"Failed stunt causes crash" ...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we all not have a duty to protect the unwary and to protect GA from additional red tape?
Dont we all have a duty just to play the game anyway? In whatever walk of life, the rules are there to protect the unwary already.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Malcom
Dont we all have a duty just to play the game anyway? In whatever walk of life, the rules are there to protect the unwary already.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
however given the extreme disregard for the law in this case it's a Shame someone had not stood up for the innocent.
How does one police something like this? He was clearly current, if not licensed - how are we to know if he is licensed or not?
How do I know his aeroplane can't run on MoGas (nb: many low compression lycomings can, just maybe not under the CAA rules - a paperwork exercise probably)?
How do I know that that aeroplane I see joe bloggs flying every week is not certified for aerobatics (my Rallye is, but most aren't).
How do we know that the pax were not egging him on to do something "outside of his envelope"?
Very tricky one.....I would not step into the aeroplane of someone I didn't know, and I'd probably not step into the aeroplane of someone I did know but was a "jack the lad" type.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
englishal, all valid points, however to identify all you suggest as a total outsider, not knowing the pilot, would be 'policing'. My thinking is more along the lines of those of us who have suspicions. It's all too easy to hide behind the, 'it's not my job' attitude. Luckily I have never had cause to consider taking action (other than checking out an admin. error on G-INFO re an aircraft that did carry public). This incident has made me question how I would deal with a situation where I did have reasonable suspicion. Hopefully I will never be tested as I have no wish to be put in the position and would find it extremely difficult. Equally if I chose not to take action and a similar event had to occur I would struggle to explain it away with the points you make.
Another way to think of it would be to consider how you would feel if it was someone close to you that was the passenger and you discovered that others had doubts about the legality of the pilot, deciding it wasn't their responsibility.
That said there are always going to be some who slip through the net.
Another way to think of it would be to consider how you would feel if it was someone close to you that was the passenger and you discovered that others had doubts about the legality of the pilot, deciding it wasn't their responsibility.
That said there are always going to be some who slip through the net.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Phil Space
There will be another similar accident involving an irresponsible pilot along here soon!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This incident has made me question how I would deal with a situation where I did have reasonable suspicion. Hopefully I will never be tested as I have no wish to be put in the position and would find it extremely difficult. Equally if I chose not to take action and a similar event had to occur I would struggle to explain it away with the points you make.
This accident need not have been caused by anything that was even illegal. The report, if one reads it with an open mind, is filled with nothing but speculation. Nowhere is it established that the "stunts" the pilot had been previously observed to be flying was anything other than aerobatic lazy eights, which the PA28 is approved for when flown in the utility category. Nowhere is it established that the accident was preceded by a non-approved maneuver, until we have a witness who can tell a 58 degree bank from a 62 degree bank from the ground.
Ill-advised, probably, but not necessarily illegal.
The only two sensible conclusions in the accident report: That the accident was not caused by the irregularities with the pilot's certificate, and that the accident is not cause for any safety recommendations.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bjornhall
You are not responsible for any other pilot's actions. Simple as that.
Originally Posted by bjornhall
And it is quite unlikely that any action you would take if you did have what you consider 'reasonable suspicion' would actually improve anything. Far more likely that people cause trouble when their 'reasonable suspicion' turned out to be not very reasonable at all.
Originally Posted by bjornhall
Ill-advised, probably, but not necessarily illegal.
Given the numerous laws he broke just being in the air and here on PPRuNe you actually defend him!
Are you really the kind of guy who would walk past a burning house and not dial 999 because it's not your business and you wouldn't want to interfere just in case Hollywood was in the area shooting a movie? Or is the more to your 'reasoning'?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that if one KNOWS that someone is clearly dangerous or illegal then Yes by all means they should warn prospective passengers if given the chance.
However there are so many busy bodies in GA who would just love to become "Air Police" that it makes me shudder to think of twitching clubhouse curtains.
Regarding paperwork issues, lets say I let my JAA license and medical laps yet still carried on flying, would I be illegal?......(the answer is No by the way).
Our aircraft logbooks are now with our maintenance organistation, they take care of all the entries in them, I don't get to see them unless I ask. Now there was a case not so long ago where one maintenance organistaion was falsifying logbooks....so now what?
Just pointing out how difficult it is to dob people in.
However there are so many busy bodies in GA who would just love to become "Air Police" that it makes me shudder to think of twitching clubhouse curtains.
Regarding paperwork issues, lets say I let my JAA license and medical laps yet still carried on flying, would I be illegal?......(the answer is No by the way).
Our aircraft logbooks are now with our maintenance organistation, they take care of all the entries in them, I don't get to see them unless I ask. Now there was a case not so long ago where one maintenance organistaion was falsifying logbooks....so now what?
Just pointing out how difficult it is to dob people in.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the numerous laws he broke just being in the air and here on PPRuNe you actually defend him!
Try to understand that accidents can happen without anyone braking any laws. Try to understand that just because someone broke a law preceding the accident, that may not be what caused the accident. That's what I said, nothing else.
As for the rest of your pathetic drivel...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C
I agree.
