Pre Flight test leading to Disaster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: london
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pre Flight test leading to Disaster
... A cautionery tale about fastening down the oil inspection cover.
I have often felt uneasy about flimsy butterfly fastenings on the oil inspection openings on certain Cessna singles although this may have no bearing on the following. A fellow pilot not of a Cessna but a Piper Arrow some years ago had problems with the oil inspection cover during pre flight checks - resulting in failing to close the flap down securely.
Consequently during the flight the flap sprung open - causing some alarm. The pilot attempted a swift landing at North Weald but failed to notice
the glider launch cable untill the last minute or two and then attempted an overshoot that resulted in a crash landing in the trees close to the
M11 motorway.
The net result being - sadly his passenger killed - and the pilot confined to a wheelchair for the remainder of his life.
...
I have often felt uneasy about flimsy butterfly fastenings on the oil inspection openings on certain Cessna singles although this may have no bearing on the following. A fellow pilot not of a Cessna but a Piper Arrow some years ago had problems with the oil inspection cover during pre flight checks - resulting in failing to close the flap down securely.
Consequently during the flight the flap sprung open - causing some alarm. The pilot attempted a swift landing at North Weald but failed to notice
the glider launch cable untill the last minute or two and then attempted an overshoot that resulted in a crash landing in the trees close to the
M11 motorway.
The net result being - sadly his passenger killed - and the pilot confined to a wheelchair for the remainder of his life.
...
Moderator
A sad, and believable story, and not the only one I have heard like it. A few things have flapped loose on me over the years....
However, the story is not really about an oil door adrift, but a pilot who did not continue to fly the aircraft adequately. Pilots would be alarmingly amazed at how much can be wrong with an aircraft, and it remains landable.
I never forget the photos of the damaged aircraft, which have returned from battle with all kinds of airframe no longer there. All those aircraft made it home in the control of a pilot, who did not allow layers of horrifying experiences from distracting him from his most important task - flying!
Aviate - Navigate - Communicate! Do as much as you can, but never stop doing the first, to attemp the second or third!
However, the story is not really about an oil door adrift, but a pilot who did not continue to fly the aircraft adequately. Pilots would be alarmingly amazed at how much can be wrong with an aircraft, and it remains landable.
I never forget the photos of the damaged aircraft, which have returned from battle with all kinds of airframe no longer there. All those aircraft made it home in the control of a pilot, who did not allow layers of horrifying experiences from distracting him from his most important task - flying!
Aviate - Navigate - Communicate! Do as much as you can, but never stop doing the first, to attemp the second or third!
a Piper Arrow some years ago had problems with the oil inspection cover during pre flight checks - resulting in failing to close the flap down securely.
Consequently during the flight the flap sprung open - causing some alarm. The pilot attempted a swift landing at North Weald
Consequently during the flight the flap sprung open - causing some alarm. The pilot attempted a swift landing at North Weald
I remember a fatal accident at North Weald about 30 years ago when a PA 32 crashed near the new M11 (not open at the time) following a late overshoot from runway 20 because of some warning barriers left out on runway 31 (and across 20) by the Gliding Club from the day before. The accident happened very early in the morning before anyone was around.
If this is the same accident then I think you will find that the attempted landing was due to the front baggage locker door opening resulting in a reduced ability to climb over the higher ground and trees following the late go around.
Quite a different thing to an oil inspection panel opening...
UV
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One pilot got killed in a TB10 (IIRC) when he found his luggage door was open, and got distracted and crashed the plane.
There would not have been any noticeable change in the flight behaviour.
I had the oil / dipstick cover pop open, very early on. If one closes it just the "right" way, it isn't fully latched.
There would not have been any noticeable change in the flight behaviour.
I had the oil / dipstick cover pop open, very early on. If one closes it just the "right" way, it isn't fully latched.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: london
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piper fatal
... UV - Sounds almost certainly the identical incident. I knew the pilot involved to some extent. - He was flying with another ppl in the RH seat -
and told me that on the day of the flight he had loaded a set of
TV aerial poles. I am not familiar with Pipers and presumably the poles would have had some bearing or reason for opening a front hatch - From his description it was evident that he had had trouble fastening the hatch down.
From his description of events the overshoot brought the a/c down into the trees - killing his passenger and leaving him with broken bones and bleeding badly - taking him a very long time to painfully exit the Piper - slide down the tree to painfully crawl onto the motorway and flag down a vehicle. Apparantly there was no one on the airfield to have witnessed the crash.
...
and told me that on the day of the flight he had loaded a set of
TV aerial poles. I am not familiar with Pipers and presumably the poles would have had some bearing or reason for opening a front hatch - From his description it was evident that he had had trouble fastening the hatch down.
