Tiger Moth Crash

[flying-saint]

Freefly170, I don't disagree. Of course, the characteristics of the subject aircraft are also relevant. A Tiger Moth will behave differently to an Extra...

[Freefly170]

Exactly ! which is why type specific aerobatic training is so relevant. I think even experienced aerobatic pilots who were planning to convert to a different type say T67 to a Pitts for instance would spend some time in their differences training exploring the unique characteristics of their new type related to spinning and recovery from unusual attitudes. I'm no expert on the TM but I'd consider the transition from a C172 to Tiger Moth to be quite significant in terms of handling, especially for aerobatics given the high drag and relatively low power of a TM.

[flying-saint]

My understanding was that from the numerous tests undertaken recently, the nature of the low inertia TM was to flop out of a failed loop and not to depart.

[Jetblu]

Thank the Lord that the Judge, Jury and experts were not as argumentative and ignorant of the Air Navigation Order and Criminal Law as a few on here.

Whether we think the pilot should have completed an approved EASA aerobatic course is irrelevant. No ANO or law says that he has to. Furthermore, the Tiger Moth is a permit aircraft and not C of A type.

Do we think looping an aircraft without any experience is sensible? Of course we don't. Did this pilot have any experience of looping? Yes he did. Enough? Well what is enough 20 hours, 50 hours, 100 hours?
The best display pilots with 1000's of hours have put them into the deck.

Driving a car is no different. How many drivers caught doing over 100mph have an advanced driving license? Less than 1% I'd say. Pity, because if they had completed the course they would be disciplined enough to use the rear view mirror more and move out of the outside lane to let me pass.

[josher]

has anyone posting attended the trail or heard/read the judges summing up? Is the latter available in the public record anywhere? As a regular tiger moth pilot I would be interested to read it not least to separate the 'facts' from the speculation

[India Four Two]

I second josher's request. I want to read the experts' evidence and the judge's summing up and instructions to the jury.

Several posters appear to be implying that they attended the trial. Can anyone confirm that?

Concerning the outcome, let's not forget the requirement for the jury to decide guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" versus the less onerous "balance of probabilities" which would pertain in a civil trial.

Having said that, I will repeat that I find it an amazing coincidence that the crash location was within 20 m of the start of a low-level loop on the first flight.

[Jetblu]

I also find it amazing having to repeat evidence when it's already printed here. Take another look at post #135

[Legalapproach]

I attended the trial.

In so far as the expert's reports and the Judge's summing up are concerned, there will be no transcript unless you are prepared to apply to the court for one and, sadly, pay for it.

If you are implying that the Judge might have summed the case up incorrectly you should be aware that on a number of occasions he asked both prosecuting counsel and defence counsel whether there was anything he had got wrong or whether there was anything he should add or correct. There were a couple of minor amendments requested and made. Both were satisfied that the summing up was fair and accurate.

India Four Two
Whilst you might be amazed at the co-incidence do you always fly aeros over the same place and only over that place. Whilst the location may have been the same (and within a relatively small local area) the flight profiles from the GPS data were very different. It was possible to identify a loop from the GPS data on previous flights yet the fatal manoeuvre bore no similarity at all to those previous loops.

[flying-saint]

I also attended several parts of the trial and am familiar with the evidence. I fully concur with Legalapproach.

I would add that one of the stark lessons in this case is that the cause of accidents is not always as a result of what initially on its face appears most probable. Jumping to the conclusion of it is what it first looks like is unfortunately the mistake that others have already made in this case.

[India Four Two]

If you are implying that the Judge might have summed the case up incorrectly

No, I was not implying that. I just wanted to have an overview of the prosecution and defence cases, without having to wade through a complete transcript. It's a shame that trial transcripts are not public documents. I wasn't aware of that.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by flying-saint

I would add that one of the stark lessons in this case is that the cause of accidents is not always as a result of what initially on its face appears most probable. .

If there is an aircraft accident there is almost never one cause. You will almost always find there is a sequence of related events prior to the actual accident that in some way large or small, helped contribute to the accident.

A few posters seem bound and determined to convince everyone that the accident pilot was totally blameless and that he was smote out of the sky by forces over which he had no control.

My expert opinion as an aerobatic instructor is that there was a clear pattern of reckless flying exhibited that day. No amount of glossing over the facts of what happened on the first flight will change what happened on the first flight and to say the attitude towards flying he demonstrated by his reckless maneuvering is irrelevant to the accident flight simply does not make sense to me.

I agree that the actual sequence of the accident maneuver is in doubt but so is the fact that what ever precipitated the upset had to result in a fatal outcome. It is equally likely that a more professional approach to flying the aircraft including a significantly more complete training program combined with sensible flight profiles could have resulted in a recovery and uneventful landing.

From a legal perspective I agree, Not Guilty was an appropriate verdict, but that does not mean he should also escapes taking any responsibility for the accident. Bad choices were by this pilot on the day of this accident and indeed even before that. I am sure he is very regretful for the distress that has resulted from this tragedy and he has already paid a heavy personal price.