The AAIB concluded:
Having considered all the circumstances, the AAIB did not consider it necessary to make any safety recommendations.
IMHO they were right. I have seen no evidence, either in this thread or in many years of dealing with the aftermath of aviation accidents, that there is a need to change the existing regulations.
.
The reason that this aircraft came to grief was not a maintenance or paperwork issue, it was pure "Human Factors".
For some reason the pilot took the aircraft outside of its limits and as a result him and his passengers paid the price.
It is not paperwork, laws or regulations that prevent accidents, it is common sense and good practice had the latter been used then there would have been no accident.
For some reason the pilot took the aircraft outside of its limits and as a result him and his passengers paid the price.
It is not paperwork, laws or regulations that prevent accidents, it is common sense and good practice had the latter been used then there would have been no accident.
The AAIB concluded:
The pilot was in current flying practice but neither his licence nor medical were valid. The aircraft maintenance records were incomplete and there is therefore a lack of evidence to show that the required maintenance was correctly performed on the aircraft.
Despite this, the accident appears to have been as a result of a loss of control while the pilot was attempting an aerobatic manoeuvre, and not as a result of a mechanical failure in the aircraft. .
Despite this, the accident appears to have been as a result of a loss of control while the pilot was attempting an aerobatic manoeuvre, and not as a result of a mechanical failure in the aircraft. .
IMHO they were right. I have seen no evidence, either in this thread or in many years of dealing with the aftermath of aviation accidents, that there is a need to change the existing regulations.
.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bjornhall
You are not responsible for any other pilot's actions. Simple as that.
You are not responsible for any other pilot's actions. Simple as that.
That rather states the obvious and is irrelevant. What it doesn't change is our 'moral' duty to other fellow humans and GA.
Plenty of reasons in the real world for not poking your snout in other peoples business, unfortunately. Personal Responsibility needs to be revived.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of the border
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logbooks
Englishal
"Our aircraft logbooks are now with our maintenance organistation, they take care of all the entries in them, I don't get to see them unless I ask. Now there was a case not so long ago where one maintenance organistaion was falsifying logbooks....so now what?"
A thread drift question. Should the pilot/owner have a duty of care to ensure that the a/c documentation is correct ? By leaving them with the engineers you risk losing them should they go bankrupt etc. I know many people do leave them at the hangar but it seems risky to me.
"Our aircraft logbooks are now with our maintenance organistation, they take care of all the entries in them, I don't get to see them unless I ask. Now there was a case not so long ago where one maintenance organistaion was falsifying logbooks....so now what?"
A thread drift question. Should the pilot/owner have a duty of care to ensure that the a/c documentation is correct ? By leaving them with the engineers you risk losing them should they go bankrupt etc. I know many people do leave them at the hangar but it seems risky to me.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it part of this new Part M or whateveritiscalled "controlled environment" ARC regime which means that they should have control of the logbooks? That is the way I understand it...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it part of this new Part M or whateveritiscalled "controlled environment" ARC regime which means that they should have control of the logbooks? That is the way I understand it...
Apparantly that depends on your definition of controlling the log books. Well, on this forum anyway.
Anyway, if medicals,etc,etc are by-the-by, whos going to give a s**t about that anyway!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read the AAIB report. What a total cowboy.
How about this bit:
In October 1997, some six months and 30 hours of flying since he bought the aircraft, the entries in his personal logbook ended, totalling 330 hours.
In September 1999 the pilot started a second personal logbook in which he recorded 800 hours as the starting value.
Somebody like this had to keep a low profile, including not having check flights etc, because there would always be a risk of bumping into somebody who spotted the huge amounts of forged time. At best, he would have to be careful in his choice of companion pilots / examiners, and kept them well spread geographically. It's a bit like I claimed that my engine (grey) is red - the first such person to see my engine will realise I am a stupid liar, and will probably tell a load of others.
One wonders how many of these types are about. I wonder how many at his airfield knew about him? I guess Sittles Airfield (wherever that is) is not a very busy place. But those close to him must have known what he was up to.
Clearly the only tools available to control the number of cowboys flying are
1) Ramp checks (the CAA doesn't do any, but the FAA sure as hell does them in the USA **)
2) Incidental peer group surveillance (for want of a better phrase). The FAA pilot database makes it easy to spot the "paperwork cowboys" who in all probability have cowboy attitudes to everything else they do, but over here the data protection policy means that anybody who knows the ATC protocols, or who flies non-radio from a strip, and never flies abroad, can be illegal indefinitely. And this pilot probably fitted these categories perfectly.
The AAIB is right that the lack of paperwork was not causal but obviously it ties in with attitude to risk. The only possible reason one might fly totally illegally (but safely) is if they have a medical condition which prevents them flying legally; I've never heard of that and with the NPPL a lot of things are feasible.
But there is nothing one can do about a totally unsupecting member of the public taking a flight with some pl0nker and them all getting killed. These days, most parents are rightly wary of letting their kid go in a car driven by a teenage driver who they don't know, but it is going to take a lot more awareness, and a lot more bad publicity for GA, before this spreads to GA passengers.
