"Failed stunt causes crash" ...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Failed stunt causes crash" ...
... well, according to the BBC, here :
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Failed stunt 'caused air crash'
Ignoring the lack of licence, medical and maintenance (
) referred to in the BBC's report of the AAIB report (which I haven't read), the report doesn't clarify exactly what kind of "stunt" is supposed to have caused this loss of control and nose-dive ... 3-up in a Cherokee ???
RIP, anyway ...
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Failed stunt 'caused air crash'
Ignoring the lack of licence, medical and maintenance (
) referred to in the BBC's report of the AAIB report (which I haven't read), the report doesn't clarify exactly what kind of "stunt" is supposed to have caused this loss of control and nose-dive ... 3-up in a Cherokee ???RIP, anyway ...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAIB report is comprehensive in its coverage of this sad incident.
It is sobering reading and alarming to realise that despite all the regulation involved in GA flying & licencing, anyone so inclined can simply bypass it and the layman passenger has no idea.
It is sobering reading and alarming to realise that despite all the regulation involved in GA flying & licencing, anyone so inclined can simply bypass it and the layman passenger has no idea.
By my reading of the AAIB report, neither the lack of current licence/medical nor proper maintenance records were considered causitive.
The pilot apparently tried a manoever that either he or the aircraft (or both) were not capable of performing.
The pilot apparently tried a manoever that either he or the aircraft (or both) were not capable of performing.
By my reading of the AAIB report, neither the lack of current licence/medical nor proper maintenance records were considered causitive.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh! Self taught aerobatics conducted by a pilot without a valid licence or medical, in an unmaintained aircraft running on mogas and over weight for aeros.
One for the Darwin awards?
One for the Darwin awards?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. .
I tend to go with SallyAnn that the lack of licences and maintenance is more indicative on the attitude of the pilot which resulted in a crash which took the lives of the two passengers and left their children without parents.
Those kids will be looking to an insurance claim which will not be forthcoming so I presume they will have to claim against his estate.
Interesting is the AAIB made no recommendations on checking licences, medicals etc citing the fact that you would not ask to see a car drivers licence before accepting a lift ???
Pace
Guest
Posts: n/a
Surely this is a wake up call for the CAA to institute an online ability to check/update the license of a pilot as well as his currency etc.
The FAA allows a check on the license status of a pilot but even this doesn't really go far enough.
Such a facility would also make it far easier for would be passengers to confirm that the pilot they were going up was at least legal to fly.
The FAA allows a check on the license status of a pilot but even this doesn't really go far enough.
Such a facility would also make it far easier for would be passengers to confirm that the pilot they were going up was at least legal to fly.
I hope this thread isn't going to descend into flames.
On a more general point, this pilot seems to have broken the most basic rules that we all learn in our first few lessons. In my limited experience I have never knowingly personally met such a pilot. Please tell me he was a one-off?
On a more general point, this pilot seems to have broken the most basic rules that we all learn in our first few lessons. In my limited experience I have never knowingly personally met such a pilot. Please tell me he was a one-off?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst isues of licence, ratings and medical may indeed not be causative of an accident there are a number of ramifications for the operators of the aircraft and of course the estate of the pilot and passengers who have died. The flight will be unlawful from the start which may well mean that the insurers will not pay out. This was was the case with Graham Hill, whose licence had expired and where the aircraft was actually de-registered. Colin McCray is another more recent instance where type ratings had expired, no doubt giving rise to similar problems. In the present case the owner of the aircraft could be at risk from claims where they allowed someone who seems to have been without a licence for some years to hire an aircraft. The organisation concerned might also face criminal liability. Whilst they may not have been aware of the positio they clearly should have been.
For groups, there is a clear need to keep on top of licence and medical validity to make certain that no one flys unless they are legal in every respect.
They have missed the point. If I lend my car to you without checking that you have a valid licence and are therefore insured I commit an offence under the Road Traffic Offenders Act!
For groups, there is a clear need to keep on top of licence and medical validity to make certain that no one flys unless they are legal in every respect.
citing the fact that you would not ask to see a car drivers licence before accepting a lift ???
Last edited by Justiciar; 8th Oct 2009 at 12:37.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This situation of mutual trust, however, is little different from accepting a lift in a person’s car or other private vehicle and is not a basis for a safety recommendation.
This is an extract from the AAIB The link to the report is here
Air Accidents Investigation: Piper PA-28-140 Cherokee, G-AWPS
Pace
In the present case the owner of the aircraft could be at risk from claims where they allowed someone who seems to have been without a licence for some years to hire an aircraft. The organisation concerned might also face criminal liability. Whilst they may not have been aware of the positio they clearly should have been.
FBW
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely this is a wake up call for the CAA to institute an online ability to check/update the license of a pilot as well as his currency etc.
