Blackpool 3/2/07
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
421C, Let me reply to the points you raised, you obviously do not understand my point:
Thanks for stating the obvious. Could you please point out where I have said anything to the contrary.
Yes, there are no grey zones on paper, but in reality there can be especially when people start making assumptions, and if you have fully read the AAIB Report I can't believe you can come out with a statement like this, here are some extracts from the AAIB Report, I saved the best one until last:
The confusion over PIC and manner in which the flight was to be carried out begins.
PIC possibly not involved in a discussion about fuel. The accompanying pilot apparently making the decisions about fuel. Confusion over who is PIC gets even worse.
Finally.....
Pretty big assumption, and that is all it can ever be, nothing on paper.
No Grey in reality 421C? You sure? With a lack of FACT it is always going to be 'grey'.
Black and White on paper again indeed, but there are no hard facts regarding PIC in the AAIB Report, references to PIC are assumed, not proven.
Yes, I can understand why people would want the "what ifs" distanced from the accident causes and responsibilty as you put it, BUT there is a lot more to this accident (obviously only an outsider would be able to see this as you and some other fellow aviators can't) than just the assumed PIC, which is why the "what ifs" will remain firmly attached to this incident. A lot of unanswered questions will be raised at the Coroner's Court, some aviation related, some not. If I was in David Walkers position I'd definately want more answers than what is contained in the AAIB Report, I would want to know more about the circumstance's surrounding the demise of my son.
When it comes to Rules, Regulations, Laws etc, in reality there is plenty of grey, if you can't see it you are blind.
Whoa... Long one that one.
421C Posted:
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.
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.
421C Posted:
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.
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.
From AAIB Report:
However, the CFI called him again clarifying that he did not mean for him to fly solo but that a more experienced pilot would accompany him. It was not established whether the pilot understood this to mean that the ‘experienced pilot’ was an instructor. However, the pilot agreed to this arrangement and shortly afterwards went to the airport.
However, the CFI called him again clarifying that he did not mean for him to fly solo but that a more experienced pilot would accompany him. It was not established whether the pilot understood this to mean that the ‘experienced pilot’ was an instructor. However, the pilot agreed to this arrangement and shortly afterwards went to the airport.
From AAIB Report:
One went directly to the Aztec aircraft which was to be collected, the other had a conversation with the accompanying pilot. This included a discussion about the amount of fuel on board and a visual inspection of
the fuel quantity in the tanks. The accompanying pilot apparently decided it was not necessary to refuel at Exeter and was heard to comment that “they could drop in somewhere on the way back if it became necessary”.
***
It was not established whether the pilot himself was involved in these discussions.
One went directly to the Aztec aircraft which was to be collected, the other had a conversation with the accompanying pilot. This included a discussion about the amount of fuel on board and a visual inspection of
the fuel quantity in the tanks. The accompanying pilot apparently decided it was not necessary to refuel at Exeter and was heard to comment that “they could drop in somewhere on the way back if it became necessary”.
***
It was not established whether the pilot himself was involved in these discussions.
Finally.....
From AAIB Report:
The relatively inexperienced pilot was paying for the fuel for the two flights, the purpose of which was for him to build up his flight hours. He was seated in the left seat and he was almost certainly handling the controls throughout the accident flight. Thus, he should be considered the pilot-in-command even though he may have called upon the experienced accompanying pilot for help and advice.
The relatively inexperienced pilot was paying for the fuel for the two flights, the purpose of which was for him to build up his flight hours. He was seated in the left seat and he was almost certainly handling the controls throughout the accident flight. Thus, he should be considered the pilot-in-command even though he may have called upon the experienced accompanying pilot for help and advice.
No Grey in reality 421C? You sure? With a lack of FACT it is always going to be 'grey'.
421C Posted:
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
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
Yes, I can understand why people would want the "what ifs" distanced from the accident causes and responsibilty as you put it, BUT there is a lot more to this accident (obviously only an outsider would be able to see this as you and some other fellow aviators can't) than just the assumed PIC, which is why the "what ifs" will remain firmly attached to this incident. A lot of unanswered questions will be raised at the Coroner's Court, some aviation related, some not. If I was in David Walkers position I'd definately want more answers than what is contained in the AAIB Report, I would want to know more about the circumstance's surrounding the demise of my son.
