Blackpool 3/2/07

[Supersport]

coerce |kōˈərs|
verb [ trans. ]
persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats : they were coerced into silence. See note at compel .
• obtain (something) by such means : their confessions were allegedly coerced by torture.

Now prove coercion and I will consider a change of stance.

I've underlined the relevent word from your dictionary extract. I am well aware of the difference.

So basically what you're saying is that because he wasn't beaten into submission or by the CFI, this renders the CFI exempt from from any responsibility? Maybe true from an Aviation perspective (e.g. the AAIB Report) but from an outsiders perspective definately a bad call, especially coming from an authoritative figure. IMHO with regards to this scenario, persuade, coerce, both equally as bad as each other, as the eventuality would have still been the same.

You are debating the wrong flight here. The first flight, coerced, illegal or otherwise, landed uneventfully at the intended destination.

What beggars belief is that having already completed a flight that was marginal (to put it very, very charitably), none of the two pilots bothered to check the wx back in Blackpool or to uplift fuel. No matter who the PIC was (and the AAIB report is quite clear here, contrary to what some posters claim), this is madness of the highest order.

One wonders how these two guys got their licenses in the first place.

I couldn't agree more, point is though, if the CFI hadn't have been persistent i.e. if he'd have taken no for an answer first time around, neither flight wouldn't have taken place.

[S-Works]

I am merely pointing out that persuading someone is very different from coercion as per the dictionary explanation. I gave the full meaning of the two words rather than trying to extract bits to twist into something else......

So let me be clear: As far as I can see Mr Walker was persuaded to go flying by someone (CFI)?), as a pilot who was doing his ATPL exams and would need hours to do the CPL and IR he was naturally keen to gain hours and agreed. This made him a willing participant albeit naive.

At no time has anyone proven that he was coerced by use of force or threats to undertake the flight and was therefore he was not an unwilling participant.

Further to this as 172driver points out, the first flight which was quite clearly illegal in a number of aspects was successful. The second flight showed the poor airmanship and planning that killed them. So once again I have yet to see evidence of coercion (or even persuasion) for the return leg.

There is however VERY clear proof that their are personal and political issues amongst posters on here with the CFI of the establishment and this sad event is being used as a vehicle for attack.

So as I still see it, the actual cause of the accident was down to the poor preparation and planning by those on board. From a purely human factors perspective there is a lot to be learnt.

I couldn't agree more, point is though, if the CFI hadn't have been persistent i.e. if he'd have taken no for an answer first time around, neither flight wouldn't have taken place.

Hindsight is 20/20 vision. If the weather had been different, if the aircraft had better equipment, if they had more fuel. All things that would have influenced the outcome. Making 'what if' type statements is just emotional sentiment rather than taking a cold logical view.

[Supersport]

Hindsight is 20/20 vision. If the weather had been different, if the aircraft had better equipment, if they had more fuel. All things that would have influenced the outcome. Making 'what if' type statements is just emotional sentiment rather than taking a cold logical view.

Bose-X, yes hindsight is wonderful, I know. I will drone on again: I think anyone reading this thread or anyone who has read the AAIB Report will have it quite clear in their mind why the accident happened at what the contributing factors were.

Was this thread started to begin discussing this accident again? Nope. It was started by the Andrew Walker's father, most probably for information purposes. All I am trying to do is possibly highlight the reasoning behind the 'mission' for want of a better word, for those who still think justice has not been done.

[S-Works]

All I am trying to do is possibly highlight the reasoning behind the 'mission' for want of a better word, for those who still think justice has not been done.

I guess that is what I have an issue with.

There is no justice to be done. The ACCIDENT was the result of a number of bad decisions pure and simple. Those that made the bad decisions paid the ultimate price. I assume that if the CFI who was involved in the whole debacle had been killed as well you would consider justice to have been served? In which case I refer back to my original comments about pointless emotion.

[ford cortina]

I had some flights from this Club and had some dealings with the CFI.

