What a waste of a young life
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC are professionals and quite at liberty to report somebody that they feel is incompetent/a danger to others.
ZA
For those who don't remember the FAA decided he was flying erratically and removed his licence. There was so much of an outcry that they reversed the decision a year or two later.
In the meantime the Australians had given him a licence!!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few hours later and he would have felt normal enough to drive a car or ride a motor bike,
People I have spoken to say the effect lasts no more than an hour so I don't think he was directly under the influence.
As it is anything that reduced the performance in any way of what would seem to be a fairly incompetent and irresponsible pilot cannot have helped.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a shame, especially for the young lad who was killed. I spent many an hour in CI and it's sad to hear that she's been destroyed in these circumstances.
There is no excuse for taking drugs and flying. The effects simply aren't compatible. Each person reacts differently and it is conceivable that this chap was off his box when he took off.
His previous actions simply confirm that this man should never have been let anywhere near an aircraft, the tragedy is that a young man had to die. What is the point of having an enforcement brach if people like this get reported and nothing happens?
There is no excuse for taking drugs and flying. The effects simply aren't compatible. Each person reacts differently and it is conceivable that this chap was off his box when he took off.
His previous actions simply confirm that this man should never have been let anywhere near an aircraft, the tragedy is that a young man had to die. What is the point of having an enforcement brach if people like this get reported and nothing happens?
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 19th Mar 2009 at 18:08.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With that sort of dose inside him the pilot would have been "off his tree" to put it mildly.
The ecstacy "high" can last anywhere from 30mins to at least 3 hours depending on the person (diet/build/mental state etc).
You'd have to be a total nutcase to even consider flying an aeroplane on "e".
The ecstacy "high" can last anywhere from 30mins to at least 3 hours depending on the person (diet/build/mental state etc).
You'd have to be a total nutcase to even consider flying an aeroplane on "e".
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes SoCal.
But the point is a single FAA 'inspector' made a complaint and one of the most capable pilots on the planet was grounded. Only the intevention of the Australian option got Bob flying again. With the level of power the FAA have we would all expect considerably more responsibility.
If ATC or the CAA can simply ground people here where will it end? Maurice Kirk had his licence withdrawn by the CAA on little more than hearsay - remember that the FAA did not prosecute him and it took legal action to get his poo brown back.
And yet there are all sorts of people saying this chap should have been grounded. Why? Largely because of their prejudices. O'l gits drugs of choice are alcohol and tobacco - both significantly more lethal than Es. If one of you 'fail' a biennial flight (I know - but lets say you scare the instructor and he refuses to sign). Should you have your licence withdrawn? Or should you have additional training?
Given the choice of a glass of wine versus an E then the wine will have more impact. Like ot or not Es are pretty harmless - as legal or illegal drugs go.
Flying whilst impaired is dumb, but let's not let a generational difference hype this incident up to things that are in no way justified.
But the point is a single FAA 'inspector' made a complaint and one of the most capable pilots on the planet was grounded. Only the intevention of the Australian option got Bob flying again. With the level of power the FAA have we would all expect considerably more responsibility.
If ATC or the CAA can simply ground people here where will it end? Maurice Kirk had his licence withdrawn by the CAA on little more than hearsay - remember that the FAA did not prosecute him and it took legal action to get his poo brown back.
And yet there are all sorts of people saying this chap should have been grounded. Why? Largely because of their prejudices. O'l gits drugs of choice are alcohol and tobacco - both significantly more lethal than Es. If one of you 'fail' a biennial flight (I know - but lets say you scare the instructor and he refuses to sign). Should you have your licence withdrawn? Or should you have additional training?
Given the choice of a glass of wine versus an E then the wine will have more impact. Like ot or not Es are pretty harmless - as legal or illegal drugs go.
Flying whilst impaired is dumb, but let's not let a generational difference hype this incident up to things that are in no way justified.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gasax
FFS.