When it comes to Rules, Regulations, Laws etc, in reality there is plenty of grey, if you can't see it you are blind.
Whoa... Long one that one.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Please explain how the accident would have happened if they had been IR qualified in an appropriately equipped aircraft and had completed the required pre-flight planning for both flights as well as complying with the approach ban requirements?
They broke the law, their deaths were as a direct result of that. The other issues are relevant but I can not believe that people think that if the second flight had more fuel and diverted to a landing at some other airfield that everything would be rosy.
No point in planning an illegal flight.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh come on. Sometimes........
Your own post highlights the poor planning, lack of properly equipped aircraft etc. Even if the legalities of the flight had been correct there were plenty of other things on your own list that contributed towards the incident pit. The legal aspect was just one part of it.
You really are obsessed with the law and making up a whole raft of your own to fit every argument.
Your own post highlights the poor planning, lack of properly equipped aircraft etc. Even if the legalities of the flight had been correct there were plenty of other things on your own list that contributed towards the incident pit. The legal aspect was just one part of it.
You really are obsessed with the law and making up a whole raft of your own to fit every argument.
Last edited by S-Works; 24th Apr 2008 at 11:23.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you, Bose-X, are equally annoying in trying to turn every debate on this website into a vehicle to show how loud your voice is. One day you will just sit back and listen to yourself before making the whole world privvy to your ego, but sadly you appear to take pride in your arrogance and joy in using these sorts of threads to poke your head above the 'incident pit' (your word of the day perchance?!) to look a bit more pompous. Why do we bother when you obviously know everything there is to know about GA flying mate? Another useful thread spirals down the plughole.......
VFE.
VFE.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hehehe
cool down!
Some feel it was the lawbreaking that did it
Some feel it was principally the fault of the CFI
Some feel it was poor airmanship of whoever was PIC
Some feel the alleged P1 (Walker) is the culprit, others feel he should be considered as a PU/T and he became a victim (all be it that as a licensed pilot and to-be ATPL in whatever circumstance he could have decided not to fly along
Why can we not be allowed to have different opinions!?
1.In my view (but my view only) i will continue to assume the AAIB are a serious bunch of good people intent on making aviation more safe and therefore Walker was P1 for me until proven otherwise. The coroner could change this but I am not going to give in to peer pressure (!) on this forum, i will not change my mind until the coroner comes up with new evidence
2. I accept there was external pressure on him and i know we are all vulnerable to this, but it can not be a justification after the fact for whoever was PIC
3. In my view flight one has nothing to do with flight two, simply because we are taught to plan per flight, make decisions per flight. After all it is not uncommon for people flying together to change PIC at point B.
4. if there was peer pressure it was about flight one, which left outside the law and outside the frame of safety with 4 pilots on board, the P1 being responsible but the other 3 being outright fools!
5. The only pressure on the return flight was get-home-itis for whatever (always unacceptable) reasons. We are all trained to see this and we ll read about it regularly in flying magazines.
So till after the coroners verdict for me Walker died being P1 having made mistakes before starting, on the first flight and crucially mortal mistakes on the second flight.
That does not mean i cannot live with other people venting their opinions and hopefully in the course of our exchange of views all of us learning something. But jesus Christ!, lets control our emotions here....
Rational expressions are what made aviation safe, expressions of feelings is a natural thing, but expressions of (extreme) emotions on the subject of other s opinions has no place in aviation and does not contribute to a good debate.
cool down!
Some feel it was the lawbreaking that did it
Some feel it was principally the fault of the CFI
Some feel it was poor airmanship of whoever was PIC
Some feel the alleged P1 (Walker) is the culprit, others feel he should be considered as a PU/T and he became a victim (all be it that as a licensed pilot and to-be ATPL in whatever circumstance he could have decided not to fly along
Why can we not be allowed to have different opinions!?