There were no facilities to get the latest weather, no pc avaialble.
So I would check NOTAMS and WX at home, over an hour before I would arrive, I never found information on W&B at the club, although I only ever took one pax, no luggage and was very careful..
The aircraft were not in the best of state and only the complex single seemed to have any working Nav aids, I think a ADF. Although it's gear could be a bit difficult in getting down.

This young lad, had 100 hours, most of that I am sure was training. So he did not have much PIC under his belt. The aircraft was preped and ready to go, further making it look like he was under instruction and therefore not in charge, also the telephone call from a friendly CFI (who on the face of it was doing this lad a favour of letting him hour build cheaply) must have weighed towards him making this decision.

I met Roy, a few times, he was a nice old gentleman and it never occured to me to believe he was anything but an instructor. I did not ask, but then again I never flew with him.

As a fAPTL holder, current on the 737, I would would not have got in that aircraft as Pax, hell I would have took the lad to one side and explained why I was not going and offered him a bit of advise,( Okay so I can be a bit opinionated.) Why the other more qualified pilots going down as Pax did not, we don't know.

We know that the flight should never have operated, but there has to be some blame with the CFI, he must have known the situation and still he sanctioned the flight.

I remember at 100 hours on a 172 I felt invincible, I am sure most of us have.
The prospect of having a good cross country flight, with more experenced pilot in case of encountering a bit of cloud, for little money, sounds very good, to a hour builder it must be mouth watering.

Why the did not get fuel for the return trip, we will never know. Maybe they did not have any cash on them, or believed there to be enough in the tanks and as they got out in bad wx then they will be okay getting back in.

We all make mistakes in our flying career, most of the time we get away with them, sadly two men that day did not. They paid a very heavy price for that. It should not have happened and was avoidable, not just by the two of them, but by the club, other pilots and the CFI.

[Supersport]

I assume that if the CFI who was involved in the whole debacle had been killed as well you would consider justice to have been served?

Just to clarify, I am not one of the individuals who thinks that justice still hasn't been served and I am in no way emotionally involved with this incident. I agree with you, I feel the reasons for the accident are clear, everything else is incidental / side issue indirectly related to the accident. I was just trying to shed a bit of light on the 'other side' of the subject / accident and reasoning as to why this thread was initiated in the first place.

[HappyFran]

A big thank you to all contributors

I almost accidentlly fell over this thread at the very beginning and have followed it through. I can honestly say that it has probably, at this moment, been the single most important aviation lesson I have learnt.

I have a nice new PPL, half a ATPL theory and 60 hours, therefore obviously have read the books, and acknowledge the relevance of human factors and what PIC means.

But to have read such a ‘case history’ (no disrespect intended) and be able to so clearly see the AAIB facts and the other influences that came to together so tragically I hope will serve as a lasting and very positive influence on new pilots like myself.

Special thanks to corsair and bose –x (You are right but I think you protest a little to much)

[VFE]

As time goes by one finds ones self in the curious position of actually agreeing with Bose-X. Yes, it would appear other elements of this accident need addressing but the bottom line is: those guys flew the aircraft and *someone* at some point accepted responsibility by signing the tech log. Under law, that one person is deemed PIC, however, IMHO the other 'elements' should be examined here, and in law, with the hope that we all might move forward in a positive direction and avoid a similar rare accident occuring - starting with the training standards that led a young inexperienced pilot to become PIC on a flight that was obviously illegal in so many respects it makes me feel quite ill.

VFE.

[Mixed Up]

As I recall, the child was not a minor. His age and level of maturity should therefore not be a factor. The case should be judged irrespectively of his age. I run a business and cannot by law, and do not in practice, differentiate between 18 year olds and 64 year olds.

Perhaps the best way to judge who was P1 is to consider which of those on board would reasonably have expected to have logged the flight as P1 had the flight been successful and uneventful. That person should be most accountable for the accident. A pilot's licence will otherwise be worth nothing. The flip side of control is responsibility. (This determination has ramifications when instructors suggest that the person they are checking out can log the time as P1.)