Pilots are expected to self certify as fit to fly and are encouraged not to fly when taking even innocuous OTC medicines.
Flying without first discussing the consequences with an AME after having taken any type of drug is negligent and unforgivable.
This is nothing to do with generation differences, its all to do with being a responsible pilot, which this guy obviously was not.
And he took a 13 year lad with him
FFS.
Pilots are expected to self certify as fit to fly and are encouraged not to fly when taking even innocuous OTC medicines.
Flying without first discussing the consequences with an AME after having taken any type of drug is negligent and unforgivable.
This is nothing to do with generation differences, its all to do with being a responsible pilot, which this guy obviously was not.
And he took a 13 year lad with him
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying without first discussing the consequences with an AME after having taken any type of drug is negligent and unforgivable.
If a pilot should be grounded everytime "a professional" (professional what?) has issues with their flying ability or their personality, not many active ppruners would still be flying...
As for "lives would be saved"; well, sounds so right doesn't it? How do you even argue with that? Let's ground everybody, then nobody would die. Right...?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't be so bl**dy stupid.
Simple rule, don't take any form of mood altering substance before going flying. That includes booze, weed, Cocaine, E, Smack etc.etc.
There is no justification of any kind for taking something like E and then going flying. End of.
If he did discuss it with an AME, what do you reckon the AME's response was? Do you reckon they said "Oh that's alright then". Aye right.
Simple rule, don't take any form of mood altering substance before going flying. That includes booze, weed, Cocaine, E, Smack etc.etc.
There is no justification of any kind for taking something like E and then going flying. End of.
If he did discuss it with an AME, what do you reckon the AME's response was? Do you reckon they said "Oh that's alright then". Aye right.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I can see, no one said that a pilot should be grounded on the say so of ATC. All they have called for is that when multiple people report the same pilot that the CAA should not just ignore the complaints; they should INVESTIGATE. They shouldn't just take back the pilot's licence; they should investigate the reports and make a decision on the basis of what they find.
I can't see them doing anything without sufficient evidence to be able to justify their actions in court. They are hardly THAT stupid, and have access to enough legal knowledge to know what they are doing.
Flying under the influence of any mood altering drugs, be that E, wine or other alcohol is stupid, dangerous and illegal, no matter what generation it is (as is trying to make your own fuel from paint tinner
)
dp
I can't see them doing anything without sufficient evidence to be able to justify their actions in court. They are hardly THAT stupid, and have access to enough legal knowledge to know what they are doing.
Flying under the influence of any mood altering drugs, be that E, wine or other alcohol is stupid, dangerous and illegal, no matter what generation it is (as is trying to make your own fuel from paint tinner
)dp
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back in the real world
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How often do ATC or anyone else report pilots to the CAA for the quality of their flying? Reading the AAIB report these reports were not MORs but something quite different. Am I right in thinking this is in fact very rare in the UK? If this is the case the clear inference is the pilot had been causing some genuine identifiable concerns. The same can be said for a flying school refusing a pilot the option to hire, in my experience you've got to be working very hard indeed to demonstrate that level of incompetence.
The affects of E are not proven either generally or specifically for this person but the willingness of the pilot to fly after taking it only strengthens my opinion that he had a know it all experimental listens to no one attitude and it eventually killed him.
Having seen at first hand the behaviour of some GA pilots I think revalidation through experience should be replaced with the LST or if revalidating outside experience then with a GST. Dare I say, in addition to this PPL examiners need to partial or fail pilots when required, rather than the "Pass with a b@ll@cking" I hear so often.
The affects of E are not proven either generally or specifically for this person but the willingness of the pilot to fly after taking it only strengthens my opinion that he had a know it all experimental listens to no one attitude and it eventually killed him.
