"Failed stunt causes crash" ...

[BabyBear]

Originally Posted by bjornhall

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.

There you go stating the obvious again, followed by personal insults. You are a real bright spark aren't you!

You appear so self righteous I am beginning to wonder if maybe your whole point about defending the pilot is possibly because you are like minded and therefore identify with him?

The fact that accidents happen without anyone breaking the law is not justification for not trying to reduce accidents!

Let's just agree to disagree as you are clearly incapable of reasoned debate without resorting to personal insults. Happy flying bjornhall.

[B.U.D.G.I.E]

Well although some of you did not like what I had to say it has sparked some debate between you and some seem to have the same opinion. Some of you put it better than me but i think the hymn sheet is the same. Not sure the personal insults from crash one were needed. But if it makes you happy.

Kind of expected that of the over 4000 people who have read this thread the most are the type of pilots who do take pride in their flying and the ones that bit. Well I did'nt expect anything else.

I don't have a flight sim and know quite a lot about flying. Just seem to have a different point of view than the others. But if we were all the same this would be a boring place. All I know is that as I get older I won't be making the kind of stupid mistakes that end up on the AAIB website.

[gasax]

Well budgie - great intention, but it actually needs a great deal more than easy comments.

A lazy eight at low altitude actually needs to be flown very conservatively to ensure room to recover. The vast majority of posters have banged on about the illegality of the flight. Very few have commented on what actually caused it (could that be because very few of them actually know how to fly a 'lazy eight'?).

It is generally a very safe manoeurve - but it needs control and understanding (and space if not caried out well).

So make sure your performance is as good as your stated intentions!

[englishal]

could that be because very few of them actually know how to fly a 'lazy eight'

I do and "8's on pylons" and "chandelles" and I have done them all in 172's, PA28's and Rallye's

[bjornhall]

Let's just agree to disagree as you are clearly incapable of reasoned debate without resorting to personal insults. Happy flying bjornhall.

If you want reasoned debate, go back to before you took off on that "defending the pilot", "not going to call 999 if you pass a house on fire" bull!!!!. If you make no effort to even understand what I'm saying, what's the point of debating with you?

If you want to discuss, pay some attention.

[Captain Stable]

It's a while since I've done any aerobatics, but I think I could still remember how. In my case, it was a Christen Eagle and a Stearman. Cuban 8's were the only thing to get my stomach going...

[cats_five]

Originally Posted by B.U.D.G.I.E

<snip>
All I know is that as I get older I won't be making the kind of stupid mistakes that end up on the AAIB website.

Guess you plan giving up before you get older then. None of us can be sure we won't make a mistake that means we end up on the AAIB website.

With regard to how he managed to fly so long without a valid medical and (I believe) check flights. I fly gliders, at our club they keep our medicals, and also records of when each of us is due our annual or bi-annual check flights. (Bronze badge folks get check flights every year, Silver & higher folks every 2 years assuming we don't get out of currency, defined as 90 days). Since we have very on-the-ball people doing the administration (both in the office and on the airfield) I doubt very much that anyone slips through the cracks.

I have also had to produce a copy of my medical at all other clubs I've flown at, though they are not to know if I produce the one from 2006 that I had to get another one last year following major surgery!

[Maoraigh1]

Is it possible this guy had a computer based log system, which accounted for the extra hours when he started the second log book, and which he went back to again, and stopped filling in the paper record? The report just says the no record could be found.

[IO540]

could that be because very few of them actually know how to fly a 'lazy eight'?

I strongly doubt he was flying lazy eights, of the standard sort done in the FAA CPL for example. That is a very gentle maneuver which should be within the ability of any even half competent pilot to do safely (if not to the FAA checkride standards, which takes a lot more practice).

A chandelle is a lot harder to do correctly...

The report suggested a wingover which to me suggests a bank angle approaching 90 degrees.

Is it possible this guy had a computer based log system, which accounted for the extra hours when he started the second log book

Not given the time gap. To go from 330 to 800hrs in 2 years is well within Walter Mitty territory, in GA. We all know of some well known "forum pilots" who made such claims..... Anyway, just work out the cost of that amount of airborne time, and ask yourself how much after tax pay would be needed to support that level of flying. It's not impossible but exceedingly unlikely given the aircraft type. It would be in the short haul commercial pilot territory. Anyway, you can see the Annual hours for the aircraft tail number on G-INFO.

[Crash one]

Originally Posted by BUDGIE

Not sure the personal insults from crash one were needed. But if it makes you happy.

They are when you suggest that my type of flying be closed down or unnecessarily regulated.
You suggest that too many of us show off.
Where do get these facts from?
What justification can you produce for closing these "little flying sites" as you call them?
In my opinion you do not know enough about the aviation world to be entitled to make such comments, even though you think you do.
It looks to me that you have never seen an "unregulated" grass strip, so I stand by my insults, though they do not make me happy! I would rather you knew what you were talking about, before winding people up.

[bjornhall]

I strongly doubt he was flying lazy eights, of the standard sort done in the FAA CPL for example. That is a very gentle maneuver which should be within the ability of any even half competent pilot to do safely (if not to the FAA checkride standards, which takes a lot more practice).

A chandelle is a lot harder to do correctly...

The report suggested a wingover which to me suggests a bank angle approaching 90 degrees.

