Beyond belief

[moggiee]

Originally Posted by englishal

Rubbish.
There is an exam in the PPL called "Human factors and performance"....The pilot should have known about the aeronautical decision making process, and should have decided to stay on the ground....The FTO shouldn't have to spoon feed every baby pilot that walks through the door. Indeed the dispatcher may not even have known the pilots ratings......

In a similar vein, then, you would argue that it would be OK for a car rental firm to allow a clearly drunk driver to drive off in one of their vehicles or for an airline to allow a crew member to operate whilst known to be unlicensed.

There would be no defence in "but he knew the rules". I would argue, as a professional pilot of nearly 25 years experience both civil and military, that any self respecting FTO hiring out an aeroplane has a duty of care to itself, it's customers and the general public at large. This "duty" extends beyond the legal minimum responsibility placed upon them by the government and CAA.

There seems to be an impression here that "he passed a test and should have known the rules" is good enough - it simply is not. For example, we all should expect a pilot to improve his skills and decision making over time after passing his PPL skills test. If he does not, then he has effectively gone backwards.

Any flying organisation that believes that they should operate "down to the level of the regulations" rather than aspire to operate "up to the highest standards" is failing its members and customers. Just doing enough to satisfy the lowest level of regulation (the letter of the law) is not good enough - surely it's the spirit of the regulations that counts in the long run.

Assuming that the bloke flying your aeroplane knows what he's doing is not good enough - you have to KNOW that he knows what the rules are, and that may require some coaching. If I lend my car to someone, I want to know that he is licensed and insured - it's not good enough for me to say "well, he should know the rules" and the same applies to renting out aeroplanes.

xraf makes some good points about supervision, an aspect of flying that is sadly lacking at all too many FTOs and clubs.

EDITED to remove typographical errors.

[eharding]

Originally Posted by Life's A Beech

As eharding (who should check some profiles before suggesting people have "sod-all hours")

Simply referring to the OPs statements and the tone of the first few postings, chum.

[Life's a Beech]

I know. One of which was mine. I have a fair number of piston hours, though I am still learning. Another of which was by another CPL holder, although no hours mentioned. how many hours do the other contributors have? Why does that make their comments any less valid. Try addressing the comment, not the commenter.

Moggiee

You make a good point about the comparison with a car. If you lend your car to someone who is not qualified to drive it and the police stop that person you will be prosecuted as well as the driver. The insurance would also be invalid, as I assume it was in this case!

[bjornhall]

Learning from this accident?

Is there anything unprecedented about this accident? Is there anything about it that has not happened before?

Is there anyone on this forum who has not heard of similar accidents before?

Has anything been said in this thread that is not covered in PPL human factors training (I mean today; wouldn't know what was included 15 or 45 years ago)?

If the methods and procedures taught in PPL training had been followed, the accident would not have happened. Given that, what in those procedures should be changed as a result of this accident?

Provided "don't fly VFR in IMC" is already included in one's personal flying standards, what should one change in one's flying behavior as highlighted by this accident?

I fail to see what can be learned from this that we didn't already know.

Possible exception: To unlearn. We are supposed to fly the way we have been trained; the VFR rules are not just for show and tests but are to be applied on every flight. So unlearn anything learned after the PPL that suggests those rules and methods can be bent or discarded.

In my view, when faced with the circumstances of this accident, one should be able to say, with confidence: I would never do that!

[Say again s l o w l y]

Whilst the outcome was decided by IMC conditions the seeds of this were sown by more than just a daft decision to take off.

Personally, I think that it is CFI's and Instructors that have most to learn from this. We all know no to take off in rubbish weather conditions, but the pressures that can be put on a student or PPL by more experienced pilots are what this highlights most to me.

It has certainly made me think and even though I would never put someone under pressure someone to fly whilst out of currency or because an a/c needed moving, it still gives you pause for thought.

[wsmempson]

Agreed SAS!

Given that the only cost the pilot was paying was for the fuel, does the balance constitute payment of a sort???

[tmmorris]

Certainly made me sit up and think. I've passed a copy to a friend who is a pilot but doesn't usually bother reading this sort of thing, just in case.
But I can't help agreeing with the AAIB's conclusion that, in essence, there are no recommendations they can make which would prevent this sort of thing happening - there are oodles of leaflets, regulations and guidance on this, yet people still do it.
Tim

[eharding]

Originally Posted by Life's a Beech

I know. One of which was mine. I have a fair number of piston hours, though I am still learning. Another of which was by another CPL holder, although no hours mentioned. how many hours do the other contributors have? Why does that make their comments any less valid. Try addressing the comment, not the commenter.

