Tomohawk Trainer down in North Island
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is NO case for allowing commercial imperatives to over-ride common sense... never has been, and certainly never should be for anyone who has "commercial" on their licence.
Anyone who thinks commercial imperatives should EVER over-ride common sense should have their licence forcibly removed from them, and never be allowed to fly again.
Anyone who thinks commercial imperatives should EVER over-ride common sense should have their licence forcibly removed from them, and never be allowed to fly again.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some words from dudduddud........
"I think that the exercise is a valid one."
I don't
" I guess sometimes you just get caught out."
..so..to lose an a/c and crew every now and then is OK????
"I think that the exercise is a valid one."
I don't
" I guess sometimes you just get caught out."
..so..to lose an a/c and crew every now and then is OK????
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a valid exercise if carried out in a safe manner, knowing what to do if you get lost is worth the effort... BUT it has to be done safely (like learning instrument flying or whatever).
There is absolutely no excuse for getting "caught out" when on a CPL x-country flight test in superb weather... none at all.
Unfortunately, some over-confident, relatively low-hour instructors like to push the envelope a bit, for all the usual (stupid) reasons.
Not saying that happened here though, as always "we must wait for the report..."
There is absolutely no excuse for getting "caught out" when on a CPL x-country flight test in superb weather... none at all.
Unfortunately, some over-confident, relatively low-hour instructors like to push the envelope a bit, for all the usual (stupid) reasons.
Not saying that happened here though, as always "we must wait for the report..."
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australandnewzealandland
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never said that commercial imperatives should be allowed to override common sense. I'm just saying that it does happen and this is why it is part of the syllabus (I think. I don't really know because I am not an instructor).
"..so..to lose an a/c and crew every now and then is OK????"
I guess I'm not really defending the crew more the exercise. Perhaps they were pushing the envelope? Who knows? Maybe they were being careless or neglectful? Aviation is terrible unforgiving.
Of course I don't think it's OK to lose planes and crew but flying is a risky business. How does that saying go?
"..so..to lose an a/c and crew every now and then is OK????"
I guess I'm not really defending the crew more the exercise. Perhaps they were pushing the envelope? Who knows? Maybe they were being careless or neglectful? Aviation is terrible unforgiving.
Of course I don't think it's OK to lose planes and crew but flying is a risky business. How does that saying go?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: away...
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats a fearsome long bow you're trying to draw there prospector -not every incident in aviation can or should be related to Erebus.
It strikes me that there are two previous incidents that may (or may not!) bear some thought in relation to this. Think of the Moke Lake region, close to Lake Wakatipu; think of two Cessna 172's in that area and the results of the advanced training being conducted in both of those circumstances. Then think about this one.
Anything strike you?
Concur, with the addition of: ...when conducted by appropriately trained, competent and current instructors -at an appropriate level and in an appropriate location.
It strikes me that there are two previous incidents that may (or may not!) bear some thought in relation to this. Think of the Moke Lake region, close to Lake Wakatipu; think of two Cessna 172's in that area and the results of the advanced training being conducted in both of those circumstances. Then think about this one.
Anything strike you?
Originally Posted by remoak
It's a valid exercise if carried out in a safe manner...
Guest
Posts: n/a
No, its not a risky business, if the laws of physics, against which there is no appeal, are complied with. Any so called accident, either an error of ommission or commission by someone in the chain, is caused by not applying these laws. Any "accident" that is likely to happen in the future has already happened in the past, and been disected and the lessons learnt promulgated.
If people choose not to learn from history, then as it is said, history will repeat itself.
" Thats a fearsome long bow you're trying to draw there prospector -not every incident in aviation can or should be related to Erebus."
In the context, whether commercial imperatives over rule common sense I do believe it is a good example, given the grief that the only crew that diverted to the alternate route, due weather, were subjected to.
If people choose not to learn from history, then as it is said, history will repeat itself.
" Thats a fearsome long bow you're trying to draw there prospector -not every incident in aviation can or should be related to Erebus."
