Aircraft down in Channel
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW it was an Avidyne display.
There are a host of reasons why it could have been CFIT - NOT suggesting it was.
There have been cases of Avidyne's failing and with this system the PFD couldn't be switched to the other screen, the autopilot might have failed or tripped, or the pilot may have chosen to hand fly, to suggest a few.
Without the PFD flying on the standby instruments will always be more challenging, and while the autopilot can be driven form the Garmin's you need to know how to do this.
There are a host of reasons why it could have been CFIT - NOT suggesting it was.
There have been cases of Avidyne's failing and with this system the PFD couldn't be switched to the other screen, the autopilot might have failed or tripped, or the pilot may have chosen to hand fly, to suggest a few.
Without the PFD flying on the standby instruments will always be more challenging, and while the autopilot can be driven form the Garmin's you need to know how to do this.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Berks
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ India 4-2
The initial fund collection deadline passed a while ago, £20457 was raised and £27k spent on sonar / mapping and the team believes they have the location of all they need to salvage. They are now looking for new funds, eg thru sponsorship, to recover the remains of aircraft and pilot.
Here's a link to the blog so you can get uptodate ... Help Find Him
The initial fund collection deadline passed a while ago, £20457 was raised and £27k spent on sonar / mapping and the team believes they have the location of all they need to salvage. They are now looking for new funds, eg thru sponsorship, to recover the remains of aircraft and pilot.
Here's a link to the blog so you can get uptodate ... Help Find Him
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The accident report is now out on this one.
While the AAIB don't make a specific determination, they do seem to have answered the many questions and theories proposed. All of the evidence points to a common and sadly common killer of GA pilots, possibly induced by over confidence as a result of the real and well sold safety features of the aircraft.
While the AAIB don't make a specific determination, they do seem to have answered the many questions and theories proposed. All of the evidence points to a common and sadly common killer of GA pilots, possibly induced by over confidence as a result of the real and well sold safety features of the aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rennes
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed: a sad story. Almost certainly one of those times when an IMC rating would have been a life-saver. Low-time pilot; fast aircraft; scudding along at lowish level over the water on one of those days when the Channel and the sky turn into one large disorienting pool of milky haze...If the autopilot did become disconnected for any reason, it's hard to envisage that scenario resulting in any kind of happy ending.
From the report:
No it doesn't! A JAA pilot licence became an EASA licence in Sept 2012 and the 3 Km restriction and all reference to JAA licence privileges were removed from the ANO in 2012 Pleased to see even the AAIB can't keep up with all the changes!
Schedule 7 of CAP 393, ‘Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations ’ further restricts the holder of a Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes) (PPL(A)) without any instrument rating to a minimum flight visibility of 3 km outside controlled airspace.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do wonder, sometimes, if some people are buying into aircraft like the Cirrus with all the safety equipment they have on the basis that the aircraft will do it all for them.
How can anyone use it's full capabilities without even an IMCR. The report, if true, shows the pilot had been letting the aircraft fly, without the skills to take over in the event of a problem that required manual handling.
I have concerns that this is not an isolated incident and that some are moving too quickly from club aircraft to high-end types without building experience first.
How can anyone use it's full capabilities without even an IMCR. The report, if true, shows the pilot had been letting the aircraft fly, without the skills to take over in the event of a problem that required manual handling.
I have concerns that this is not an isolated incident and that some are moving too quickly from club aircraft to high-end types without building experience first.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rennes
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the difference is that few (any?) RV-8s come equipped with autopilots, glass cockpits and ballistic parachutes as standard, whereas the Cirrus does. Not many of the former can be flown from Seaford to Le Touquet hands-off in IMC (or conditions that may as well be IMC), whereas the latter will do it without difficulty. It's a lot easier, then, for the low-time, low-experience pilot to get himself into serious trouble in a Cirrus than in an aircraft that requires to be hand-flown all the time. It's also easier for such a pilot to depend on the technology as a crutch, and if it should ever not be available to him -- either because of equipment failure or of inadvertent de-activation -- to find himself in a situation from which there is no escape.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1 Blind Squirell. There is a debate going on in another thread , regarding the worst chute pull. A lot of guys on there just cannot get the argument. It is all, well why would/should I not pull the chute, missing the point entirely, that the individual should never have got into the situation in the first place.
This really is a growing problem....
This really is a growing problem....
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When this thread first started, I asked a poster by PM to bear in mind that there is every chance that the family of the pilot involved is reading it. As a result he was kind enough to redact a post that he had made which they might have found distressing.
I'm not trying to defend or justify anything here, nor, please, do I want to start another CAPS / Cirrus argument.
So, with respect, please can I suggest that we have this debate somewhere else?
Thanks!!
I'm not trying to defend or justify anything here, nor, please, do I want to start another CAPS / Cirrus argument.
So, with respect, please can I suggest that we have this debate somewhere else?
Thanks!!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rennes
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With equal respect -- and I'm not just saying that; I do recognise the sensitivities involved -- I disagree.
Whenever an aviation accident, and still more so one involving fatalities, occurs, the paramount consideration is that the aviation community learn from and apply whatever lessons can be drawn from it, so that it is not repeated. All other factors are secondary in comparison. That process cannot be short-circuited for any reason, even in deference to the memory of the deceased.
It is important, then, that these matters can receive full scrutiny and discussion. This is the most appropriate venue for that to take place, because this is where pilots congregate.
The AAIB report linked above contains several such lessons. While it is not absolutely conclusive, it is very strongly suggestive. It may not tell us what happened during the last sixty seconds of the flight in question, and we may never know for sure. But it describes a chain of events that made a tragic outcome possible, and perhaps even likely, given all the circumstances. Recognising that chain, and knowing how to break it, may save someone else's life one day. However painful it may be, this is a conversation that it is necessary to have.
Whenever an aviation accident, and still more so one involving fatalities, occurs, the paramount consideration is that the aviation community learn from and apply whatever lessons can be drawn from it, so that it is not repeated. All other factors are secondary in comparison. That process cannot be short-circuited for any reason, even in deference to the memory of the deceased.
It is important, then, that these matters can receive full scrutiny and discussion. This is the most appropriate venue for that to take place, because this is where pilots congregate.
The AAIB report linked above contains several such lessons. While it is not absolutely conclusive, it is very strongly suggestive. It may not tell us what happened during the last sixty seconds of the flight in question, and we may never know for sure. But it describes a chain of events that made a tragic outcome possible, and perhaps even likely, given all the circumstances. Recognising that chain, and knowing how to break it, may save someone else's life one day. However painful it may be, this is a conversation that it is necessary to have.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However painful it may be, this is a conversation that it is necessary to have.
It is indeed an important topic, but I just think it should be discussed somewhere that the relatives of the person involved will not be following (unless they specifically want to). Can I suggest that, if you can agree, you start another thread?
Many thanks for your understanding.
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
Folks, this is not the thread to have yet another Cirrus hamster-wheel. I've moved all the relevant posts to http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...l-ever-17.html.
SD
SD
