Latest CAA prosecutions
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...too much money with not enough skill...
I think he only had 2 minutes left where he misdialed the frequency. And in the muck, that is really not the time to play around with COMM switches or your transponder.
Ok so over to lost comm procedure :
2) you cannot know the actual flight conditions as seen by the pilot so cannot say the other aircraft was seen by him (which is why "VFR in IMC" is almost never prosecuted except in the best witness-supported (or the most vindictive, like the German cases) scenarios
Talking about the BHX incident, I've just read the AAIB report (duplicate link) and have very mixed feelings about it.
Yes, there were errors made by the pilot but IMHO the investigation didn't pull up anything reckless or totally negligent, just the usual causal chain of small events and circumstances that all contributed towards the eventual outcome.
There are four safety recommendations in the report, all aimed squarely at NATS, BHX airport and the CAA, not our unfortunate pilot. The AAIB came up with several possible reasons why he might have had difficulty seeing the aircraft holding on the runway short of the displaced threshold, so you have to assume that he *didn't* see it, for one or more of the above reasons.
There is a lot of ambiguity surrounding radio failure procedures in the UK (and the rest of the world), which is touched on in the report itself. Do not underestimate how much a "simple" failure like losing comms can add to the workload of flying an approach, especially a last-minute non-precision one. Things that seem blindingly obviously in retrospect are very easily missed.
All-in-all, I think he was a bit hard done by. He was a company Chairman, so maybe this was a sort of "means tested fine"...
Yes, there were errors made by the pilot but IMHO the investigation didn't pull up anything reckless or totally negligent, just the usual causal chain of small events and circumstances that all contributed towards the eventual outcome.
There are four safety recommendations in the report, all aimed squarely at NATS, BHX airport and the CAA, not our unfortunate pilot. The AAIB came up with several possible reasons why he might have had difficulty seeing the aircraft holding on the runway short of the displaced threshold, so you have to assume that he *didn't* see it, for one or more of the above reasons.
There is a lot of ambiguity surrounding radio failure procedures in the UK (and the rest of the world), which is touched on in the report itself. Do not underestimate how much a "simple" failure like losing comms can add to the workload of flying an approach, especially a last-minute non-precision one. Things that seem blindingly obviously in retrospect are very easily missed.
All-in-all, I think he was a bit hard done by. He was a company Chairman, so maybe this was a sort of "means tested fine"...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do not underestimate how much a "simple" failure like losing comms can add to the workload of flying an approach, especially a last-minute non-precision one
The incident probably started to happen when he didn't read his notams, flew three relatively long sectors on his own, and obviously screwed up the approach. Seeing 177kts at less than 2 dme and a 1700ft/min rod, he should really have been going around regardless of frequency selection. Throw in a perceived radio failure and any responsible pilot should have been entering the hold to try and fault find and get his brain in gear. He got himself into a corner and had neither the experience or airmanship to take control of the situation.
Mind you looking at his NDB approach can you imagine what his hold would have looked like!
I found the section on TBM's training a bit lacking. Under 3 hours IFR. Fairly poor show for a High Perf aircraft aimed at owner pilots. And I doubt this guy would have shone given his ineptitude here.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had Mad Jock really been banned? I see that he's got a banned avatar beside his name earlier in this thread.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You cannot ban Mad Jock probably a misunderstanding in his spelling also being a VIP from Scotland he has diplomatic immunity from such things.
He needs educating on matters regarding EASA and FAA but apart from that he is alright and says it as it should be said (If you can read his writing
Pace
He needs educating on matters regarding EASA and FAA but apart from that he is alright and says it as it should be said (If you can read his writing
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 30th Aug 2012 at 16:51.
Seeing 177kts at less than 2 dme and a 1700ft/min rod, he should really have been going around regardless of frequency selection. Throw in a perceived radio failure and any responsible pilot should have been entering the hold to try and fault find and get his brain in gear.
He got himself into a corner and had neither the experience or airmanship to take control of the situation.