In the context, whether commercial imperatives over rule common sense I do believe it is a good example, given the grief that the only crew that diverted to the alternate route, due weather, were subjected to.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Soap Box
Mmm....its ok to say "you should never get in that position".....anyone with any sort of experience knows how easy it can happen. I ALWAYS taught survival techniques outside of that pathetic Day VFR syllabus (taught to robots and monkeys). Yes i simulated a clagged in situation where the student must make a command decision to turn back, PSL, or "press on". Yeah we were down below the legal limit, yeah we were canyon flying and following rivers,yeah we were breaking all the rules, but by golly our students knew how to survive the worst situations. We often flew them inadvertently into IMC when they were in a jam with absolutely no way out but through it, to experience the absolute isolation, anxiety and yes, fear and to understand never to go there. If by chance (good chance) they did find themselves in that situation sometime down the track they have been there before and know how to get out of it in a controlled situation. Hundreds of students to CPL, many now flying in the airlines, and we never lost a student. These people ALWAYS call me and thank me for the survival training we offered. Flying training today is all about litigation avoidance not flying skills or common sense. The majority of Instructors I know have never spun an aeroplane!! They do there wizz bang course, pay their $$ and then ask me to show them how to spin and recover!! I feel for these Instructors.... Its ALL about training.
Off soap box!
Mmm....its ok to say "you should never get in that position".....anyone with any sort of experience knows how easy it can happen. I ALWAYS taught survival techniques outside of that pathetic Day VFR syllabus (taught to robots and monkeys). Yes i simulated a clagged in situation where the student must make a command decision to turn back, PSL, or "press on". Yeah we were down below the legal limit, yeah we were canyon flying and following rivers,yeah we were breaking all the rules, but by golly our students knew how to survive the worst situations. We often flew them inadvertently into IMC when they were in a jam with absolutely no way out but through it, to experience the absolute isolation, anxiety and yes, fear and to understand never to go there. If by chance (good chance) they did find themselves in that situation sometime down the track they have been there before and know how to get out of it in a controlled situation. Hundreds of students to CPL, many now flying in the airlines, and we never lost a student. These people ALWAYS call me and thank me for the survival training we offered. Flying training today is all about litigation avoidance not flying skills or common sense. The majority of Instructors I know have never spun an aeroplane!! They do there wizz bang course, pay their $$ and then ask me to show them how to spin and recover!! I feel for these Instructors.... Its ALL about training.
Off soap box!
Guest
Posts: n/a
"anyone with any sort of experience knows how easy it can happen."
Agreed, and agree with the rest of your post, but, if you want to break the rules you have to be extra careful, and to put a student in a position where even the instructor cannot save the day is taking a risk to far.
Agreed, and agree with the rest of your post, but, if you want to break the rules you have to be extra careful, and to put a student in a position where even the instructor cannot save the day is taking a risk to far.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(on my own soap box)
You don't ever need to "break all the rules" to properly instruct these things - you are much better off teaching principles than specific cases. Yes, it can be helpful for students to experience the gritty end of aviation, but by breaking rules to do so you are merely reinforcing to them that rules can be broken at will, and that the end justifies the means. Proper decision-making and technique are not taught merely by placing your student in ever more difficult real-life situations.
I have known way too many instructors, most of whom don't want to be instructors in the first place, who get bored and try and spice up their day by inventing ever more difficult scenarios to test their students. Most of the time, it isn't necessary at all - a reversal turn, for example, doesn't have to be flown in the tight confines of a narrow valley to be flown accurately and safely. Some might say that the lesson is not learned properly unless there is an element of risk and "sphincter-tightening", but I'm afraid that theory of instruction was disproved many years ago. That is why airlines train in simulators.
I agree with Prospector - if you train that way, sooner or later you are going to get in too deep and then people die. It's an old GA mentality that seems especially prevalent in Australia and NZ.