1.In my view (but my view only) i will continue to assume the AAIB are a serious bunch of good people intent on making aviation more safe and therefore Walker was P1 for me until proven otherwise. The coroner could change this but I am not going to give in to peer pressure (!) on this forum, i will not change my mind until the coroner comes up with new evidence
2. I accept there was external pressure on him and i know we are all vulnerable to this, but it can not be a justification after the fact for whoever was PIC
3. In my view flight one has nothing to do with flight two, simply because we are taught to plan per flight, make decisions per flight. After all it is not uncommon for people flying together to change PIC at point B.
4. if there was peer pressure it was about flight one, which left outside the law and outside the frame of safety with 4 pilots on board, the P1 being responsible but the other 3 being outright fools!
5. The only pressure on the return flight was get-home-itis for whatever (always unacceptable) reasons. We are all trained to see this and we ll read about it regularly in flying magazines.
So till after the coroners verdict for me Walker died being P1 having made mistakes before starting, on the first flight and crucially mortal mistakes on the second flight.
That does not mean i cannot live with other people venting their opinions and hopefully in the course of our exchange of views all of us learning something. But jesus Christ!, lets control our emotions here....
Rational expressions are what made aviation safe, expressions of feelings is a natural thing, but expressions of (extreme) emotions on the subject of other s opinions has no place in aviation and does not contribute to a good debate.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lancs
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
If Andrew is to be labelled as PIC, why was he not consulted regarding the fuelling of the aircraft on the first flight? Someone else (CFI) filled up the aircraft to take it above weight. This part of "planning the flight" was out of his hands. Did the CFI assume responsibility at this point then hand the poisoned chalice to Andrew? Flight one has a great deal to do with flght two. Once they were in Exeter they were under more pressure to get home but this time without the CFI in the right hand seat. The CFI thought it appropriate to fill the aircraft at Blackpool but not at Exeter.
In my view flight one has nothing to do with flight two, simply because we are taught to plan per flight, make decisions per flight
If Andrew is to be labelled as PIC, why was he not consulted regarding the fuelling of the aircraft on the first flight? Someone else (CFI) filled up the aircraft to take it above weight. This part of "planning the flight" was out of his hands. Did the CFI assume responsibility at this point then hand the poisoned chalice to Andrew? Flight one has a great deal to do with flght two. Once they were in Exeter they were under more pressure to get home but this time without the CFI in the right hand seat. The CFI thought it appropriate to fill the aircraft at Blackpool but not at Exeter.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're making it up as you go along, once again DFC. This is in your imagination, not in the legislation.
Try this one;
Weather reports and forecasts
7.
7.
—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), immediately before an aircraft flies the commander of the aircraft shall examine the current reports and forecasts of the weather conditions on the proposed flight path, in order to determine whether Instrument Meteorological Conditions prevail, or are likely to prevail, during any part of the flight.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall only apply if it is reasonably practicable for the commander to obtain current reports and forecasts of the weather conditions on the proposed flight path.
Now please explain how you can depart on a VFR flight from A to B if in accordance with 7(1) you have determined that at some stage you will encounter IMC?
The saying goes that rules are for the obedience of idiots and the guidance of wise men. Well what can we do to force idiots to obey the rules so that they may live to become wise men?
Perhaps it is time that people who act anti-socially in the aviation community by breaking the law i.e. those that will fly IFR, IMC and declare themselves to be VFR, do not plan properly, use non-approved approach aids for IMC approaches, those that use inappropriate minima on IFR flights - and VFR flights and so on are treated with the same contempt that we treat the local yobs on the street corner harassing old people.
Lets reverse the peer pressure to flout the law and push the limits and disregard CAA and other authority safety information (which is often seen on here for example) and put more effort into peer presure to do things legally and safely.
Regards,
DFC
(2) Paragraph (1) shall only apply if it is reasonably practicable for the commander to obtain current reports and forecasts of the weather conditions on the proposed flight path.
Now please explain how you can depart on a VFR flight from A to B if in accordance with 7(1) you have determined that at some stage you will encounter IMC?