From his description of events the overshoot brought the a/c down into the trees - killing his passenger and leaving him with broken bones and bleeding badly - taking him a very long time to painfully exit the Piper - slide down the tree to painfully crawl onto the motorway and flag down a vehicle. Apparantly there was no one on the airfield to have witnessed the crash.
...
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that private pilots, like motorcyclists, rock climbers, and horse riders, have the absolute right to kill themselves or confine themselves to wheelchairs for their natural lives. Their training takes them to a minimum standard, which should not endanger the general public more than is deemed reasonable.
Professional pilots are trained to different standards, and are allowed to be responsible for members of the public.
Far too few think of this... And the law makes no provision for the truth to be explained to people who put themselves into aircraft flown by PPL qualified pilots and thus expose themselves to this risk; I guess the assumption was that pilots would be truthful about the risk. This assumption has oftentimes been proved invalid.
Professional pilots are trained to different standards, and are allowed to be responsible for members of the public.
Far too few think of this... And the law makes no provision for the truth to be explained to people who put themselves into aircraft flown by PPL qualified pilots and thus expose themselves to this risk; I guess the assumption was that pilots would be truthful about the risk. This assumption has oftentimes been proved invalid.
Last edited by Kerling-Approsh KG; 4th Feb 2011 at 21:00.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Professional pilots" is a redherring.
Passenger carriage, whether paid or not, is a responsibility.
The only difference in the passenger paying for the flight is that it is generally accepted that if somebody is paying, they have a greater expectation of safety. This is certainly true (and has led to a massive edifice of "safety" regulation and all the associated empire building to be created) but nobody expects to get killed as a passenger.
I have no problems with a solo pilot getting killed, because the State has no business dictating an individual's attitude to risk. Rock climbing, scuba diving, etc, is not regulated. For 2 reasons: (a) no 3rd party risk (a plane crashing on one's head is a massive emotional/institutional issue, exceedingly unlikely though it really is) and (b) no passengers to kill.
Passenger carriage, whether paid or not, is a responsibility.
The only difference in the passenger paying for the flight is that it is generally accepted that if somebody is paying, they have a greater expectation of safety. This is certainly true (and has led to a massive edifice of "safety" regulation and all the associated empire building to be created) but nobody expects to get killed as a passenger.
I have no problems with a solo pilot getting killed, because the State has no business dictating an individual's attitude to risk. Rock climbing, scuba diving, etc, is not regulated. For 2 reasons: (a) no 3rd party risk (a plane crashing on one's head is a massive emotional/institutional issue, exceedingly unlikely though it really is) and (b) no passengers to kill.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO, you've got it wrong again. Where in the PPL syllabus is the student taught about 'explaining that the risks in the flight for your passengers are way beyond what they would otherwise find acceptable'? Ditto for parachute aircraft, charity joy rides, etc...
Aside from that, if the State provides healthcare, why should the taxpayer put right the broken bones etc from sporting accidents..? Should those who participate in dangerous sports not, at least, be required to self-insure for their healthcare?
Aside from that, if the State provides healthcare, why should the taxpayer put right the broken bones etc from sporting accidents..? Should those who participate in dangerous sports not, at least, be required to self-insure for their healthcare?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aside from that, if the State provides healthcare, why should the taxpayer put right the broken bones etc from sporting accidents..? Should those who participate in dangerous sports not, at least, be required to self-insure for their healthcare?
Where in the PPL syllabus is the student taught about 'explaining that the risks in the flight for your passengers are way beyond what they would otherwise find acceptable'?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
There is an element of truth in his statement. While there are many PPLs who are the right stuff there are many who I wouldnt send my worst enemy up with.
Crash an aircraft because of an open oil cover??? Pilots have to deal with open doors, electrical fires, undercarriage problems, engine failures single and multi engine etc etc etc.
Anyone can fly when all is going well its when all is not going well that true pilots shine and should be expected to shine.
As Commercial pilots we do simulator work where we are loaded and loaded with every failure in the book and we are expected to deal with any problems which arise? Simulators soon pick up a lack of ability to deal with multitasking or handling multiple problems or a pilot who will sit there frozen.
You read something like the above and sorry but some poor wives husband,childs father lies dead because the pilot was not up to it? Harsh but what can be harsher than what the wife of that dead passenger thinks now.
A tragic situation but one which should not have happened! whos fault???
Pace
There is an element of truth in his statement. While there are many PPLs who are the right stuff there are many who I wouldnt send my worst enemy up with.
Crash an aircraft because of an open oil cover??? Pilots have to deal with open doors, electrical fires, undercarriage problems, engine failures single and multi engine etc etc etc.
Anyone can fly when all is going well its when all is not going well that true pilots shine and should be expected to shine.
As Commercial pilots we do simulator work where we are loaded and loaded with every failure in the book and we are expected to deal with any problems which arise? Simulators soon pick up a lack of ability to deal with multitasking or handling multiple problems or a pilot who will sit there frozen.