Having seen at first hand the behaviour of some GA pilots I think revalidation through experience should be replaced with the LST or if revalidating outside experience then with a GST. Dare I say, in addition to this PPL examiners need to partial or fail pilots when required, rather than the "Pass with a b@ll@cking" I hear so often.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2-yearly JAA PPL revalidation flight (or whatever it is called) seems to do nothing. The instructor has no power to fail the pilot and more or less must sign his logbook - so long as, presumably, the instructor has survived the flight.
This has come up on some pilot forums from time to time and I gather that originally this flight was framed as an FAA-style BFR (which you can most definitely fail) but there was such an uproar that this was dropped. IMHO, loads of pilots would fail a "BFR" and even just from flying around it's obvious that many can only just about make a radio call despite having been flying many more years than I have.
The BFR works well for the FAA which directly or otherwise runs at least 90% of the world's GA.
Mind you, there are cowboys everywhere and you will never weed them all out. This kind of thing is a personal tragedy but it's also bad news for all of UK GA because it ensures that the separate debate of "what expectation of safety do passengers have" is kept in a high profile and this in turn maintains a huge raft of Euro regulations concerning parts certification, maintenance procedures, etc. - much of this stuff is totally irrelevant to safety in GA but it keeps the costs up.
It's obvious that somebody climbing into a C150 should not expect the safety of a 2-crew 747, but where do you draw the line? You certainly don't expect to end up with a cowboy.
This has come up on some pilot forums from time to time and I gather that originally this flight was framed as an FAA-style BFR (which you can most definitely fail) but there was such an uproar that this was dropped. IMHO, loads of pilots would fail a "BFR" and even just from flying around it's obvious that many can only just about make a radio call despite having been flying many more years than I have.
The BFR works well for the FAA which directly or otherwise runs at least 90% of the world's GA.
Mind you, there are cowboys everywhere and you will never weed them all out. This kind of thing is a personal tragedy but it's also bad news for all of UK GA because it ensures that the separate debate of "what expectation of safety do passengers have" is kept in a high profile and this in turn maintains a huge raft of Euro regulations concerning parts certification, maintenance procedures, etc. - much of this stuff is totally irrelevant to safety in GA but it keeps the costs up.
It's obvious that somebody climbing into a C150 should not expect the safety of a 2-crew 747, but where do you draw the line? You certainly don't expect to end up with a cowboy.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WR,
That's probably true, but only to the extent that the pilot owned his own aircraft. In this case, I understand that the pilot was renting. Presumably every rental organisation would want to check the pilots licence first.
dp
That's probably true, but only to the extent that the pilot owned his own aircraft. In this case, I understand that the pilot was renting. Presumably every rental organisation would want to check the pilots licence first.
dp
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Near EGKB
Age: 41
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He owned a share in the plane, yes.
Parents of the kid would surely have known their brother was taking drugs. If indeed I had kids and was put in this situation I'd think twice about who I was allowing my child to go up with...
Parents of the kid would surely have known their brother was taking drugs. If indeed I had kids and was put in this situation I'd think twice about who I was allowing my child to go up with...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I alone in my disbelief at the apologists who are dreaming up idiotic excuses for this cretin? How can anyone even think of justifying this sort of behaviour?
He's under investigation for two - not one - TWO examples within the last 20 flying hours of such shocking airmanship that he's been reported - and by God you have to be convincingly dreadful to make an Air Traffic unit take such drastic action, but to do it TWICE???
He has virtually no experience and even less continuity, yet appears to be neither concerned or interested in his shocking performance above (any normal pilot would have gone back to the flying school for some refresher, wouldn't they?) and yet still takes pax on a jolly.
He's out of his box on recreational pharmaceuticals, (note dose OVER the usual "recreational" level, not under). He's put solvent in his fuel, fer Chrissakes, what kind of dipstick does that, stoned or not?? He then gets airborne without his harness secured, and then, on top of all this, fails to pay sufficient attention to his take-off while making a radio call to Bristol at under 200feet????? RT at under 200 feet?? Incredible, simply incredible! And take the time to read what he said on that RT call - no wonder he'd been reported for, amongst other things, gash RT. No wonder he'd attracted attention in the past with RT of that calibre!