** The CAA has been doing some thorough GA ramp checks very recently, under a DfT program not apparently previously applied to GA, though the indications were that these were aimed mainly at foreign reg types.
The Graham Hill case is a bit odd. I have read the report on it, do not believe he was a cowboy, and cannot believe that he knew the plane was totally illegal (not registered, so no CofA etc). I suspect he, being both wealthy and very busy, delegated that stuff to some "private secretary" type who didn't do it. A lot has been published on this accident, some of which can't be repeated here without getting jumped on, but that was a different era (pre GPS etc) where things were routinely done which most responsible pilots would not do today.
How about this bit:
In October 1997, some six months and 30 hours of flying since he bought the aircraft, the entries in his personal logbook ended, totalling 330 hours.
In September 1999 the pilot started a second personal logbook in which he recorded 800 hours as the starting value.
Somebody like this had to keep a low profile, including not having check flights etc, because there would always be a risk of bumping into somebody who spotted the huge amounts of forged time. At best, he would have to be careful in his choice of companion pilots / examiners, and kept them well spread geographically. It's a bit like I claimed that my engine (grey) is red - the first such person to see my engine will realise I am a stupid liar, and will probably tell a load of others.
One wonders how many of these types are about. I wonder how many at his airfield knew about him? I guess Sittles Airfield (wherever that is) is not a very busy place. But those close to him must have known what he was up to.
Clearly the only tools available to control the number of cowboys flying are
1) Ramp checks (the CAA doesn't do any, but the FAA sure as hell does them in the USA **)
2) Incidental peer group surveillance (for want of a better phrase). The FAA pilot database makes it easy to spot the "paperwork cowboys" who in all probability have cowboy attitudes to everything else they do, but over here the data protection policy means that anybody who knows the ATC protocols, or who flies non-radio from a strip, and never flies abroad, can be illegal indefinitely. And this pilot probably fitted these categories perfectly.
The AAIB is right that the lack of paperwork was not causal but obviously it ties in with attitude to risk. The only possible reason one might fly totally illegally (but safely) is if they have a medical condition which prevents them flying legally; I've never heard of that and with the NPPL a lot of things are feasible.
But there is nothing one can do about a totally unsupecting member of the public taking a flight with some pl0nker and them all getting killed. These days, most parents are rightly wary of letting their kid go in a car driven by a teenage driver who they don't know, but it is going to take a lot more awareness, and a lot more bad publicity for GA, before this spreads to GA passengers.
** The CAA has been doing some thorough GA ramp checks very recently, under a DfT program not apparently previously applied to GA, though the indications were that these were aimed mainly at foreign reg types.
The Graham Hill case is a bit odd. I have read the report on it, do not believe he was a cowboy, and cannot believe that he knew the plane was totally illegal (not registered, so no CofA etc). I suspect he, being both wealthy and very busy, delegated that stuff to some "private secretary" type who didn't do it. A lot has been published on this accident, some of which can't be repeated here without getting jumped on, but that was a different era (pre GPS etc) where things were routinely done which most responsible pilots would not do today.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sidetracking slightly.... IO what exactly is your interest in the Grahame Hill story, you raise the subject of it with monotonous regularity. I count more than 30 threads that you have referred back to the subject and a number of spats that you have gotten into over the years over it.
Could you share why you have such a fixation on it?
Could you share why you have such a fixation on it?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a nest of busybodies!
An accident which is pretty uncommon, and yet a whole variety of poster want more restrictions, more legislation, more interference.
What will that achieve? The vast majority of ppls simply do not have the knowledge to understand the regulations - you only have to look at many of the near gormless questions postered here (and the incorrect answers!).
And these people are going to 'police my or your activities? Not bl**dy likely!
Yes this was unfortunate - but almost any club pilot could have done the same thing - would that make it any better? Yes his bits of paper may be in better order - but the outcome of hitting the ground at 173mph has nothing to do with paper and much more to do with kinetic energy.
The vast majority of flying regulations have much more to do with regulating commerical activity than real safety. To all those suggesting that other pilots ensure wwe stay legal - how keen are you on my calling the police if I find you exceeding the speed limit, parking on a yellow line or not having water in your windscreen washers (all are of course illegal)??
Makes the work of the Stasi look very laudable...............
An accident which is pretty uncommon, and yet a whole variety of poster want more restrictions, more legislation, more interference.
What will that achieve? The vast majority of ppls simply do not have the knowledge to understand the regulations - you only have to look at many of the near gormless questions postered here (and the incorrect answers!).
And these people are going to 'police my or your activities? Not bl**dy likely!
Yes this was unfortunate - but almost any club pilot could have done the same thing - would that make it any better? Yes his bits of paper may be in better order - but the outcome of hitting the ground at 173mph has nothing to do with paper and much more to do with kinetic energy.
The vast majority of flying regulations have much more to do with regulating commerical activity than real safety. To all those suggesting that other pilots ensure wwe stay legal - how keen are you on my calling the police if I find you exceeding the speed limit, parking on a yellow line or not having water in your windscreen washers (all are of course illegal)??
Makes the work of the Stasi look very laudable...............