know EXACTLY what could happen during such manoeuvers, and plan accordingly. If he is uncertain, he shouldn't be attempting the manoeuver in the first place. There is certainly no excuse for entering cloud during an aerobatic manoeuver - if the wx isn't good enough, don't try it, or try it at an appropriate altitude.
The conclusions of this report positively scream "unprofessional" and "undisciplined". Trying to cover that up, or excuse it, is reprehensible.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Auckland
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR have you ever flown a jet that is capable of flying these types of manoeuvres?
If not, I wouldn't be quite so quick with your emphatic opinion.
It's very easy given the large amounts of sky that these manoeuvres take to inadvertently enter cloud generally at low airspeed and high AoA.
My point, doing these manoeuvres has an inherent risk of the aircraft not behaving in an appropriate manner and without ejection seats, even with the best training and proper recovery techniques their fate was sealed.
Consequently I do not agree that there was anything "unprofessional" and "undisciplined" about it, rather that they accepted the risk and that the jet went out of control at an altitude below which recovery could be guaranteed.
If not, I wouldn't be quite so quick with your emphatic opinion.
It's very easy given the large amounts of sky that these manoeuvres take to inadvertently enter cloud generally at low airspeed and high AoA.
My point, doing these manoeuvres has an inherent risk of the aircraft not behaving in an appropriate manner and without ejection seats, even with the best training and proper recovery techniques their fate was sealed.
Consequently I do not agree that there was anything "unprofessional" and "undisciplined" about it, rather that they accepted the risk and that the jet went out of control at an altitude below which recovery could be guaranteed.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does a MiG 21 count?
It isn't easy to "inadvertently enter cloud" if you practice on a day when there isn't any.
The risk that they accepted was several orders of magnitude greater than it needed to be. Read the report for a list of rules that they broke, and silly things that they did (not least of which was attempting aeros that he wasn't approved for, in a place where he shouldn't have been doing them, when not current on type).
If you read the report, and then conclude that they acted professionally, responsibly and in a disciplined manner, all I can say is that you have a very odd understanding of those three words.
It isn't easy to "inadvertently enter cloud" if you practice on a day when there isn't any.
The risk that they accepted was several orders of magnitude greater than it needed to be. Read the report for a list of rules that they broke, and silly things that they did (not least of which was attempting aeros that he wasn't approved for, in a place where he shouldn't have been doing them, when not current on type).
If you read the report, and then conclude that they acted professionally, responsibly and in a disciplined manner, all I can say is that you have a very odd understanding of those three words.