The FAA allows a check on the license status of a pilot but even this doesn't really go far enough.
Such a facility would also make it far easier for would be passengers to confirm that the pilot they were going up was, was at least legal to fly.
The FAA allows a check on the license status of a pilot but even this doesn't really go far enough.
Such a facility would also make it far easier for would be passengers to confirm that the pilot they were going up was, was at least legal to fly.
Are you suggesting an on-line log-book being made available to members of the public as well as our state of medical?
Don't give the CAA/EASA more 'good ideas'.
We can all remember some of the AAIB reports of pilots doing stupid things and taking innocent passengers with them. But (like the laws against possession of firearms or dangerous dogs) the criminal or thicko will ignore any rules.
I wonder what action is being taken over the behaviour of the LAME
Guest
Posts: n/a
This situation of mutual trust, however, is little different from accepting a lift in a person’s car or other private vehicle and is not a basis for a safety recommendation.
Who can argue with that assessment by the AAIB. As things stand that is exactly the position.
However it is not often that a passenger just accepts a ride in a plane. Generally these thing are prearranged and some sort of online facility to check the PPL holder's current status would at least give people a chance to backout or reconsider if they wanted to.
Perhaps the CAA could move further in pulling together a coherent online view of a plane's certified airworthiness and status of maintenance (whether it is club or privately owned) as well as some sort of public statement of the pilot's license and current C of E.
Are you suggesting an on-line log-book being made available to members of the public as well as our state of medical?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was rather waiting for the wailing and nashing to start.
The vast majority of legislation really just applies to the 'law abiding'. With cars - put a 'false' - but valid, number plate on and the world is your oyster. Inspite of all sorts of measures thousand of people have done/or doing this. speed camers - no longer apply, insurance etc no longer relevent.
Those of us who have been around a while remember the justification for the 'new LAMS'. The CAA decided that the engineering companies and engieers that they licenced were not carrying out the maintenance and inspection work correctly. The answer? Not enforcing the rules, but to produce a new LAMS schedule. Of course that was much easier than ensuring the standard they had set were being met.
The CAA have also fought several legal cases to establsih the precedent that it is the owner who is responsible for the maintenance of an aircraft - not just getting it done but also its quality. Inspite of the CAA licencing all involved.
At the end of the day this was an unfortunate incident, but if you look back they are very few like it.
For those arguing for more restrictions, further checks think about it! The more complex the rules, the more likely anyone of us will inadvertently break them. JAR introduced another level of omplexity - for no proveable safety benefit. But those changes have speeded up the 'churn rate' in PPLs dropping out.
Rules need to be proportionate and presently they lean very heavily on the majority of us. The more restrictive they become, the fewer people fly and those left are more likely to infringe them.
The 'administrative' aspects of the case are irrelevent, they might be inficative of the pilot's mindset, but they had no practical input. A botched 'wingover' at low altitude is the cause and probably 'impressing' people the motivation.
We have a hobby / livelihood which can be very unforgiving - is that why so many people here are so judgemental?
The vast majority of legislation really just applies to the 'law abiding'. With cars - put a 'false' - but valid, number plate on and the world is your oyster. Inspite of all sorts of measures thousand of people have done/or doing this. speed camers - no longer apply, insurance etc no longer relevent.
Those of us who have been around a while remember the justification for the 'new LAMS'. The CAA decided that the engineering companies and engieers that they licenced were not carrying out the maintenance and inspection work correctly. The answer? Not enforcing the rules, but to produce a new LAMS schedule. Of course that was much easier than ensuring the standard they had set were being met.
The CAA have also fought several legal cases to establsih the precedent that it is the owner who is responsible for the maintenance of an aircraft - not just getting it done but also its quality. Inspite of the CAA licencing all involved.
At the end of the day this was an unfortunate incident, but if you look back they are very few like it.
For those arguing for more restrictions, further checks think about it! The more complex the rules, the more likely anyone of us will inadvertently break them. JAR introduced another level of omplexity - for no proveable safety benefit. But those changes have speeded up the 'churn rate' in PPLs dropping out.
Rules need to be proportionate and presently they lean very heavily on the majority of us. The more restrictive they become, the fewer people fly and those left are more likely to infringe them.
The 'administrative' aspects of the case are irrelevent, they might be inficative of the pilot's mindset, but they had no practical input. A botched 'wingover' at low altitude is the cause and probably 'impressing' people the motivation.
We have a hobby / livelihood which can be very unforgiving - is that why so many people here are so judgemental?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sallyann1234,
I agree with you 100 per cent. This is a personality type, remember "Biggles" a couple of months ago.
A few more of this type of accident and psycological assessments will be part of the license requirements.
DO.
I agree with you 100 per cent. This is a personality type, remember "Biggles" a couple of months ago.
A few more of this type of accident and psycological assessments will be part of the license requirements.
DO.