As far as spin training goes, I have done a bunch of spinning in several different types... but, guess what... in over ten thousand hours, I have never come close to an inadvertent spin, nor is it likely I ever would in the course of normal flying activities. Why? Because I know better... common sense. Most people that do get caught out like that normally stall and spin at a level too low to allow a recovery. The Americans figured that one out back in the '70s and stopped mandating spin training, because they rightly concluded that prevention was better than the cure. Now we could debate that one until the cows come home, and I can see it from both sides, but frankly being able to demonstrate a spin recovery doesn't make you a better pilot - but not getting into that position in the first place most certainly does.
(steps off soapbox but keeps it handy for rebuttal)
You don't ever need to "break all the rules" to properly instruct these things - you are much better off teaching principles than specific cases. Yes, it can be helpful for students to experience the gritty end of aviation, but by breaking rules to do so you are merely reinforcing to them that rules can be broken at will, and that the end justifies the means. Proper decision-making and technique are not taught merely by placing your student in ever more difficult real-life situations.
I have known way too many instructors, most of whom don't want to be instructors in the first place, who get bored and try and spice up their day by inventing ever more difficult scenarios to test their students. Most of the time, it isn't necessary at all - a reversal turn, for example, doesn't have to be flown in the tight confines of a narrow valley to be flown accurately and safely. Some might say that the lesson is not learned properly unless there is an element of risk and "sphincter-tightening", but I'm afraid that theory of instruction was disproved many years ago. That is why airlines train in simulators.
I agree with Prospector - if you train that way, sooner or later you are going to get in too deep and then people die. It's an old GA mentality that seems especially prevalent in Australia and NZ.
As far as spin training goes, I have done a bunch of spinning in several different types... but, guess what... in over ten thousand hours, I have never come close to an inadvertent spin, nor is it likely I ever would in the course of normal flying activities. Why? Because I know better... common sense. Most people that do get caught out like that normally stall and spin at a level too low to allow a recovery. The Americans figured that one out back in the '70s and stopped mandating spin training, because they rightly concluded that prevention was better than the cure. Now we could debate that one until the cows come home, and I can see it from both sides, but frankly being able to demonstrate a spin recovery doesn't make you a better pilot - but not getting into that position in the first place most certainly does.
(steps off soapbox but keeps it handy for rebuttal)
PA39
I agree, the teaching of these exercises, is absolutely valid. As with everything in aviation it involves risk management. Is it more dangerous for the trainee not to know what to do when “sh!t happens”, than it is to train them in relatively realistic but still controlled conditions? I firmly believe that a healthy respect for the weather should be instilled in all trainees, ideally through having seen some ‘marginal’ though still legal, conditions while under supervision. However, it is the instructors job to decide where the line between educational, and downright dangerous is drawn. This also comes with experience on the instructors part.
What happened on this day? As remoak said, we’ll have to wait for the report. However, having spent more than a few hours in the bad weather configuration in this machine, normally with the trainee furiously trying to figure out which way up the map is! I know from personal experience that the instructor must also be playing close attention to his own situational awareness, while the student has a high workload and limited excess capacity. Sometimes ‘sh!t happens’ while you’re training for sh’t to happen!!
As for spin training, I feel it is an essential part on the instructors course. Most instructors have had a 'moment' at some stage teaching advanced stalling, especially on the Pa38. At the CPL level and below it's more debatable as to whether a safety pro or con.
It’s a hell of a start to the young trainee’s career, I do hope they both make a full recovery, and get back on the horse.
I agree, the teaching of these exercises, is absolutely valid. As with everything in aviation it involves risk management. Is it more dangerous for the trainee not to know what to do when “sh!t happens”, than it is to train them in relatively realistic but still controlled conditions? I firmly believe that a healthy respect for the weather should be instilled in all trainees, ideally through having seen some ‘marginal’ though still legal, conditions while under supervision. However, it is the instructors job to decide where the line between educational, and downright dangerous is drawn. This also comes with experience on the instructors part.
What happened on this day? As remoak said, we’ll have to wait for the report. However, having spent more than a few hours in the bad weather configuration in this machine, normally with the trainee furiously trying to figure out which way up the map is! I know from personal experience that the instructor must also be playing close attention to his own situational awareness, while the student has a high workload and limited excess capacity. Sometimes ‘sh!t happens’ while you’re training for sh’t to happen!!