From what I read, and the AAIB are normally fairly thorough, it wasn't the aviation equivalent of someone setting out across the English Channel on a Li-Lo, it was a guy getting maxed out and making some poor decisions but not actually killing anyone or breaking anything. Debriefing: yes; extra training: yes; censure: maybe; prosecution? Not really appropriate in my view...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes; extra training: yes; censure: maybe; prosecution? Not really appropriate in my view...
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 30th Aug 2012 at 17:03.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAIB and CAA Prosecuters have totally different aims, and their reports / actions within reason will reflect those aims. To therefore read an AAIB report, and deduce whether a prosecution was warranted or not, is IMHO, a mistake.
The prosecuters have to make their case, and I am pretty sure someone flying an expensive aircraft around Europe can also afford a pretty good "brief" to defend himself.
The Rougham incident (which I saw) ditto - the AAIB report hardly reflecting the "nature" of the takeoff. The fact that the CAA were also, co-incidentally, on hand at the event wouldn't have helped any potential defence (not that I can see there was much).
Finally, CAA prosecutions are influenced by past "form" - maybe certain of those prosecuted were already treading on thin ice with the CAA
NoD
The prosecuters have to make their case, and I am pretty sure someone flying an expensive aircraft around Europe can also afford a pretty good "brief" to defend himself.
The Rougham incident (which I saw) ditto - the AAIB report hardly reflecting the "nature" of the takeoff. The fact that the CAA were also, co-incidentally, on hand at the event wouldn't have helped any potential defence (not that I can see there was much).
Finally, CAA prosecutions are influenced by past "form" - maybe certain of those prosecuted were already treading on thin ice with the CAA
NoD
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northampton
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't the aircraft that overflew the Q400 at BHX the same one that had its prop chained up/prevented by moving by the airport authority?
Seem to remember reading something along those lines on here...
Seem to remember reading something along those lines on here...
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes; extra training: yes; censure: maybe; prosecution? Not really appropriate in my view...
Totally agree!!! There were mistakes made all round on this one by ATC too and I have a feeling this guy was used as a scapegoat!
Human error is endemic in human nature.
Last edited by flybymike; 30th Aug 2012 at 17:38.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are not CAA prosecutions but successful CAA prosecutions. They no longer mention the cases that they lose.
Re the Birmingham incident. I can assure you that there is not any more to it than meets the eye despite some of the speculation on this thread. The pilot genuinely believed he had a comms failure and had suffered one on the same aircraft previously.
It appears to me that one of the reasons he was prosecuted was because he holds a foreign licence and the CAA had no other sanction against him. Had he held a UK licence he might have been prosecuted or he might have received a conditional caution involving a requirement for further training or a flight test.
It is somewhat surprising that the other aircraft was given permission to enter the runway bearing in mind the proximity of the TBM on the approach. Why didn't the TBM pilot see it? Look again at the AAIB report. The other aircraft was on the runway starter extension. It is a different colour from the rest of the runway. There was a light coloured aircraft on a light coloured piece of runway. The TBM pilot was under a high workload, emerging from IMC, with apparent comms failure and would have been looking ahead at his touchdown point on the main (darker section) of the runway. That section of the runway was clear.
Please note that he was charged with and pleaded guilty to failing to maintain a proper radio watch and landing on a runway occupied by another aircraft. He was not charged with either reckless or negligent endangerment.
Re the Birmingham incident. I can assure you that there is not any more to it than meets the eye despite some of the speculation on this thread. The pilot genuinely believed he had a comms failure and had suffered one on the same aircraft previously.
It appears to me that one of the reasons he was prosecuted was because he holds a foreign licence and the CAA had no other sanction against him. Had he held a UK licence he might have been prosecuted or he might have received a conditional caution involving a requirement for further training or a flight test.
It is somewhat surprising that the other aircraft was given permission to enter the runway bearing in mind the proximity of the TBM on the approach. Why didn't the TBM pilot see it? Look again at the AAIB report. The other aircraft was on the runway starter extension. It is a different colour from the rest of the runway. There was a light coloured aircraft on a light coloured piece of runway. The TBM pilot was under a high workload, emerging from IMC, with apparent comms failure and would have been looking ahead at his touchdown point on the main (darker section) of the runway. That section of the runway was clear.
