Blackpool 3/2/07

[PompeyPaul]

It's worse than that

That's PPRuNe for you, but on a thread such as this, it seems...inappropriate

It's utterly disgusting. really this thread should be locked and anything apart from the OP should be deleted, imho.

[HappyFran]

Why were there 4 people on first flight?

Perhaps it is because I can identify with David Walker, that I have had this nagging discomfort about the PIC conclusion of the AAIB.

As earlier posters pointed out, the facts that lead the AAIB to conclude David was PIC are equally true for PUT.

Trying to stay with the facts:

David told the CFI that he was not current and could not be PIC. CFI told him he would have an accompanying pilot and so would be OK.
It is a very small assumption that David would conclude if not actually told that he would be PUT. Why else would he go? He had already said no once!

David arrives at the airfield; there is a fuelled aircraft, 2 passengers and a 3rd person (the accompanying pilot). Is it not unreasonable that David would believe him to be the Instructor designate…? Why not why else would he be there….clearly they did not need the ballast.

I admit there is a little assumption in that prognosis but very little.

Now maybe the ‘accompanying pilot’ thought that David was current and PIC, but it does seem a bit odd not to have at least discussed with the David who was last to arrive, and therefore his pre-flight activity was observable, some aspects of the flight planning must have been discussed?. I would be concerned if the PIC arrived late, jumped in the aircraft without kicking the tyres and peering in the tanks. The ‘Accompanying Pilot’ was not a newbee he had years of experience!.

At the very least there must have been a lack of clarity as to who was PIC between the 2 of them.

The only thing that is clear is that the CFI knew that David was not legal as PIC and the ‘Accompanying Pilot’ was not legally an instructor and yet he authorised the flight. He did not crash the aircraft but he did dispatch it, knowing it was illegal, and assuming he looked out the window he knew it was illegal on met grounds also. At the very least he was negligent in his capacity as CFI on that day.

OK so the flight arrived at Exeter.

At Exeter the fuel situation was discussed by the ‘Accompanying Pilot’ I draw 2 observations from this;

• If David believed he was PIC, even if perceiving some seniority slope would he not have at least wanted to listen in on the conversation?

• If either the ‘Accompanying Pilot’ or the other passenger / pilot thought David as PIC would it have not been extremely unprofessional / discourteous not to at least involve him.

In conclusion I would disagree with the AAIB report (only regarding PIC) and tend to feel it ‘more likely’ that the ‘Accompanying Pilot’ was actually the PIC. I would also be more firmly of the opinion that David thought he was PUT.

The remaining troubling factors are why the CFI wanted David to go anyway?
Initially he may have thought he was doing David a favour. But when he knew he was not current, why still encourage him?. Could the ‘Accompanying Pilot’ not make the trip without a 2nd pilot ?. Nice to have but not essential.

There are lessons here for me as a new pilot, experienced pilots and but also lessons for FTO’s / clubs which should not be dismissed / ignored because of the strict interpretation of the air law.

Excellent post Helen49.....echo's my feelings

[radicalrabit]

A Bitter Lesson

Firstly, Mr Walker, as a father myself, I have the deepest sympathy for you and would like to add my name to those who sent their condolences already, We should never have to bury our children but sadly it does happen and has to several of my friends.

As for the accident in question, as someone else put it, "there but for the grace of god"..as the saying goes, but I beleive many of us have had a wake up call and hopefully learned something that may in future keep us alive.

Their is little point airing my personal views on here as someone will try to respond with law v common sense as would those who have more information and direct knowledge of the organisation from where your son flew.

I know from this thread and others like it, that it is courting disaster to ever fly and I mean "ever" where circumstances are heavily stacked against a happy uneventful trip, within the the skills of the man (or woman) at the controls and of the design of and equipment within, the aircraft being flown.

20/20 hind sight? No I think it is just common sense and reinforced by this tragic event. It has shown many of us new pilots that those who should know better, and on whom we may have placed trust in their experience, are not infallible and infact some clearly show an outrageously cavalier approach to the safety of the people they advise,instruct, fly with and other aviators they meet in the air and on the ground.

No matter whos' view point you agree with, and there are many on here, diverse in their opinions of the cause and contributing factors, The end result was a needless loss of life.