Indeed. In context, I was specifically referring to the opening couple of statement professing limited experience, the reliance on the OPs FTO to keep him out of trouble, combined with a castigation of certain parties named in the report, all of which appeared a tad on the censorious side, hence my arguably boistrous reply. As I recall, your profound words of wisdom had yet to appear on the thread when I started composing it - although it does regretably appear that the inadvertant juxtaposition has loosened some form of bee into your bonnet...

None of which has much of a bearing on the matter in hand - but as has been set out in numerous postings above, the responsibility remains with the commander of the aircraft. Had a few of the factors involved not been aligned so perfectly, the occupants might have got away with one of those frightening, but surviveable, episodes which most of us have experienced along the way. Sadly, that wasn't the case.

[Whirlybird]

the pressures that can be put on a student or PPL by more experienced pilots are what this highlights most to me.

I agree. What we have here is a young pilot who was ASKED to do a flight by the CFI. A flight which needed doing. He tries to refuse, saying he's not current. The CFI tells him he'll have someone more experienced with him. He could also have implied that the accompanying passenger would be unofficially in command, even though the pilot would be officially, since he needed the hours.

At this point, I wonder how many young, inexperienced pilots would do exactly as this one did...go along with it? More than would admit to that on here now, I would say. After all, hindsight is always an exact science.

Once they were in Exeter, the accompanying passenger seems to have made all the decisions. But it's very, very difficult to fight that kind of thing. And as someone pointed out (sorry, can't remember who now), they were on a treadmill by then....refuelling would make them late back, they had to leave, picking up fuel on the way would make them late. It's hard under those conditions to say to someone who appears to have lots more experience than you: "No, I'm not going; this is wrong and illegal and I want to stay here overnight and to hell with who it upsets". Because that was really the only other option the pilot had by then!

Kiwi chick - of course you'd never end up in this situation; you're too experienced. But would any of your students? Do you make sure they are strong-minded enough to stand up against anyone, however experienced, however strong a personality, however much older than them, and never go along with a decision they think might possibly be wrong, when the more experienced pilot says it's OK? Do you make that a condition of them getting a PPL?

I can think of a couple more accidents over the years where a more experienced pilot influenced the person who had the accident in a similar way. I really don't know what we can do about this sort of thing.

This is a human factors issue. And there but for the grace of God go (or could have gone in the past) a great many of us.

[bjornhall]

I think that it is CFI's and Instructors that have most to learn from this

That is a good point!

For 'mere PPLs' (or even more so for us students!), I still think it as simple as "don't do that!". Of course, 'simple' does not mean 'easy'...

[englishal]

In a similar vein, then, you would argue that it would be OK for a car rental firm to allow a clearly drunk driver to drive off in one of their vehicles or for an airline to allow a crew member to operate whilst known to be unlicensed.

That is slightly different. In this example it is more akin to someone turning up at the rental desk on a dark, windy, raining night, on the day they have passed their test and renting a car quite legally. They may not be experienced enough to handle the weather conditions, but then again how is the rental clerk meant to know this, and also why should it be their job to ban them.

You could argue it is the fault of ATC.....in the USA if weather conditions are below VFR, you CANNOT depart VFR. Or you could blame the ANO...the ANO doesn't say that you need an IFR clearance outside CAS for flight in less than VFR conditions....

But rather than blame everyone else, people need to learn to accept responsibility for their actions. In this case the poor sod didn't have time to learn from his mistakes....Hopefully everyone else who has read this post and the AAIB report can.

[Say again s l o w l y]

That is very true, but any decent FTO/RF has a duty of care to it's memers, especially when they are inexperienced/out of currency or both as this poor chap was.

I have often had to step in when I've seen more experienced PPL's jokingly bullying a less experienced member who's unsure about the weather.

"Och, it's not as bad as you think" or "What are you worrying about, I've just been up." etc.etc.

I don't think these things are acceptable as it then becomes a challenge to go up in conditions someone is unhappy with. Note I'm not talking about shocking weather like the conditions in this accident, but anything someone isn't happy with, be it wind, changing weather, viz, cloudbase whatever.

It doesn't take much to push someone inexperienced into doing something they aren't happy with. Clubs and schools should try and ensure that this happens as little as possible and support less experienced and less confident pilots.

[Whirlybird]

It doesn't take much to push someone inexperienced into doing something they aren't happy with. Clubs and schools should try and ensure that this happens as little as possible and support less experienced and less confident pilots.