The saying goes that rules are for the obedience of idiots and the guidance of wise men. Well what can we do to force idiots to obey the rules so that they may live to become wise men?
Perhaps it is time that people who act anti-socially in the aviation community by breaking the law i.e. those that will fly IFR, IMC and declare themselves to be VFR, do not plan properly, use non-approved approach aids for IMC approaches, those that use inappropriate minima on IFR flights - and VFR flights and so on are treated with the same contempt that we treat the local yobs on the street corner harassing old people.
Lets reverse the peer pressure to flout the law and push the limits and disregard CAA and other authority safety information (which is often seen on here for example) and put more effort into peer presure to do things legally and safely.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will admit to not really understanding Mr. Walker's motivation in making the very first post of this thread. I can make a guess why he did it, but that's all it would be.
But I really wish he hadn't done it : he's opened the door for the usual round of ill-informed, self-opinionated, self-righteous bull**** which makes up the majority of the rest of this thread, masquerading as "important lessons we must all learn". All we know is in the AAIB report. Anyone who actually knows anything else will hopefully be at the hearing. The rest of us have nothing new to add.
To those intimately involved, matters such as whether there was coercion or simply temptation, who was PIC, who bears the ultimate responsibility etc will be burningly important. To the rest of us, we just need to know that two people died because someone somewhere took some stupid decisions, and that if we take similar ones - and we all know what they were - then we run the risk of a similar fate.
It doesn't matter a toss if this accident was caused because someone broke the law, or if the law is secondary to personal responsibility (Bose, old Desperate For Controversy is just a dangerous idiot but you really should know better), and to bang on ad nauseum when it's very possible that the families of the deceased will be reading this thread, and feeling the knife every time some pompous prat makes the same point over again, just smacks of rubber-necking at a traffic accident.
Give it a rest, for pity's sake.
But I really wish he hadn't done it : he's opened the door for the usual round of ill-informed, self-opinionated, self-righteous bull**** which makes up the majority of the rest of this thread, masquerading as "important lessons we must all learn". All we know is in the AAIB report. Anyone who actually knows anything else will hopefully be at the hearing. The rest of us have nothing new to add.
To those intimately involved, matters such as whether there was coercion or simply temptation, who was PIC, who bears the ultimate responsibility etc will be burningly important. To the rest of us, we just need to know that two people died because someone somewhere took some stupid decisions, and that if we take similar ones - and we all know what they were - then we run the risk of a similar fate.
It doesn't matter a toss if this accident was caused because someone broke the law, or if the law is secondary to personal responsibility (Bose, old Desperate For Controversy is just a dangerous idiot but you really should know better), and to bang on ad nauseum when it's very possible that the families of the deceased will be reading this thread, and feeling the knife every time some pompous prat makes the same point over again, just smacks of rubber-necking at a traffic accident.
Give it a rest, for pity's sake.
Now please explain how you can depart on a VFR flight from A to B if in accordance with 7(1) you have determined that at some stage you will encounter IMC?
... and put more effort into peer presure to do things legally and safely
The crew of the flight from Exeter to Blackpool took off having flouted the laws of the land in at least three respects on the outbound flight, without apparent adverse consequences. Perhaps they felt they could also flout the laws of physics?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having first hand experience of this organisation involved in this tragedy I'd say that the flight was going to Exeter and returning that day whether Mr Walker was onboard or not. The fact that he was along to pay for the fuel was merely convenient for the organisation. All the pre flight planning decisions had been done in his absence. On the ground at Exeter his companion remarked that they could " always 'drop in' somewhere on the way back to refuel'. On the RT back at Blackpool when the proverbial really hit the fan, it was his companion liasing with ATC. Yes legally Mr Walker may have been the PIC but he was no more the Captain that day than any of us were, unfortunately he's paid for this with his life.
Let's be honest, do any one of you know of any plain vanilla 100 hour ppl holder that would launch into that weather in a knackered VFR only cherokee?