As for spin training, I feel it is an essential part on the instructors course. Most instructors have had a 'moment' at some stage teaching advanced stalling, especially on the Pa38. At the CPL level and below it's more debatable as to whether a safety pro or con.
It’s a hell of a start to the young trainee’s career, I do hope they both make a full recovery, and get back on the horse.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak....sometimes it is beter to "bend" the rules and to stay alive than to stick to the rules and become a statistic. Perhaps i could have used a better choice of words "Bend' in leu of "Break". I agree it is only the realm of extremely experienced and qualified Instructors....as it should be. Sorry mate but in 35 yrs and 14k+ hrs and a lot of that as CFI I can tell you students do get themselves into spins. The stall spin situation is very real and it usually occurs at low level.....overshoot turn onto final.
Anyhow....to each his own.
By the way i can give examples of studens going out to practise stalls only to inadvertently go into a spin.....our students were always trained for full spin recovery (not in the PPL syllabus) before being allowed solo for stall practise.....some people, read "schools" prohibit solo stall practise....Jesus forbid!! You can teach a monkey to fly but you can't teach him commonsense.....applies to some people.
Anyhow....to each his own.
By the way i can give examples of studens going out to practise stalls only to inadvertently go into a spin.....our students were always trained for full spin recovery (not in the PPL syllabus) before being allowed solo for stall practise.....some people, read "schools" prohibit solo stall practise....Jesus forbid!! You can teach a monkey to fly but you can't teach him commonsense.....applies to some people.
Last edited by PA39; 14th Jul 2010 at 11:24.
With all due respect, if you spin from the base to final turn, knowing how to recover is probably not going to do much for you..... maintain thy airspeed,least the earth arise and smite thee.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course you can...you don't have to be a Bob Hoover.....just well trained on the pedals. 
. Now this is going to create some cntroversy. I had better be silent B4 i get myself into strife!! Good Luck.
. Now this is going to create some cntroversy. I had better be silent B4 i get myself into strife!! Good Luck.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australandnewzealandland
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Difference between spin training and flying into bad weather is that an unscrupulous boss wont try and pressure a pilot into stalling and spinning. He will try and pressure a pilot into flying in potentially bad weather conditions because that is how they make money.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PA39
our students were always trained for full spin recovery (not in the PPL syllabus) before being allowed solo for stall practise.....
The old (UK CAA) syllabus that was current when I did my pre-solo training prescribed that a student must demonstrate the ability to recover from a spin in either direction. I see nothing wrong with teaching students what can happen at the slow flying end of the envelope and beyond, and what to do about it in case it does. But with the advent of the then-modern Pilot-Maker fleets it was decided such training is no longer necessary in the ordinary syllabus.
So now a lot of pilots fly happily without ever getting close to that particular edge. Even if the instructor theoretically knows the recovery procedure, it isn't the basic skill it should have been. Can a perfunctory exercise, performed to satisfy a minute part of an advanced syllabus, in circumstances well removed from the extreme conditions that are likely to confront a pilot with an unintentional spin, replace the learning value that its pre-solo placement in the original syllabus had, become as much an integral part of a pilot's basic skills? I'd say it cannot.
Is spin training irrelevant when you're only slowing down for a landing and you'll be too low to do anything about a spin? Wouldn't it be useful under any circumstance? Sooner or later you might find yourself suddenly confronted with nastiness that drives you beyond your nice-and-cozy normal envelope where the difference between a crash and a recovery may be your basic skills.
<OFF SOAP BOX>
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA39
Sure... if you are flying for real and you get caught out... no argument. Of course if you had actually stuck to the rules, you probably wouldn't be in that situation to start with, but still, no argument.
But when TRAINING it is completely unnecessary, in fact it is counter-productive for the reasons stated.