You read something like the above and sorry but some poor wives husband,childs father lies dead because the pilot was not up to it? Harsh but what can be harsher than what the wife of that dead passenger thinks now.
A tragic situation but one which should not have happened! whos fault???
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 4th Feb 2011 at 22:38.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Crash an aircraft because of an open oil cover??? Pilots have to deal with open doors, electrical fires, undercarriage problems etc etc etc.
Where in the PPL syllabus is the student taught about 'explaining that the risks in the flight for your passengers are way beyond what they would otherwise find acceptable'?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Yes, there is an element of truth.
We committ our lives totally to others rarely, but every time we get in a car we make that committment. There is no easy answer. I recall the line from Top Gun - something along the line the US government trust me so that better be good enough for you. Well every time an examiner issues a PPL or driving licence they "trust" that person to carry passengers. No one says when you get in a car with a licensed driver the risks may be way beyond those you consider acceptable. Depending on how you assess risk the risks of private flying may be greater, but statistically the risk is so small both are in the noise, even if the one more than the other.
Are commercial pilots likely to do a better job than a PPL - yes, undoubtedly, they are more current and their training more focused. I guess a HGV driver or a taxi driver is likely to do a better job than you or me ont he roads.
I doubt there are many people who dont understand there is a risk associated with flying light aircraft. I cant think of anyone who is not a pilot that have joined me who were not aware they were partaking in a "risky" activity. Isnt flying light aircraft dangerous? In fact if anything I would assess their perception of the risk to be way out of proportion with the actual risk.
Frankly I am fed up with the way we molly coddle adults.
I think the requirements for a PPL adequate and proportionate. It is good enough for one of the most regulated industries - and it is good enough for me.
They are not, but why should they be?
The demands placed on a professional pilt are quite different. On the one hand the pilot is operating in a multi crew complex enviroment usually in an aircraft that is unlikely to fair well should a forced landing be necessary and one in which cascade and complex failures are more likely. On the other hand the typcal PPL flying a SEP will utlimately be far more dependent on basic stick and rudder skills when things go wrong, cascade failures will be very rare and multi crew skills irrelevant. The greatest risk to a PPL is allowing their stick and rudder skills to erode or to committ to IMC without being prepared and current - avoid these fundamental mistakes and almost every accident is avoidable or can be mitigated to damage limited.
Yes, there is an element of truth.
We committ our lives totally to others rarely, but every time we get in a car we make that committment. There is no easy answer. I recall the line from Top Gun - something along the line the US government trust me so that better be good enough for you. Well every time an examiner issues a PPL or driving licence they "trust" that person to carry passengers. No one says when you get in a car with a licensed driver the risks may be way beyond those you consider acceptable. Depending on how you assess risk the risks of private flying may be greater, but statistically the risk is so small both are in the noise, even if the one more than the other.
Are commercial pilots likely to do a better job than a PPL - yes, undoubtedly, they are more current and their training more focused. I guess a HGV driver or a taxi driver is likely to do a better job than you or me ont he roads.
I doubt there are many people who dont understand there is a risk associated with flying light aircraft. I cant think of anyone who is not a pilot that have joined me who were not aware they were partaking in a "risky" activity. Isnt flying light aircraft dangerous? In fact if anything I would assess their perception of the risk to be way out of proportion with the actual risk.
Frankly I am fed up with the way we molly coddle adults.
I think the requirements for a PPL adequate and proportionate. It is good enough for one of the most regulated industries - and it is good enough for me.
but I do point out that standards for amateur and professional pilots are not the same.
The demands placed on a professional pilt are quite different. On the one hand the pilot is operating in a multi crew complex enviroment usually in an aircraft that is unlikely to fair well should a forced landing be necessary and one in which cascade and complex failures are more likely. On the other hand the typcal PPL flying a SEP will utlimately be far more dependent on basic stick and rudder skills when things go wrong, cascade failures will be very rare and multi crew skills irrelevant. The greatest risk to a PPL is allowing their stick and rudder skills to erode or to committ to IMC without being prepared and current - avoid these fundamental mistakes and almost every accident is avoidable or can be mitigated to damage limited.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The frozen north....
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
As others have said already, an aircraft will remain in the air and perfectly controllable with all sorts of bits open / hanging off. Distraction however is certainly be one of the worst contributing factors to an accident if you let it get the better of you and there are numerous examples of both private and proffesional pilots dying because of it.
I've had doors come open or partially unlatched on Pipers and Cessnas, a generator failure on a night flight, a carb heat knob and cable come off in my hand, a laser pen attack at night, a radio failure on short finals and a variety of other weird and wonderful equally minor incidents. None of these were of any real drama at the time but any of them could have become fatal if allowed to distract from the task of flying.