Let's be honest, do any one of you know of any plain vanilla 100 hour ppl holder that would launch into that weather in a knackered VFR only cherokee?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GASH,
I have seen an old cherokee land in OVC 0100 at a non instrument airfield (in very hilly terrain) and take off with 4 big blokes in it into OVC 0050 and winds 25G35 after (believe it or not rather ironically) attending a funeral.
The "captain" was no more than 21 years old - I think the plane was at least 20 years older than him.
The airfield manager (non-pilot) saw no problem with it and was pleased to have the custom, personally I thought the 3 passengers were f&ckin stupid to get into the aircraft at all (probably ignorant of the level of risk - they were after all being flown by a qualified "pilot") and the pilot suicidal as it was winter, the poor weather was widespread and they were likely to be in it all the way home (2hrs or so). They got away with it though and most do.
It is when we stop being horrified by such appauling decision making and risk-taking and start to accept crazy scud running and home made sub-ILS-minima instrument approaches in dreadful weather as the norm that we really need to start worrying about our own safety and that of our passengers.
Inexperience brings with it blissful ignorance of the potentially fatal consequences of underestimating the weather.
RIP
SB
I have seen an old cherokee land in OVC 0100 at a non instrument airfield (in very hilly terrain) and take off with 4 big blokes in it into OVC 0050 and winds 25G35 after (believe it or not rather ironically) attending a funeral.
The "captain" was no more than 21 years old - I think the plane was at least 20 years older than him.
The airfield manager (non-pilot) saw no problem with it and was pleased to have the custom, personally I thought the 3 passengers were f&ckin stupid to get into the aircraft at all (probably ignorant of the level of risk - they were after all being flown by a qualified "pilot") and the pilot suicidal as it was winter, the poor weather was widespread and they were likely to be in it all the way home (2hrs or so). They got away with it though and most do.
It is when we stop being horrified by such appauling decision making and risk-taking and start to accept crazy scud running and home made sub-ILS-minima instrument approaches in dreadful weather as the norm that we really need to start worrying about our own safety and that of our passengers.
Inexperience brings with it blissful ignorance of the potentially fatal consequences of underestimating the weather.
RIP
SB
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i always thought that aviating was meant to be representative of calm, professional and mature behaviour. All we seem to be doing right now is proving what a bunch of arrogant fools we can be.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully flapped
I too have been wondering about the initial post. I can only assume Mr Walker s son had many flying fans and he wanted them to be informed about the coroner.
Perhaps here it is a good time to give my sincere condoleances to Mr Walker, the family and all of pilot Walker s friends.....
Mr Walker s son has, through his death, brought deep awareness to many readers on this forum on how close death can be, and perhaps in the course of things helped prevent some in the future, let this be a warm thought for those bereaved people.
I disagree with a post earlier on this page about this thread being nonsensical. We are all human and just reading the report of the AAIB does not generally give us the insight into what can be learned.
The phrase to check the weather, in itself, means nothing. It is through discussions and opinions that we focus our minds, the Brits are good at debating (pardon my english) and you should understand that me, a bl**dy foreigner, i have learned a lot through the debate about respect for the weather (i am a relatively novice IMC pilot), about get-home-itis and about PIC and finally not least about peer pressure.
I think Mr Walker is an intelligent man and he will have learned in these past months that the aviation community WANTS to learn from mistakes, to prevent future ones. He will also understand the vast majority of us join him in his sadness over his loss and that this has nothing to do with the lessons we try to learn....
Finally i wish Aztec Driver would contribute more on the sensitive or rational level, but perhaps this will come after the coroner s verdict. I hope we will hear from him
I too have been wondering about the initial post. I can only assume Mr Walker s son had many flying fans and he wanted them to be informed about the coroner.
Perhaps here it is a good time to give my sincere condoleances to Mr Walker, the family and all of pilot Walker s friends.....
Mr Walker s son has, through his death, brought deep awareness to many readers on this forum on how close death can be, and perhaps in the course of things helped prevent some in the future, let this be a warm thought for those bereaved people.
I disagree with a post earlier on this page about this thread being nonsensical. We are all human and just reading the report of the AAIB does not generally give us the insight into what can be learned.