IMHO this imbecile was a prime contender for a Darwin award, and has done society a favour by removing his DNA from the gene-pool. Remember, he volunteered for this, his poor passenger did not.
It is utterly tragic that his criminally irresponsible behaviour resulted in the death of a lad keen on aviation, and tragic too for the reputation of aviation itself.
Any one of the above aberrations would be bad enough on it's own, but to have all those stacked up together in one flight? No bloody wonder therre was an accident, it would have been incredible had one not occurred under the above circumstances.
No. There are no excuses for what he did. None whatsoever...
He's under investigation for two - not one - TWO examples within the last 20 flying hours of such shocking airmanship that he's been reported - and by God you have to be convincingly dreadful to make an Air Traffic unit take such drastic action, but to do it TWICE???
He has virtually no experience and even less continuity, yet appears to be neither concerned or interested in his shocking performance above (any normal pilot would have gone back to the flying school for some refresher, wouldn't they?) and yet still takes pax on a jolly.
He's out of his box on recreational pharmaceuticals, (note dose OVER the usual "recreational" level, not under). He's put solvent in his fuel, fer Chrissakes, what kind of dipstick does that, stoned or not?? He then gets airborne without his harness secured, and then, on top of all this, fails to pay sufficient attention to his take-off while making a radio call to Bristol at under 200feet????? RT at under 200 feet?? Incredible, simply incredible! And take the time to read what he said on that RT call - no wonder he'd been reported for, amongst other things, gash RT. No wonder he'd attracted attention in the past with RT of that calibre!
IMHO this imbecile was a prime contender for a Darwin award, and has done society a favour by removing his DNA from the gene-pool. Remember, he volunteered for this, his poor passenger did not.
It is utterly tragic that his criminally irresponsible behaviour resulted in the death of a lad keen on aviation, and tragic too for the reputation of aviation itself.
Any one of the above aberrations would be bad enough on it's own, but to have all those stacked up together in one flight? No bloody wonder therre was an accident, it would have been incredible had one not occurred under the above circumstances.
No. There are no excuses for what he did. None whatsoever...
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 20th Mar 2009 at 13:16.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I alone in my disbelief at the apologists who are dreaming up idiotic excuses for this cretin?
What has been spoken up against is the moral panic of "Oh-my-god-he-was-taking-drugs-what-a-bad-bad-person!!!", and to question whether even without hindsight there was already enough evidence to motivate grounding him.
I think, and hope, most PPL holders would prefer a system where a pilot is grounded after investigation, not pending investigation.
The main point emphasized by this accident (I won't call it a "lesson to be learned", since it is really nothing new), is to be very, very careful who one flies with. The risks involved with a particular "operation" (if that is a proper term for what this pilot was running...) can be many orders of magnitude higher or lower than what the over-all accident statistics seem to imply.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
be very, very careful who one flies with
Would you let your teenage kid get into a car with three others, with all including the driver being p*issed? It happens all the time. Ask any fireman / ambulance driver.
One also needs to be careful what one flies in. A little more tricky, that one...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SoCal, the UK CAA does almost nothing on the "cowboy" front. Look at the list of prosecutions on their website. They go after people beating up airline cabin crew, or doing AOC busting.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do recall one case of a US pilot at Palm Springs who got banned for drink flying....So what did he do, took his plane for a last spin....literally...into the ground and killed himself, accidentally by all accounts while FUI. And there was the other one at Hemet who decided to go for a quick flight after the pub...and ended up in a ditch on landing, he lived though. So it shows it is very difficult to regulate against morons and pillocks.
I certainly won't fly with anyone or in anything (any more), and I won't fly with people who don't take flying seriously or show off.
I certainly won't fly with anyone or in anything (any more), and I won't fly with people who don't take flying seriously or show off.