Please note that he was charged with and pleaded guilty to failing to maintain a proper radio watch and landing on a runway occupied by another aircraft. He was not charged with either reckless or negligent endangerment.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a prime example of overload. We have done this to death before. Under a lot of stress a pilot will go into overload and normal parts of the brain shut down.
I remember one instructor flying back IMC in a PA28 in atrocious weather!
He claimed he could hardly remember his name when he landed.
You have a graphic portion of the brain which takes in visual information and and deals with it. Bit like a Graphics card with on board memory.
You have a storage part of the brain.
Have you ever driven a car and been deep in thought and realised you have driven five miles without remembering one corner?
We all have different on board memory to the graphics portion so some do better than others while others have to rely more on the storage portion!
The more learned stuff in the storage portion the more the visual side is freed up.
Overload the visual side and the lot stutters and freezes.
Hence more training and sticking info into storage will help him in future.
But a big fine and a prosecution will help the CAA
Pace
I remember one instructor flying back IMC in a PA28 in atrocious weather!
He claimed he could hardly remember his name when he landed.
You have a graphic portion of the brain which takes in visual information and and deals with it. Bit like a Graphics card with on board memory.
You have a storage part of the brain.
Have you ever driven a car and been deep in thought and realised you have driven five miles without remembering one corner?
We all have different on board memory to the graphics portion so some do better than others while others have to rely more on the storage portion!
The more learned stuff in the storage portion the more the visual side is freed up.
Overload the visual side and the lot stutters and freezes.
Hence more training and sticking info into storage will help him in future.
But a big fine and a prosecution will help the CAA
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 30th Aug 2012 at 18:05.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North West
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Extra Training" could start with NDB approaches, the report mentions he had not performed one for 4 years prior to this incident. No surprise he cocks it up when he has to do one in anger.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet the way the pilot "performed" in his interview with the CAA set some parameters for what course of action they decided to take.
"I did everything right, I did nothing wrong, and would do the same again" might not be the right way to go in all cases.
"I did everything right, I did nothing wrong, and would do the same again" might not be the right way to go in all cases.
Hence more training and sticking info into storage will help him in future.
"Extra Training" could start with NDB approaches,
And how often does he come to the UK? Was it a One Off. Will he be back again?
I suspect they considered it but, in reality, it is just not practical.
Last edited by UV; 30th Aug 2012 at 19:06.
I am never really sure exactly what sort of "training" is envisaged by those who call for "extra training" to prevent mistakes.
You can be trained to recognise the symptoms of overloading, so that you can prioritise the most important tasks (normally avoiding unexpected ground) and hopefully move yourself and the aircraft into a regime where you recover some of your mental capacity, e.g. throwing a bad approach away and going somewhere safe to think about the next steps.
Human error is endemic in human nature.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Extra Training" could start with NDB approaches, the report mentions he had not performed one for 4 years prior to this incident. No surprise he cocks it up when he has to do one in anger.
One flies them with a GPS, either flying an overlay approach, or in the OBS mode. In the TBM case, the lateral accuracy of the final approach suggests he was using the latter, but mis-set the inbound track to the runway track instead of the IAP track (yeah, I've "never" done that myself... and it "never" makes one wonder if one's autopilot tracking null is set right
).Flying holds with modern kit is a piece of cake - even if the kit cannot fly them by itself.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would not be useful, since nobody who flies for real (outside the FTO and IR testing environment) flies NDB procedures with an ADF.
Using just an old RMI one will always wiggle a bit because you have no way of knowing your exact track at a given time.
On the subject of training/licence sanctions does anyone know what the FAA does (if anything) in the case of a pilot flying abroad who commits an aviation violation?
Last edited by Contacttower; 30th Aug 2012 at 22:06.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of training/licence sanctions does anyone know what the FAA does (if anything) in the case of a pilot flying abroad who commits an aviation violation?
On the other hand, if a fine is all the CAA is after, then they don't really need FAA involvement. Wouldn't have hurt to send the FSDO a little note, though.
Would you see a suspension on Mr. Visentini's FAA record ?
On a separate note, I think it would have been fairer to swap Mr. Visentini's and Mr. Turton's fines.
Last edited by proudprivate; 30th Aug 2012 at 20:49.