If they do, and certainly over here in Godzone I can't remember the last time there was a stall/spin accident that killed someone, most modern aircraft are generally docile enough that just relaxing your grip is enough to get you out of trouble. But in any case, I'm not against spin training, I did it and so did all my students. It certainly didn't do us any harm, even if it was the other instruction I gave them (ie how to avoid ever getting into that situation) that did them the most good.
Yes I'm completely with you on that one! The PPL syllabus should only ever be used as a minimum possible standard. Good instructors will always train way beyond that.
Also agree that a stall/incipient spin on the base turn should be recoverable relatively easily, although you will probably be pretty low by the time you get it climbing again... fully developed spin? Maybe... maybe not.
A good example of which would be an inadvertent icing encounter and the effect it has on stall speed... not to mention an accelerated stall, which some panic'ed PPLs have encountered.
Paradoxically, I found my stall awareness became more finely tuned when flying jets (coffin corner and all that).
I also had the distinct pleasure of learning how to fly in gliders. We used to sit in the wave off Kapiti, up around 10,000 feet, for hours at a time, and only came down when it started getting dark. Just for fun, we used to spin down from 10K to circuit height... fun times. Spinning became second nature... a worthwhile experience.
sometimes it is beter to "bend" the rules and to stay alive than to stick to the rules and become a statistic
But when TRAINING it is completely unnecessary, in fact it is counter-productive for the reasons stated.
Sorry mate but in 35 yrs and 14k+ hrs and a lot of that as CFI I can tell you students do get themselves into spins. The stall spin situation is very real and it usually occurs at low level.....overshoot turn onto final.
our students were always trained for full spin recovery (not in the PPL syllabus) before being allowed solo for stall practise.....some people, read "schools" prohibit solo stall practise....Jesus forbid!!
Also agree that a stall/incipient spin on the base turn should be recoverable relatively easily, although you will probably be pretty low by the time you get it climbing again... fully developed spin? Maybe... maybe not.
Is spin training irrelevant when you're only slowing down for a landing and you'll be too low to do anything about a spin? Wouldn't it be useful under any circumstance? Sooner or later you might find yourself suddenly confronted with nastiness that drives you beyond your nice-and-cozy normal envelope where the difference between a crash and a recovery may be your basic skills.
Paradoxically, I found my stall awareness became more finely tuned when flying jets (coffin corner and all that).
I also had the distinct pleasure of learning how to fly in gliders. We used to sit in the wave off Kapiti, up around 10,000 feet, for hours at a time, and only came down when it started getting dark. Just for fun, we used to spin down from 10K to circuit height... fun times. Spinning became second nature... a worthwhile experience.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding spinning, I was doing my PPL training around eight years ago. Neither I or other students went out and practised solo stalls - usually they would say that they have but all they did was some local crusing. I think that we were all fearful of it going wrong and not havng the instructor there for us.
When I did my tiger moth and subsquent chipmunk rating, I underwent extensive spin training before I was even sent solo. Now I even enjoy spinning, but the big thing is that a stall (and its variants) do not concern me. I have found that people who are jittery about stalling, once they get some spinning out the way, they are more confident about stalling and deal with them a lot better
The tiger is easy to recover and usually results in a height loss of less than 500ft (I recall 300ft being the norm), whereas the chipmunk you had to really get it time to recover.
With the requirement for slow flight now being in the BFR, will we see more stall related incidents?
When I did my tiger moth and subsquent chipmunk rating, I underwent extensive spin training before I was even sent solo. Now I even enjoy spinning, but the big thing is that a stall (and its variants) do not concern me. I have found that people who are jittery about stalling, once they get some spinning out the way, they are more confident about stalling and deal with them a lot better
The tiger is easy to recover and usually results in a height loss of less than 500ft (I recall 300ft being the norm), whereas the chipmunk you had to really get it time to recover.
With the requirement for slow flight now being in the BFR, will we see more stall related incidents?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: `
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How did this thread go from a PA38 landing in some trees to a spinning discussion and TE901 rating a mention? I only ask because the first 2 reply posts suffered the fate of the heavy hand of the moderator, possibly because it went off topic but I guess spinning and the Antarctic are on topic.