I have friends who have lost children both from natural and accidental causes and it is very difficult for them to cope. I therefore have much empathy with the father who initiated this thread, but I'm not sure I want ANYONE to be wrongly blamed for this tragedy.

[bjornhall]

Bjorn - I couldn't disagree more about supervision of low hour PPLs.

Fair enough! And I can certainly see how your arguments are valid as well. I just think the arguments in the other direction carry more weight.

But probably, the best way is to go both ways. There are some clubs that use such supervision and make it work well, there are others that don't and make that work equally well. Trying to implement the formers' methods to the latter might not work out well at all. And as a pilot, you have a choice of which type of club to fly in. Everybody happy!

I would be very interested in some figures to support the idea that clubs using CFI supervision have a better record regarding fatal accidents.

[Knight Paladin]

Bjorn - Steady on mate, two people agreeing to disagree on PPRuNe, that's unheard of! Take care buddy.

[421C]

So basically what you're saying is that because he wasn't beaten into submission or by the CFI, this renders the CFI exempt from from any responsibility? Maybe true from an Aviation perspective (e.g. the AAIB Report) but from an outsiders perspective definately a bad call, especially coming from an authoritative figure. IMHO with regards to this scenario, persuade, coerce, both equally as bad as each other, as the eventuality would have still been the same.

Supersport,
Forgive me, but the "aviaiton perspective" is the one that matters most to the people on an aviation forum. It may sound harsh, but I think the culture of dispassionately discussing accidents from an aviation safety perspective is a good thing - in fact an essential thing.

I am with Bose-X on this. The principle of the responsibility and accountability of the pilot in command is a vital one. It has no grey zones. Admitting it has any grey zones is a safety issue in of itself, in case some pilot in the future, in analogous circumstances, is tempted to think that some of the responsibility of the PIC is sort of shared by some other senior figure(s). Bose's emphasis is also important because it may help a pilot, especially a less experienced one, feel less intimidated by the very real perception of "seniority gradient" in a private flying or training environment and challenge anything that doesn't 100% satisfy them when taking on the responsibility of PIC; exactly the lesson HappyFran was referring to.

You mention an outsiders' perspecitve. I understand that. The principle of the duties/responsibilities of a PIC is very 'absolute' and black and white, perhaps more so than is typical in modern culture and therefore not obvious to the outsider. Nevertheless, it is the principle that is relevant here. Based on the AAIB facts, there is nothing more to it. There may be a whole set of private thoughts and issues and "what ifs", but I hope you'll see why some people would want them firmly distanced from the accident causes and responsibility.

rgds
421C

[frontlefthamster]

the accident causes and responsibility

go on, then, list them, for this accident. Make sure you know the true facts.

In doing so, you will utterly disprove that

The principle of the responsibility and accountability of the pilot in command is a vital one. It has no grey zones.

[frontlefthamster]

I assume that if the CFI who was involved in the whole debacle had been killed as well you would consider justice to have been served?

No.

and some characters to keep the stupid software happy.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by 421C

... You mention an outsiders' perspecitve. I understand that. The principle of the duties/responsibilities of a PIC is very 'absolute' and black and white, perhaps more so than is typical in modern culture and therefore not obvious to the outsider. Nevertheless, it is the principle that is relevant here. Based on the AAIB facts, there is nothing more to it.

While I agree totally with the first part of your comments re PIC, to say 'there is nothing more to it', I think ignores a very material part of the accident chain. I remain staggered to think that 5 pilots (with at least an ATPL, a CFI and an ex. CPL holder in the mix) together all thought the mission was a good idea. Adding in the very real probability that the nature of how the group came together created ambiguity of the roles each individual was playing is a recipe for the disaster that occurred. There are some very important lessons to learn beyond PIC decision making.