We can choose to learn from this tragedy.....or not. It appears two posters in particular see no greater flight safety lesson here, I think they are very wrong.....

[9 lives]

From a legal perspective I agree, Not Guilty was an appropriate verdict, but that does not mean he should also escapes taking any responsibility for the accident. Bad choices were by this pilot on the day of this accident and indeed even before that. I am sure he is very regretful for the distress that has resulted from this tragedy and he has already paid a heavy personal price.

I've thought about this, and agree with BPF. I still think of a friend of mine, an experienced pilot. He is not regretful for the distress he caused (at least in this life) and it was a LOT of distress. I helped lift him out of his crumpled 150, after his low level goofing around. His stop was fatal. The only good thing, it was a solo flight. I used to goof around in my 150, he was coping me. I stopped it. I'm not the first person to lift a dead friend from his crashed plane, just another person who did it. And he's not the only friend I've lifted dead out his wrecked plane, just a really good one....

Would all of us fly as though we were carrying each others loved ones in the plane with us? Fly unto others as we would have them fly unto us?

I took my 11 year old daughter's best friend for her first flight the other day. I thought it was very boring, other than the total smile on her face.

[Legalapproach]

From a legal perspective I agree, Not Guilty was an appropriate verdict, but that does not mean he should also escapes taking any responsibility for the accident. Bad choices were by this pilot on the day of this accident and indeed even before that. I am sure he is very regretful for the distress that has resulted from this tragedy and he has already paid a heavy personal price.

You are late for work, as a result you drive too fast breaking the speed limit and overtake in a couple of places where it is unwise to do so, you did the same a week before. You get away with it. On the way home you are no longer in a hurry and so drive perfectly normally. A deer jumps out and you hit it. You are responsible for the accident because of the bad choices you made previously?

We can choose to learn from this tragedy.....or not. It appears two posters in particular see no greater flight safety lesson here, I think they are very wrong.....

If you are suggesting that I am one of those posters you are very wrong in your implication. I have never suggested that or anything of the sort. All I have done is to factually correct some of the speculative assumptions some posters have jumped to, suggesting that somehow the AAIB report was definitive and gospel and therefore the jury must have got it wrong. I have not in any way sought to discuss safety lessons.

BPF I do find it extraordinary that you can provide an "expert" opinion based on your experience as an aerobatic instructor that the pilot was responsible for the accident without having heard the evidence, without having examined the GPS traces, the computer flight dynamics modelling and the flight reconstructions. Justice was clearly failed because the jury did not get to hear your expert opinion but had to rely instead upon amateurs such as the experimental test pilot with 13,000+ hours (experience on 50+ pre and WWII types) who had in fact meticulously carried out all of this analysis. His opnion was that the spin was unrecoverable and a crash inevitable. He was wrong was he?



There are flight safety lessons to be learned from this case. Not with regard to the fatal flight but certainly from previous flights. The pilot had to some extent been let down by the system. He had been misled in some ways by the system and in what he had been shown in the past.

All of the flying experts agreed that the lack of spin training in the PPL syllabus was a mistake. This pilot had in fact elected to take additional spin training and had been lulled into believing it was sufficient. Again the lack of a formal requirement until recently to undertake a formal aerobatics course, may, in the circumstances of this case have misled the pilot. I'm not going to go through what all of those circumstances were as life is too short but they were carefully examined in the evidence and the pilot told the jury in his evidence that knowing what he did now, he would not have carried out some of the previous manoeuvres at the altitudes he did and would have sought additional training.

[flying-saint]

I am in agreement with Legalapproach. I also point out that for the subject aircraft type there is still no requirement to undertake a formal aerobatic course, (as repeatedly already stated, not that there is any relevance whether there was or was not in relation to the subject accident - an unintentional fully developed spin with a stuck rudder).

BPF, I am in agreement with the general safety messages for aviation. The problem is that your comments are not applicable to this case and as such are a disservice by application here.

My expert opinion as an aerobatic instructor is that there was a clear pattern of reckless flying exhibited that day

In addition to this comment being demonstrably wrong, I find that comment quite remarkable where you have presumably not first studied and analysed the totality of the evidence...? Your comment has an air of the approach by one of the prosecution 'experts', who came rather unstuck when confronted by the evidence from experts who had properly analysed and considered all the actual evidence.

There are certainly concerns and lessons to be learned here, just not the ones you appear to be peddling. I suggest it would be better to start with the training (scope of PPL syllabus), mentoring and investigation systems...

[9 lives]

The pilot had to some extent been let down by the system. He had been misled in some ways by the system and in what he had been shown in the past.

the pilot told the jury in his evidence that knowing what he did now, he would not have carried out some of the previous manoeuvres at the altitudes he did and would have sought additional training.