The phrase to check the weather, in itself, means nothing. It is through discussions and opinions that we focus our minds, the Brits are good at debating (pardon my english) and you should understand that me, a bl**dy foreigner, i have learned a lot through the debate about respect for the weather (i am a relatively novice IMC pilot), about get-home-itis and about PIC and finally not least about peer pressure.
I think Mr Walker is an intelligent man and he will have learned in these past months that the aviation community WANTS to learn from mistakes, to prevent future ones. He will also understand the vast majority of us join him in his sadness over his loss and that this has nothing to do with the lessons we try to learn....
Finally i wish Aztec Driver would contribute more on the sensitive or rational level, but perhaps this will come after the coroner s verdict. I hope we will hear from him
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same way that I would depart on an IFR flight from A to B with B below IFR minima: with a clear alternate plan if the reports are unchanged and/or the forecasts are correct.
To say that you were flying from A to B is to say that you are departing VFR knowing that there is IMC on the chosen route.
Would you recomend that people do that?
---------
Scooter boy,
Did you speak with the pilot......perhaps provide some "feedback"?
More importantly, did you report the pilot?
No?
Then you assisted them by covering up their illegal operation.
It is time that pilots started taking a stand against the anti-social law breakers and those that encourage such flying because they are the ones who are going to ruin it for the rest.
Put Blackpool in the USA. Does anyone believe that the flight that departed "VFR" into a 200ft cloud base would not be met by the feds at the destination or do you not think that if they had managed to get back safely that they would not have received a visit from the feds with some serioud questions about their flying?
Never mind the Feds, the local CFI would be having a sharp word in the earhole of those who locally flout the regs.
There is a big difference between in the first case people who make a mistake or mis-judge or make a planning error and through that mistake / error end up breaking the law and in the second case, people that knowingly break the law.
Regards,
DFC
Last edited by DFC; 24th Apr 2008 at 21:05.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then you assisted them by covering up their illegal operation.
GBBBK
Having read the AAIB report and spent the past two hours trawling through this thread a number of points occur to me......
1. Sadly this accident was almost a repetition of so many preceding GA accidents over the years, ie. aircraft being operated in weather conditions below the capability of the pilot and or aircraft. Safety improvement process not working very well!
2. Yes the the ANO clearly defines the responsibilities and privileges of the PPL. More emphasis must be placed on the realities of these responsibilities and privileges during training ie. not just learning them by rote.
3. Yes the pilot i/c is responsible but as in life generally, his/her decision[s] will be based on information collected. Inevitably the views/advice of others will influence the decision making process. Therefore a variety of reasons why wrong decisions may be made. The lower your own experience, the more you are likely to heed the opinions of others particularly those whom you expect to be offering sound advice
4. Flying training organisations must spend more time emphasising why NOT to fly in adverse weather conditions [below the competence of the pilot] rather than encouraging it either for the benefit of hour building instructors or the club coffers. Many ATC people will relate their tales of flying instructors who must fly despite having been told about the low ceiling/visibility etc etc.
5. The VMC requirements for VFR flight must be emphasised during training, again not just learning by rote. Again the ATC world could relate many occasions when the VFR departure climbs straight into cloud [or asks for a 'special VFR clearance thinking that this is a magic wand entitling them to climb straight into cloud!]
6. Procedures whether law/aircraft/club or whatever are there to be followed. They have invariably been designed by experienced people. Follow them whether you are the CFI or the student PPL!
7. ATC must never reprimand pilots on the RTF, unprofessional, inappropriate and potentially downright dangerous.
8. The reading of aircraft accident reports [particularly the GA variety] should be a mandatory part of pilot training.
9. The system must continue to be one whereby ATC provide the information [weather etc] and the pilot makes the decisions ie. operates within the licence privileges.
I am aware that many training organisations will be doing most of the above for their customers, no offence intended to them. Sadly there remain cowboy flying organisations and cowboy pilots out there.
Sincere condolences to the families and friends of the bereaved.
H49
1. Sadly this accident was almost a repetition of so many preceding GA accidents over the years, ie. aircraft being operated in weather conditions below the capability of the pilot and or aircraft. Safety improvement process not working very well!
