"Failed stunt causes crash" ...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
could that be because very few of them actually know how to fly a 'lazy eight'
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 to discuss, pay some attention.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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... 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
could that be because very few of them actually know how to fly a 'lazy eight'?
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
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BUDGIE
Not sure the personal insults from crash one were needed. But if it makes you happy.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
A chandelle is a lot harder to do correctly...
The report suggested a wingover which to me suggests a bank angle approaching 90 degrees.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew the pilot in passing and he never struck me as that sort of person.
why would it only be approved in the utility category?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You suggest that too many of us show off.
Where do get these facts from?
Where do get these facts from?
Chill