When it says in the POH that the aircraft is approved for "the following acrobatic maneuvers: lazy eight, chandelle and steep turns" while flown in the utility category, I've always taken that to mean aerobatic lazy eights, i.e., bank angle exceeding 60 degrees and/or pitch exceeding 30 degrees up or 20 degrees down. If it's the FAA CPL type of lazy eight, why would it only be approved in the utility category?

That's what I have in mind when suggesting the reported maneuvers appear consistent with the pilot attempting a lazy eight. A wingover to me is one half of an aerobatic lazy eight.

But, of course, they also appear consistent with a stall turn.

[S-Works]

Not given the time gap. To go from 330 to 800hrs in 2 years is well within Walter Mitty territory, in GA. We all know of some well known "forum pilots" who made such claims..... Anyway, just work out the cost of that amount of airborne time, and ask yourself how much after tax pay would be needed to support that level of flying. It's not impossible but exceedingly unlikely given the aircraft type. It would be in the short haul commercial pilot territory. Anyway, you can see the Annual hours for the aircraft tail number on G-INFO.

470 hours in 2 years is only 235 hours a year. Perfectly possible for an active owner pilot. Not everyone sits and pontificates about how anyone who fly's more than them (say 150 hours) must be a 'walter mitty', some just get on and do it..... Get over it Peter - Some people just fly more than you.

Not to mention something like an old Cherokee is a pretty cheap aircraft to run at around £50 an hour compared to something like a TBM or Cirrus so not really expensive for someone who ran a successful business to operate.

***** I am not defending the pilot in this case, the lack of licence and medical were not acceptable behaviour. I knew the pilot in passing and he never struck me as that sort of person.

[Malcom]

why would it only be approved in the utility category?

Because thats the limitation of the approval?

[englishal]

I knew the pilot in passing and he never struck me as that sort of person.

That is the problem with pilots policing other pilots. If someone of your experience didn't spot this guy as being a cowboy then perhaps they are more difficult to spot after all?

why would it only be approved in the utility category?

Because the utility cat is more restrictive. In our aeroplane we can do loops, rolls, stall turns etc... while in the utility catagory but not in the normal catagory. To be in the utility catagory, max weight is reduced and the back seat must be removed. In the utility catagory recovery is guaranteed if correct pilot inputs are made, in the normal catagory there is nosuch guarantee.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by bose-x

470 hours in 2 years is only 235 hours a year. Perfectly possible for an active owner pilot.

but very unusual for a '20 hour a year guy'.

All of the periods of time with either airframe of pilot logs correspond to an annual flying rate of 20 hours. In addition, the airframe log over a period of 8 years, which covers the period in question, shows only 170 hours - total. So even if ALL of this was flown in the two year log book gap, it still implies flying another aircraft for 300 hours in 2 years with no evidence left.

For someone who flew 20 hours a year for all but two years of their career, you would have thought that would be a notable event and the AAIB would quickly have noticed.

Unfortunately, 430 ish hours of the pilots logged time have a very high probability of not having been flown.



PS - I too am interested in the Graham Hill case - primarily because it appears to be one of the few documented cases of an insurer not paying out to third parties as a result of 'technical irregularities'. This will be another case of interest (assuming there actually was insurance purchased) as the level of 'irregularity' is alarmingly high.

[S-Works]

For someone who flew 20 hours a year for all but two years of their career, you would have thought that would be a notable event and the AAIB would quickly have noticed.

Indeed, I was making a general observation rather than one specifically about this case.

That is the problem with pilots policing other pilots. If someone of your experience didn't spot this guy as being a cowboy then perhaps they are more difficult to spot after all?

I think, thats a very valid point. I think if we try and rely on our feelings of others to police things, we would have everyone that IO540 does not like slapped in irons for being a 'walter mitty' based on his perspective of how things 'should' be!!!

We then move onto being a police state and doing 'comrade' inspections of 'papers' in order that we are all protecting the state.

Where does it stop?

[bjornhall]

Because the utility cat is more restrictive. In our aeroplane we can do loops, rolls, stall turns etc... while in the utility catagory but not in the normal catagory. To be in the utility catagory, max weight is reduced and the back seat must be removed. In the utility catagory recovery is guaranteed if correct pilot inputs are made, in the normal catagory there is nosuch guarantee.

I know! What I meant was, that since the FAA CPL type of lazy eight is such a straightforward, non-aerobatic maneuver, I see no obvious reason why it must only be executed in the utility category. Therefore, my understanding is that when they say in the POH that lazy eights are approved in the utility category, they mean an aerobatic lazy eight.

[englishal]

What I meant was, that since the FAA CPL type of lazy eight is such a straightforward, non-aerobatic maneuver, I see no obvious reason why it must only be executed in the utility category

.
Ah I see. Perhaps this is a CAA POH supplement? If it is then really this is meaningless in the interests of flight safety. AFAIK all "light" SEP aeroplanes in the US should be capable of a lazy-8 or chandelle, as indeed it is a normal manoeuvre, just like steep turns, and aerobatics doesn't come into it.

[B.U.D.G.I.E]

You suggest that too many of us show off.
Where do get these facts from?

Ermmmmm the amount of crashes caused by pilots showing off is a good starter for 10. Not sure your in a position to talk about my experience in aviation. Time in age does not all ways = time in experience. For all we know you have a lapsed med and licence hence your so up tight.

Chill

[dont overfil]

Heh! crash one. I thought we were right wing with our opinions but B.U.D.G.I.E. is in a different class. Why don't we stop private flying altogether.
DO.