I think it is pretty likely that no one thought they were PIC on either the outbound or return flight and not a one of the involved people seems to have raised any questions about the decisions made or tried to qualify who was making these decisions - despite what in hindsight seems to be a bonkers set of decision right from the start.

There may be an isolated set of conditions as some have implied, however, until that is established definitively, it seems prudent to consider the broad question of why a group of people with a range of qualifications in aviation all concluded that the mission was sensible.

--------
My view of the 'mission' they all had in mind was -
1 - Set out from a clagged in field in an aircraft with minimal nav kit
2 - Drop off two people to collect an aircraft
3 - Both aircraft return before night fall to said clagged in field with forecast conditions to get worse.
4 - Have no expectation of a possible diversion (i.e. call to mom is to drop money off not to let her know you might not be home tonight because weather may cause diversion)

[DFC]

I remain staggered to think that 5 pilots (with at least an ATPL, a CFI and an ex. CPL holder in the mix) together all thought the mission was a good idea.

I am not unfortunately.

The deaths of those two people did not happen because of poor planning, who was PIC, lack of fuel, out of limits weight and balance, etc.

It happened because at least 1 but probably 5 people were willing to operate illegally.

How many people on here think that "the first flight was successful and therefore not an issue"?

How many on here think that if the second flight had managed to land at Blackpool then we would not be debating the issues?

How many people on here reguluarly condone illegal flying - saying you are VFR when actually IFR being the best example?

There are far to many people in UK aviation who can be divided neatly into the following groups;

Those that intentionally break the law when flying

Those that condone such actions but do not think that they have the balls to do it themselves

Those that disagree with illegal flying but will never do anything or say anything against it.

Far too many FI's, CFI's and CAA Examminers fall into the third group.

One can wax lyrically about human factors, decision making etc etc but it is the breaking of the law that killed them.

Regards,

DFC

[mcgoo]

I've read this thread with interest, and I agree with Bosex, one only has to look at the CAA safety sense leaflet, page 2, to see why!

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_GAD_WEBSSL23.PDF

Look under "peer pressure"

[englishal]

I am very sorry about the death of this young lad, and the other guy.

Part of being a licenced pilot is knowing "when to say no"....regardless of what other people say. In the past I have accepted "free" flights and I remember one in particular which scared me. I now have a very good appreciation of what I'm getting involved with and will say no if I think the risk is too high. If I go then I accept any consequences.

Unfortunately it takes some time to learn this, usually through the mistakes of others and BBS's like Pprune which is a great asset. Peer pressure can play a part too, but again it goes back to the first line of paragraph 2.

[421C]

go on, then, list them, for this accident. Make sure you know the true facts

It would be laborious to repeat the AAIB report. But it reads to me that the accident causes were within the domain of planning and conduct of the flight that the PIC was accountable for. It's difficult to conjecture what kind of fact, not in the AAIB report, would change that.

mm_flynn: I do agree that there may be other lessons to be learned from the accident, the wording of my post above was in reply to Supersport's post's and concerned the "line" Bose-X referred to about PIC responsibility.

DFC: the "waxing lyrical" about accident causes has a useful purpose in learning safety lessons, otherwise the subject of aviation safety could have been frozen in 1903 with a law that prohibited crashing. I also don't agree with your comments on the prevalence of law-breaking tendency or turning a blind eye. Clearly it is not zero, as it should be, and to that exent anything non-zero is too many. But I think the standard of instructors and examiners in the UK is very high. It's also sometimes more illuminating to discuss things in terms of good decision-making, planning and airmanship than seeking the legal angle every time. Aviation law doesn't form an instruction manual for safe flight, it sets some boundaries which must be observed but doesn't prescribe for every eventuality.

[S-Works]

One can wax lyrically about human factors, decision making etc etc but it is the breaking of the law that killed them.

Rubbish, you are obsessed with the law and if you cant find one you make it up.

The fact that they break the law is incidental to the poor decision making and poor planning, peer pressure etc. The law breaking was a long way down the scale of this particular incident pit.