I am not familiar with the prevailing UK regulations as they apply to aerobatic flight. As required when I fly aerobatics, I am familiar with the Canadian regulations which apply to me:

Aerobatic Manoeuvres — Prohibited Areas and Flight Conditions

602.27 No person operating an aircraft shall conduct aerobatic manoeuvres

• (a) over a built-up area or an open-air assembly of persons;
• (b) in controlled airspace, except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate issued pursuant to section 603.67;
• (c) when flight visibility is less than three miles; or
• (d) below 2,000 feet AGL, except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate issued pursuant to section 603.02 or 603.67.

Aerobatic Manoeuvres with Passengers

602.28 No person operating an aircraft with a passenger on board shall conduct an aerobatic manoeuvre unless the pilot-in-command of the aircraft has engaged in

• (a) at least 10 hours dual flight instruction in the conducting of aerobatic manoeuvres or 20 hours conducting aerobatic manoeuvres; and
• (b) at least one hour of conducting aerobatic manoeuvres in the preceding six months.

Perhaps the UK regulations let the pilot down by not specifying the "minimums" for aerobatic flights - I honestly do not know the UK situation. But, the pilot took the responsibility to inform himself of the regulations which did apply to him before the flights (as weak as they perhaps might be) and assure his compliance?

Would a person familiar with the UK equivalent (if there is/are such regulations), present them here, so those of us not familiar with the UK "system" can understand the information available to the pilot? With our understanding of the "system" available to him, and trusting that he would have availed himself of it, maybe some of the skeptics here would understand better....

[Jetblu]

flying-saint you are not alone. Anyone balanced with a reasonable knowledge of the ANO and the law would agree with Legalapproach. Only a fool wouldn't.

BPF is right on one thing. Their are two predominant posters here whom profess to know absolutely everything their is to be known about manned flight, and to come out now and state that they don't understand the ANO and law after what has already been previously said for everyone in the coming months/years to read is a bit rich IMHO.

I also find it absolutely shocking that our PPRuNe brethran here was so eagerly looking to hang this pilot out to dry. Whilst BPF will be promoting expert aerobatic instruction as an instructor for $$$ I can assure him that the 'experts' do still continuously get it wrong. We had a British champion the other week spin in. Accident - not deliberate - human nature.

[9 lives]

Anyone balanced with a reasonable knowledge of the ANO and the law would agree with Legalapproach. Only a fool wouldn't.

With respect to knowledge of the UK regulations, I'd be on the "fool" side, until informed. JetBlu, would you assist some of us, by helping us to those UK regulations, so we may objectively inform ourselves, and form a fair, balanced opinion, in the context of the regulations, and how they may have been followed?

Whilst BPF will be promoting expert aerobatic instruction as an instructor for $$$

How can it not be good to promote competent instruction for a skill, let alone a very demanding one? And, do we expect instructors to work for no $$$?

[Jetblu]

Step whilst I am pleased that you are considering to learn something new, may I suggest that it would have been more prudent to ask for the assistance you now seek a lot sooner rather than later on subjects that you are unfamiliar with.

Unfortunately, I do not have the links to hand but I am sure someone will be along and post them for you.

Do I think it's wrong to promote instruction for skill ? Of course I don't! However, our 'experts' here took spinning out of the PPL syllabus. Why? Because too many of those 'expert' instructors were allegedly killing students demonstrating spinning characteristics.

Where has that put us? The low time ppl's that may spin in and have no practical idea of how to recover. Progress eh.

[Midlifec]

To be fair to Step Turn, he asked me a couple of days ago and I forgot to get back to him, but fair to say the Canadian regs seem to be far far tighter than ours- recommendations on the whole.......

[9 lives]

However, our 'experts' here took spinning out of the PPL syllabus. Why? Because too many of those 'expert' instructors were allegedly killing students demonstrating spinning characteristics.

Where has that put us? The low time ppl's that may spin in and have no practical idea of how to recover. Progress eh.

JetBlu, We agree completely about this. I extend that fine thinking to aerobatics. The fact that a skill is not in a [PPL] syllabus, does not mean that the enthusiastic candidate is absolved of seeking out training beyond the basic PPL for those skills. No fair saying: "I took my PPL, and now I fly whatever I want in the plane, 'cause I got the license".

Honestly, aside from looping and rolling (the commonly considered aerobatic maneuvers), spinning fits into the Canadian definition for aerobatics. Therefore, If I want to intentionally spin a passenger, I would have to meet the instruction/experience, and recency requirements of the quoted aerobatic regulations, to be compliant. I do.

To me, a pilot who can demonstrate that what they did as closely as possible conforms to good airmanship, regard for their passenger's safety, and adherence to regulation, is really entitled to my brethren support. That demonstration might include a "signoff" by an instructor or other competent person with respect to those advanced skills. It is a pilot's choice to not enter a maneuver which exceeds that pilot's skills, experience or recency. Those might be defined in regulation (I have admitted that I do not know for the UK).

I invite you to take the opportunity to take my mind there, in respect of the event we've been discussing - but I will ask for some reference information to help me get there.... Fair enough?