I hope I never become the topic of conversation on the forum because I have killed or been killed by someone flying. I will certainly have a greater understanding of the PPL and the responsibility and liability it places on the owner and the need for the pilot to be the only one ever to decide where, when and how to fly and how the aircraft is oaded and configured. In my case in future, "The buck stops here!"

I hope when this investigation and coroners hearing have all been concluded, and all the facts and influences are taken on board by we aviators, how ever low time student or "god like" captain we see ourselves, that none of us contribute to such a thing happening again.

[Lurking123]

From the initial AAIB report into the Biggin Hill Citation crash

Some doubt currently exists as to the status of each pilot, so for the purpose of this report, the pilot sitting in the left seat is referred to as the commander.

Confused

[Supersport]

From the initial AAIB report into the Biggin Hill Citation crash


Quote:
Some doubt currently exists as to the status of each pilot, so for the purpose of this report, the pilot sitting in the left seat is referred to as the commander.

Confused

Confused indeed, seems to me like more regulation or clarity is required for PIC designation. Far too many assumptions across the board IMO.

[rojread]

'Bit of a lad!'

Anyone who has been in the aviation industry for any length of time will have come across people who have a rather cavalier attitude to rules and regs. They range from 'he's a bit of a lad', 'Old So-and-so - he's a character', via 'bloody cowboy' and 'what a villain'. But what do we do?

In this thread much reference has been made to the CFI who initiated the process and which of those categories he falls into is anyone's guess. Maybe the coroner will winkle that out. I presume that is Mr Walker Snr's hope and the reason for alerting us to the inquest date.

The young Mr Walker was a victim of the enthusiasm and circumstances that most of us had at that age. (My first flying instructor, Rex Larsen of Skegness) drummed it into us that the most dangerous part of our flying careers would be between 100 and 300 hrs on our new PPLs! How right he was.

I took took off in a PA 28 with three ATPLs, (in my 100-300 band) well over max and was rather surprised at it's reluctance to lift off and how large the Thruxton club house windows appeared as we skimmed the roof.

For a couple of years I flew as Co- with a pilot who was regarded as 'an accident looking for somewhere to happen'. In a couple of engine failures (one EFATO) he was quite competent, but the number of mini-crises he created. was legion. One night, listening to a radio news report of a twin-turbo prop that had ditched offshore near an island, two of us at the crew room table, in chorus, said the same name! The next evening TV news showed him being toasted by holidaymakers at a holiday cottage - as the hero.
(You've guessed it, fuel starvation, but the enquiry was months away)

There will always be people like this and I suppose we should all speak up before other people like young Mr Walker get suckered in to dangerous situations.

One positive outcome of this thread is that 'Fran' the 19 yr old PPL has learned something from the sometimes heated comments.

[Contacttower]

I make this comment only half in jest; perhaps we should have the mandatory wearing of gold bars in the cockpit...at least then there would be no confusion about PIC.

[mad_jock]

Being a scottish lad. And only being involved in scottish fatal accident enquiry's as an engineer for one of the interested partys.

What are the powers of a coroner what are they?

I was under the impression they were a Doctor type person with a bit of legal training.

And what can be the outcome from Blackpool?

In scotland the enquiry can referer things back to the proc fiscal for future shall we say disscusion.

Just interested not looking for detail relating to this case just a laymans veiw of the coroners court.

[mark147]

I believe the coroner's job is simply to determine who died, where they died and what caused their death. The hearing won't determine who is to blame but will consider whether someone was. In this case, possible verdicts could be accidental death, death by misadventure, unlawful killing or an open verdict.

[DFC]

Bookworm,

No. Not an "in-flight diversion to B". That's where your way of looking at it starts getting risky, because by the time you've reached B on the "diversion", you may have used up your diversion fuel.

The minimum fuel at the diversion aerodrome is final reserve or do you plan a destination with an alternate and another alternate for the alternate and another alternate for that alternate?

VFR flights do not need alternates (but it may be a good idea).

Perhaps you need to take some lessons in flight planning. There are many IFR flights that do not need an alternate also.

----------

Operators do the analogous thing of departing with destination below AOM under IFR every day.