Having said that I did allow myself to get distracted whilst solo in a JP3 several years ago when the U/C failed to retract after take-off despite much mashing of the U/C retract button. Whilst fiddling with this the sleeve of my flying suit got caught on the throttle bringing the power back without me noticing. The JP3 is lacking in power at the best of times but is a real dog with the gear and flaps still dangling and I was fortunate enought to check the ASI just as it was decelerating through 100kts..... Full throttle and lowering the nose quickly rectified the problem however a few more seconds and it might have been a very different matter had the engine spooled down much further and the sink rate kept building...
There but for the grace of god and all that.......
I've had doors come open or partially unlatched on Pipers and Cessnas, a generator failure on a night flight, a carb heat knob and cable come off in my hand, a laser pen attack at night, a radio failure on short finals and a variety of other weird and wonderful equally minor incidents. None of these were of any real drama at the time but any of them could have become fatal if allowed to distract from the task of flying.
Having said that I did allow myself to get distracted whilst solo in a JP3 several years ago when the U/C failed to retract after take-off despite much mashing of the U/C retract button. Whilst fiddling with this the sleeve of my flying suit got caught on the throttle bringing the power back without me noticing. The JP3 is lacking in power at the best of times but is a real dog with the gear and flaps still dangling and I was fortunate enought to check the ASI just as it was decelerating through 100kts..... Full throttle and lowering the nose quickly rectified the problem however a few more seconds and it might have been a very different matter had the engine spooled down much further and the sink rate kept building...
There but for the grace of god and all that.......
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure I remember reading of a pilot who misdiagnosed an electical fire as an engine fire, turned off the engine instead of the master switch, then crashed and died.
So what? You have found another one who isnt up to it? Ok we all make mistakes but even taking what you say and the guy switched off the engine why crash and die and why mistake an electrical fire for an engine fire? Panic?
I have been in that situation with an air duct fan fire in a citation at night. 24000 feet mid channel heading to the Balearic isles. The smoke was so dense and choking you could hardly see a couple of feet.
We handled it correctly and landed at Biggin Hill met by the emergency services. Had to throw my clothes away they were so polluted by that accrid smoke. Smoke like that in the dark not a good experience.
But that is what our passengers private or commercial should expect from us and I am nothing special.
But an oil cover??? Poor sod should never have been flying that aircraft! Why? simply he wasnt up to it!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 4th Feb 2011 at 23:25.
Moderator
Are commercial pilots likely to do a better job than a PPL - yes, undoubtedly, they are more current and their training more focused.
My experience has been that a conciensious PPL owner is every bit as likely to care for his aircraft, flight, and passengers, with the care of a CPL. In my days I have flown with many CPL's who were very "wet behind the ears", and probably more dangerous, because they had been annointed CPL's and wer now magical. Three of them managed to kill themselves, in aircraft which I, a meer PPL at the time, had sucessfully test flown with no problem. There I am, the PPL, trying to explain to the investigator how the magical CPL could not keep the plane under control, and the flight within his skill set. It was not the fault of the plane...
On the other hand, I have known many PPL's who said "I fly within my skills, and don't fly in xxx conditions, because it is beyond my skill. They have flown safely for decades, and have a safe attitude.
I flew 33 years and 5500 hours as a PPL, obtaining my CPL last summer. Aside from how I sign logbook entries, I'm not doing anything differently now as a CPL, than I did as a PPL.... Maybe I'm safe, maybe I'm not, but I can endanger people for hire now!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Downwind
Age: 40
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'The Kings' gave a good presentation on risk managment and is an interesting watch. It is stated that GA is on par with motorcycling in terms of risk.
The difference between the 'Training' for a Private Pilot V Commercial Pilot has been discussed in detail but I think it's worth pointing out that there is actually, IMHO, no difference between the training of a private pilot or commercial pilot. We both do the same training, it's just the guy who goes on to get paid for flying continues with further training! I fly to the same standard as they did when they had 100 hours and I'd challenge anyone who questions my airmanship, skills or regard for safety based only on the colour of my licence or the hours in my logbook. Nor am I saying that Im as safe as a CPL, of course not, but then we're not comparing like for like are we?
How do you know the risks are 'way beyond' what any passenger would find acceptable?
The difference between the 'Training' for a Private Pilot V Commercial Pilot has been discussed in detail but I think it's worth pointing out that there is actually, IMHO, no difference between the training of a private pilot or commercial pilot. We both do the same training, it's just the guy who goes on to get paid for flying continues with further training! I fly to the same standard as they did when they had 100 hours and I'd challenge anyone who questions my airmanship, skills or regard for safety based only on the colour of my licence or the hours in my logbook. Nor am I saying that Im as safe as a CPL, of course not, but then we're not comparing like for like are we?
Where in the PPL syllabus is the student taught about 'explaining that the risks in the flight for your passengers are way beyond what they would otherwise find acceptable?