2. Yes the the ANO clearly defines the responsibilities and privileges of the PPL. More emphasis must be placed on the realities of these responsibilities and privileges during training ie. not just learning them by rote.
3. Yes the pilot i/c is responsible but as in life generally, his/her decision[s] will be based on information collected. Inevitably the views/advice of others will influence the decision making process. Therefore a variety of reasons why wrong decisions may be made. The lower your own experience, the more you are likely to heed the opinions of others particularly those whom you expect to be offering sound advice
4. Flying training organisations must spend more time emphasising why NOT to fly in adverse weather conditions [below the competence of the pilot] rather than encouraging it either for the benefit of hour building instructors or the club coffers. Many ATC people will relate their tales of flying instructors who must fly despite having been told about the low ceiling/visibility etc etc.
5. The VMC requirements for VFR flight must be emphasised during training, again not just learning by rote. Again the ATC world could relate many occasions when the VFR departure climbs straight into cloud [or asks for a 'special VFR clearance thinking that this is a magic wand entitling them to climb straight into cloud!]
6. Procedures whether law/aircraft/club or whatever are there to be followed. They have invariably been designed by experienced people. Follow them whether you are the CFI or the student PPL!
7. ATC must never reprimand pilots on the RTF, unprofessional, inappropriate and potentially downright dangerous.
8. The reading of aircraft accident reports [particularly the GA variety] should be a mandatory part of pilot training.
9. The system must continue to be one whereby ATC provide the information [weather etc] and the pilot makes the decisions ie. operates within the licence privileges.
I am aware that many training organisations will be doing most of the above for their customers, no offence intended to them. Sadly there remain cowboy flying organisations and cowboy pilots out there.
Sincere condolences to the families and friends of the bereaved.
H49
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will admit to not really understanding Mr. Walker's motivation in making the very first post of this thread. I can make a guess why he did it, but that's all it would be.
Except that it seems to be going round in circles and degenerating into name-calling etc. That's PPRuNe for you, but on a thread such as this, it seems...inappropriate, to say the least.
I haven't read every post on here and I'm not going to. I don't think we'll ever all agree, or even come to any sort of acceptance of each others' point of view.
All I know is that once, some years ago, I was a very new PPL. And despite my training, I found it very hard to distinguish between sensible backing out of a flight, and wimpishness. I wanted to stretch myself, but didn't know how much would be sensible. I dreaded being the sort of pilot who never flew if there was a cloud in the sky. I didn't really have the experience, especially with weather, to ever feel absolutely sure, so I listened to those with more experience than me. That seemed to make sense.
As a result, I got lost in marginal vis, stranded overnight by thunderstorms that I barely beat to the airport, narrowly made it out of a shortish wet grass runway with obstacles in nil wind, and ended up as a passenger with a (to me, very experienced) 180 hour IMC rated pilot who flew in circles round a VOR. I survived...but I might not have done. I wasn't that young, and I wasn't reckless or a risk-taker, or stupid. And I've gathered, many, many, many times since then, that I was far from unique.
So I can't help thinking, concerning this sad accident, that there, but for the Grace Of God, go many of us.
No. In that case on a VFR flight you are departing on a flight from A to C or from A to A with the posibility of an in-flight diversion to B should the weather be better than expected.
To say that you were flying from A to B is to say that you are departing VFR knowing that there is IMC on the chosen route.
Would you recomend that people do that?
Would you recomend that people do that?
I recall a few occasions when I have departed under VFR knowing that there was a good chance that the destination, or some point enroute, would be below VFR. On some of them, I diverted as planned, on others I completed the trip to the intended destination uneventfully.
But this is peripheral. The Exeter to Blackpool flight under discussion was not a marginal case, not one where the crew got caught on the wrong side of a grey line. The reason why it has provoked so much discussion is that to make the flight to an airport that was in fog all day with no suitable navigational equipment and insufficient fuel to divert was not simply "a bad call". It was utter folly. And many of us would like to understand how it happened.