They may depart when the destination is below minima however, the combination of actual and forecast weather will be indicating an improvement.........otherwise they are simply idiots wasting fuel.

IFR flight procedures are not applicable to VFR flying and here I think is where you are having a problem - you are mixing up IFR and VFR operations. Unlike a VFR flight, for IFR flying in the most part enroute ceiling and visibility do not matter.........if it is more IMC than was expected then so what?

Weather is not something that can be predicted with 100% certainty.

No that is why according to the rule you have to combine both actual and forecast weather when deciding if your proposed flight will remain in VMC.

The correct answer must be that if based on the actual and forecast weather it will not be VMC then do not depart VFR.

Anything else is simply get-there-itis.

Regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

Perhaps you need to take some lessons in flight planning.

I do enjoy debating with you DFC. Up to this point in the discussion, there's a niggling doubt in my mind that you might come out with some obscure regulation that pulls the rug out from under my argument. Once you resort to condescension, I know I've won.

[DFC]

Bookworm,

It was nothing more than an observation that you might benefir from some instruction. Not your fault. You are simply a product of a system that seems to have lost it's way.

Which part of VFR flights do not need alternates do you not understand?

Which bit of the law that requires a VFR flight to arrive at the destination with final reserve fuel as a minimum do you not understand?

Which bit of to fly VFR you need to be VMC do you not understand?

Originally Posted by Bookworm

I know I've won.

Never want to get in the way of someone wishing to win the race to an accident.

---------

You seem to miss the whole point of VFR flight. It is not to emulate the IFR requirements regarding alternates etc etc it is to simply fly VFR.

Had the flight from Exeter to Blackpool complied with two basic requirements;

a) Not operated out of sight of the surface when unqualified to do so; or

b) arrived overhead blackpool with 45 minutes of fuel in the tanks; and

c) used that fuel to fly to a suitable landing area rather than to illegally fly in cloud

then we might not be having this debate.

Regards,

DFC

[421C]

Which part of VFR flights do not need alternates do you not understand?

Which bit of the law that requires a VFR flight to arrive at the destination with final reserve fuel as a minimum do you not understand?

Which bit of to fly VFR you need to be VMC do you not understand?

DFC, I am sure Bookworm understands all those bits. But he wasn't disputing them with you. His point, as I read it, is that your claim

No that is why according to the rule you have to combine both actual and forecast weather when deciding if your proposed flight will remain in VMC.

The correct answer must be that if based on the actual and forecast weather it will not be VMC then do not depart

Is simply not true. If enroute and/or destination IMC is reported and/or forecast, it does not prevent you departing VFR for that destination and attempting see if, in the actual conditions you encounter, a VFR flight is possible - as long as you maintain VMC at all times, and adequate fuel reserves to land at a suitable airport whilst maintaining VMC.

You have shifted the argument to other points, to avoid admitting you were wrong on the points Bookworm picked you up on. Sorry to drag you back to that. By "wrong", let me be clear that I understand your point to be that it is illegal to depart on a VFR flight from A to B unless VMC is forecast for the entire flight.

Bookworm, I hope

It was nothing more than an observation that you might benefir from some instruction. Not your fault. You are simply a product of a system that seems to have lost it's way.

does not leave you plagued with self-doubt and anxiety that you and the "system" have lost their way. DFC is clearly a highly experienced, qualified and current GA pilot. However, more instruction is always a good thing for any pilot.

[bookworm]

Bookworm, I hope ... does not leave you plagued with self-doubt and anxiety that you and the "system" have lost their way.

Oh but it does 421C. It hurt so much that I sobbed my way through another couple of chapters of a fine technical work on RNAV flight planning this morning. The author clearly labours under similar misconceptions to my own.

[Wrong Stuff]

Despite DFC being plainly wrong on this point, perhaps he could give us a quick refresher on HPL.

What's the term for someone who has an incorrect belief and continues to cling to that belief despite clear evidence that it's wrong? I remember reading about how dangerous such a mental attitude is in the cockpit, but can't quite remember the proper name for it.

[corsair]

The one good thing about this thread is that it reminds some of us, but not all obviously, that we sometimes have to make unpopular decisions to cancel flights.