SAS, spot-on. I think it happens more than some people realise. There's a very macho element in a lot of flying schools/clubs. I remember when I was a very new PPL(A); it was winter and I went down to the airfield three days in a row and decided not to fly because I didn't like the crosswind. A nearly-qualified student implied that I was either a wimp or a very poor pilot, and said he'd go i
f he was allowed to. Luckily I was old enough and confident enough to shrug and say that's fine, maybe you would but I won't. But it's very hard for some people to do that, especially when they're young.

The problem in this sad case was that it was the CFI who tried to persuade the pilot to fly!!! I wonder how he's feeling now.

[long final]

Knowing Blackpool well and also the FTO concerned it is important to recognise that the report serves only to look at the facts and give its assumption where appropriate, on the unknown facts. It doesn’t get into the character and personalities of the people involved in the whole chain.

With that in mind I have some sympathy with the pilot. That is no excuse for the very poor airmanship all round, but the report cannot portray the pressures/influences that will have been acting on him.

LF

[Pilot-H]

This book - which I read as an early PPL (before the HP&L exam was requried) should be required reading. Unfortunately it is out of print but still available through amazon, Ebay etc.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pilot-Comman...7658312&sr=8-1

[moggiee]

englishal on my car rental analogy:

Originally Posted by englishal

That is slightly different. In this example it is more akin to someone turning up at the rental desk on a dark, windy, raining night, on the day they have passed their test and renting a car quite legally. They may not be experienced enough to handle the weather conditions, but then again how is the rental clerk meant to know this, and also why should it be their job to ban them.

Your analogy doesn't work. An inexperienced driver using a hire car in bad weather is legal, if not smart. This chap operated illegally by flying IMC when not IMC rated and the CFI at the FTO would have been aware of this (and of the fact that the pilot was out of his 90 currency and therefore was carrying passengers illegally).

He rented an aeroplane to a pilot who was breaking the law just by getting airborne - and he knew it. He was therefore an accomplice to a crime (and sadly, two deaths).

[smith]

Was the "experienced passenger" in the front right hand seat when they departed BPL in IMC? The report says that the other two passengers were picking up an Aztec from Exeter. Logic would suggest that one or both of these passengers had an IR (although not definite), and they in fact might have been in the front seat or offered instrument flying advice from the back seat on departure from Blackpool, thus giving the commander the confidence to fly into cloud on take off from Blackpool.

The AAIB report did not mention the "other two passengers'" qualifications, currency or experience, or who was sitting in the front. An investigation and interview with these two passengers may shed some light on wheather they had any influence on the commander's decision to take off into IMC.

[Saab Dastard]

The AAIB report did not mention the "other two passengers'" qualifications, currency or experience, or who was sitting in the front. An investigation and interview with these two passengers may shed some light on wheather they had any influence on the commander's decision to take off into IMC.

Well, given that the Aztec made it into Blackpool in the prevailing conditions (according to the AAIB report), one could make some assumptions about the qualifications of the pilot(s) of that aircraft.

SD

[smith]

SD

Logic would suggest that one or both of these passengers had an IR (although not definite)

SD

I had virtually said that already.

The jist of my post being did any of these two passengers have any bearing on the decision to take off into IMC. I'm sure the AAIB have considered this but there is no mention in the report.

[DFC]

Personally I believe that there was not so much "supervision" in regard to this flight but more a case of direction.

It is rather (un)fortunate depending on point of view that the only person who could explain much of the thinking behing the flight was the CFI who I believe has tried to distance themselves "defacto" from the whole situation.

Given the clearly desperate circumstances, ATC could (since the Radar was U/S duie clutter) have provided more in the way of guidance using the VDF.......either a QGH or a Spiral descent in the VDF overhead. Shame that the only available approach aid went largly unused!!!!

One must also wonder what use was made of the Mixture control enroute and what if any pre-flight fuel planning was made. The aircraft seems to have arrived just south of Blackpool with suficient fuel to divert especially if one straightens out the radar trace towards Leeds and adds in the time available from the fuel remaining in the tanks post mortem.

Unfortunately, in my experience this is not just an example of what not to do it is an example seen on a daily basis at many UK airfields which goes unchallenged because as many here are at pains to point out "it's not for us to interfere" and the only difference here is that there was a fatal accident causing a report to be written.

Pitty we would not have more of those kind of flights ending in similar circumnstances and then we may through it seems the only way possible erradicate this too common a method of operation through extinction of the perpetrators.

Funny that many people who say there is nothing wrong with making DIY approaches, flying VFR into IMC, operating below IMC minima etc etc still stand up and make statements here other than simply saying that they have done the same but got away with it so far.

Can we have a UK aviation version of the Darwin Awards?

Regards,

DFC