Some years ago, a PA28 from Canterbury Aero Club was badly parked on the side of a hill somewhere between NZCH and NZGM (if I remember correctly). The Instructor (who was wearing high nylon content trousers) was badly very burned on the legs (due to the melting nature of the inappropriate uniform pants) but walked some 20km+ in mountainous terrain to get help since (again from memory) the student was unable to walk.
They were flying through the valleys and end up in a one where they were unable to climb or turn out of it. Now this thread and some of the contributors will babble on about the inappropriate low level training, poor airmanship, low time inexperienced instructors, commercial aspects etc etc were the cause. However it was later revealed that the CHART was at fault. It had been drawn WRONG and showed that the valley was open at the far end.
No pilot error, no exercise gone wrong, nothing except an error on a chart.
Remoak, you sound like a fairly sensible pilot and obviously have experience flying in and above the "hilly" areas of the North Island. How do they compare with the same sort of terrain in the alps on the Mainland? Having done all my training around NZCH, I am not familiar with the mountainous areas of the North Island but I can imagine that it is going to be much the same as where I flew since it is after all part of the same mountain range. Therefore, a similar problem could have been a contributing factor.
Can't remember reading anything about the weather but if there was turbulance then during a couple of heavy bounces the "navigation finger" could easily slip and point to the wrong valley.
One would hope that errors do not exist in todays charts especialy with all the electronics zipping round only a couple of hundred miles above us.
Some years ago, a PA28 from Canterbury Aero Club was badly parked on the side of a hill somewhere between NZCH and NZGM (if I remember correctly). The Instructor (who was wearing high nylon content trousers) was badly very burned on the legs (due to the melting nature of the inappropriate uniform pants) but walked some 20km+ in mountainous terrain to get help since (again from memory) the student was unable to walk.
They were flying through the valleys and end up in a one where they were unable to climb or turn out of it. Now this thread and some of the contributors will babble on about the inappropriate low level training, poor airmanship, low time inexperienced instructors, commercial aspects etc etc were the cause. However it was later revealed that the CHART was at fault. It had been drawn WRONG and showed that the valley was open at the far end.
No pilot error, no exercise gone wrong, nothing except an error on a chart.
Remoak, you sound like a fairly sensible pilot and obviously have experience flying in and above the "hilly" areas of the North Island. How do they compare with the same sort of terrain in the alps on the Mainland? Having done all my training around NZCH, I am not familiar with the mountainous areas of the North Island but I can imagine that it is going to be much the same as where I flew since it is after all part of the same mountain range. Therefore, a similar problem could have been a contributing factor.
Can't remember reading anything about the weather but if there was turbulance then during a couple of heavy bounces the "navigation finger" could easily slip and point to the wrong valley.
One would hope that errors do not exist in todays charts especialy with all the electronics zipping round only a couple of hundred miles above us.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Remoak said
PA38 ZKUSA Paraparaumu on final approach Jan 2003 - entered unintentional spin - student pilot killed.
PA31 ZKTZC Fielding on base leg turning final Dec 2002 - one engine shut down - left controlled flight - pilot and (son I think) killed.
C310 ZKKIM Queenstown on departure 1997 - climbing turn after departure - left controlled flight - pilot and all pax killed (can't remember the number.)
Thats 3 off the top of my head.
Just remembered the Frouga jet (scuse the spelling) that spun into the water at Thames a few years ago - 2 killed
certainly over here in Godzone I can't remember the last time there was a stall/spin accident that killed someone
PA31 ZKTZC Fielding on base leg turning final Dec 2002 - one engine shut down - left controlled flight - pilot and (son I think) killed.
C310 ZKKIM Queenstown on departure 1997 - climbing turn after departure - left controlled flight - pilot and all pax killed (can't remember the number.)
Thats 3 off the top of my head.
Just remembered the Frouga jet (scuse the spelling) that spun into the water at Thames a few years ago - 2 killed
Last edited by conflict alert; 15th Jul 2010 at 05:50.