In fact in the last few days, this thread popped into my head when I was looking at a possible flight. Which in the end I cancelled, perhaps conservatively. Another pilot was involved too and we were of the same mind. Perhaps fortunately our employer has gone out of his way to ensure we had no more than self inflicted pressure to get airborne. He made is clear more than once that the flying part of the job is our responsibility and ours alone. He's not a pilot but familiar with the aviation scene. Our decision cost him money. (It cost us money too )

We two are fortunate in that our boss is like that. Fortunate too that we are old enough and ugly enough to stand our ground. In all probablity we would have got away with it. But a line must be drawn somewhere.

Not everyone is that lucky as we often see.

[bookworm]

Perhaps fortunately our employer has gone out of his way to ensure we had no more than self inflicted pressure to get airborne.

There's an excellent point in there regarding the decision making process, even for PPLs who have no employer.

The stuff about command responsibility is all very well, but I've seen pilots, myself included, make poor decisions because they failed to manage the external pressures, despite knowing full well about that responsibility. If you believe you're superhuman, you merely trust yourself to make the correct decision at the time, despite those external pressures. If you believe that peer pressure, the thought of your own warm bed, the hassle of finding overnight accommodation or alternative transport, might cause you to look upon the weather or your aircraft's capabilities with rose-tinted spectacles, you can take steps to mitigate those pressures a long time before you have to make a decision. That can include managing your passengers' (and spouse's!) expectations, researching alternative transport and accommodation, or simply planning your trip with enough slack to avoid falling prey to temptation.

[martello]

others have said they have no intention of reading this whole thread - I have - and I am reluctant as always to post but I am irritated by the polarised positions people are taking.
it seems to me there are two aspects to this
a) the rather simplistic arguments of who was P1
b) the broader non aviation society concept of 'duty of care'

Aviators particularly private aviators and definitely regularposters on forums are very quick to trot out the ANO and take the position that DW was P1 therfore responsible.
It is difficult to argue against the simple rule that DW was P1 therefore totally responsible - more difficult to prove that he was or knew he was P1

Bose X - I would hate to take instruction from you as you are so black and white certain. Because you are so black and white certain you just can't comprehend how someone can come under a decision making influence from a sky god - not good for an instructor if I may say.

Life is not like that - several posters have said that they recognise when they were on the learning curve (surely we are always on it) that you can be persuaded to defer to more experience (espcially, I suggest, if they were a 'black and white assertive instructor!)

After one hours flying I had a senior instructor ridicule me for turning up for a lesson in relatively poor visibility (he had not the courtesy to phone me before to advise and cancel) There are a larger number, than we care to admit, of cavalier schools who have instructors who cannot understand what it was like to be a less than confident beginner or an out of practice PPL

Yes this case can be put to bed by saying that the pilot David Walker was P1 and made bad decisions - hopefully the coroner in answering the question 'Why?' will take a broader society based approach and look beyond the simple Pilot in command decisions and say there were organisational (and value standard) reasons contributing to the catastrophe. Note I did not say causing - may be difficult for some black and white ANO quoters to understand a complex chain of events with contributory factors.
I am not contradicting the black and white responsibility thing - indeed if that was drummed into every beginner from the moment they stepped into a cockpit then some would have the courage to challenge the sky gods.
But human beings being what they there will still be FTO bullies and still be weak P1's

Whilst the P1 "always responsible" issue should not be subordinated to the duty of care argument and, indeed in simplistic terms it is the main reason then, if we are to stop this happening again, we must expect schools to behave responsibly as some I have known do - e.g. checking the pilots decisions before he is given the keys.
I think the lawyers in the US would have a field day on duty of care on this one


One thing I have learned is you can't always trust the uniform and gold bars and at the end of the day you are on your own

[Whirlybird]

martello,

Excellent post!

I can't think of anything else to add or comment on, and that's rare for me.

[S-Works]

Bose X - I would hate to take instruction from you as you are so black and white certain. Because you are so black and white certain you just can't comprehend how someone can come under a decision making influence from a sky god - not good for an instructor if I may say.

Flattered that you have picked me out for special attention, but perhaps you would be so kind as to give me the courtesy of meeting me in person before you decide to insult me. You might be surprised at my teaching style.

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.