Ullswater Lake Maule pilot not guilty

[150 Driver]

Wasn't there a thread on a Robin that ended up on a riverbed doing this, the pilot ended up dead on a mountainside in a separate incident.

The guy ( it will be a guy) is a certifiable moron. Hope the CAA throw the book at him.

I don't much care what the RAF do, they are seasoned pros who need extreme flying skills. This chap obviously has no respect for his family or anyone to care about him, no respect for the aircraft, no respect for the environment and no respect for the taxpayer who bears the SAR costs.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by N-Jacko

It may seem a "stupid stunt" to you on the basis of your personal experience, but it's a very safe, stable and essential part of a bushplane's flight envelope on the basis of mine.

Yes but bushplanes do it for a reason, that is a controlled touchdown in the shallow water just short of a gravel bar to set up the short landing. it is not a rookie move but in the hands of a very experienced pilot it is a reasonable risk for the benefit obtained.

That kind of flying has nothing to to with the "look at me I am such a SKYGOD" showboating in the middle of the lake, for no operational reason, that this thread is referring to.

I'd be interested to read the official report on the accident to which you refer.

The story was related to me by an experienced pilot I know and trust so it is admittedly second hand. Basically the guy got sideways, dipped a wing which caught the water and he ended up drowned in the upside down airplane. He was not wearing the fitted shoulder harness, so it was likely that he was knocked out during the upset and then drowned while unconscious.

[9 lives]

but it's a very safe, stable and essential part of a bushplane's flight envelope on the basis of mine.

I don't think that "very safe, stable" describes hydroplaning wheel planes down the middle of a lake. "Essential" sure doesn't. The only essential running down the middle of a lake without stopping, is water pickups for waterbombing, and that Maule was not doing that! He was out goofing around. Not that some of us haven't goofed around, but we sure should not be celebrating it.

Serious, responsible bush pilots avoid factors and operations which have risk with no benefit. Bush pilots typically operate in the middle of nowhere, so any small risk becomes big, just because no help is close by. Running lakes on wheels is a stunt, not bushflying.

[fastjet45]

N-Jacko
As for Ullswater's speed limit, it has been specifically framed so as not to apply to land- and ski-planes.

Are you saying that the 10mph speed limit does not apply to aircraft ? if yes is that for all the lakes in the area i.e. Windermere, Coniston etc were is this stated, when I inquired about landing on a lake I was told no for exactly this reason the speed limit was 10 mph introduced approx. 5 years ago by the nimby's.

[Flyingmac]

I know of one pilot who was killed doing this stupid stunt


How do feel about aerobatics?

[surely not]

Leaving aside any thoughts as to whether this is really stupid or incredibly cool, there seems to be an assumption by posters that this pilot is inexperienced at this sort of flying. How do we know this? Is it not possible that this is a very experienced Bush pilot visiting UK and that he is well used to doing this sort of thing?

[Flyingmac]

To the Maule pilot. Any chance of a spare seat?


To the rest of you. I asked first.

[Proteus9]

I again don't see why people are getting worked up over this. It's a tailwheel aircraft with big tyres designed for off airport work. It happens frequently in the us.

I don't get how being a deep cold lake makes any difference to practice. I'd imagine if things went wrong you could do as much damage in a few feet of water.

Flying comes down to risk assesment and personal acceptance. People fly in clouds, do aerobatics, fly vintage aircraft, do stalls, all of which adds a level of risk to flying slap bang in the centre of the envelope.

In the event of a need for a forced landing I'd much rather be in with someone with lots of experience off airfield than a person who has lever left tarmac.

[heliusac]

That Husky is a Maule.

Still want one!

I again don't see why people are getting worked up over this.

Read again:

Emergency services, including police, Whitehaven Coastguard, Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service, ambulance service, mountain rescue teams, RAF and an air ambulance were called to the scene

The CAA imposed a no fly zone

Any idea how much all that will have cost? Committing all those teams, especially the Air Ambulance, which could have been saving lives elsewhere is criminal.

I don't get how being a deep cold lake makes any difference to practice.

Yes you do.

[Bob Bevan]

I don't want to sound like a killjoy but if things had gone badly wrong I wonder if the pilot would have expected his insurance policy to cover the claim?

There is a general insurance principle that an insured person should act at all times in the same way as if they were not insured. This is reflected in aircraft policies in a 'General Condition' which effectively says you should do all you can reasonably do to protect the insured item from loss. I'm not saying that a claim arising from this type of flying would definitely be refused but it does potentially raise a doubt!

Given what he was up to, the pilot would also do well to look at another condition which states the policy "shall not be construed as a policy of marine insurance."

[gasax]

On a slow news day all sorts of stuff appears.

It would seem the emergency services suffer from the same syndrome, even though the aircraft is shown flying away they 'swing in action'.

Perish the thought that any intelligence is ever needed from them.

As to the pilot, well ok he did it, but he did it in a pretty dumb place, where it was almost certain to cause some upset, even presuming he knew what he was doing.

Scores on the doors? emergency services 2/10, pilot 1/10.

[charliegolf]

I'm not saying that a claim arising from this type of flying would definitely be refused but it does potentially raise a doubt!

When the insurer finds out the pilot did it at least twice, any doubt will evaporate.

CG

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

How do feel about aerobatics?

That only pilots who are aerobatically capable and experienced fully understand how an aeroplane flies, and why it sometimes stops flying. In other words, an aerobatic pilot is a safer pilot.

[Proteus9]

Any idea how much all that will have cost? Committing all those teams, especially the Air Ambulance, which could have been saving lives elsewhere is criminal.

The point is that all that cost was nedlessly raised, it should never have gone that far. If you were to land on a private field and someone telephoned in the same line "I've just seen an aircraft crash" and with no further questioning they scrabmled everything would you deem it your own fault and criminal? It's pretty clear from all available accounts that effectively a touch and go was made and the aircraft was seen flying on. I do not call that a crash and do not think it warrants calling the police. The speed limit concern is an issue for the naitonal park warden. Water at speed is pretty hard, and this person obviously seems to know what they're doing and may have very extensive experience.

[Proteus9]

Yes you do.

No I don't, the important interaction here is on the surface and boundary layer of the water. Whether the depth is a couple of feet or miles makes no difference at all to the flight characteristics

[9 lives]

How do feel about aerobatics?

I feel that aerobatics can be conducted in accordance with the aircraft manufacturer's procedures. Hydroplaning across the water on wheels very certainly cannot. Though, yes, I agree, aerobatics can be made to be as risky, or more so than the hydroplaning, when it's done very close to the ground.

the important interaction here is on the surface and boundary layer of the water. Whether the depth is a couple of feet or miles makes no difference at all to the flight characteristics

Yes, the plane's tires do not know how deep the water under is, they are interacting with the first couple of inches of the water only. BUT, how deep the lake is, and a number of other factors can hugely affect where the water is! The water is incompressible, but it moves. A boat wake, swell, or floating object could catastrophically upset the slim balance on which the aircraft is hydroplaning. In very shallow water, wakes, swells, and submerged objects are easily visible during the area inspection. And, if you do flip the plane, it's not going to sink, and trap you into an egress situation.

Was the pilot wearing personal floatation suitable for the body of water? I'm thinking it was pretty cold there - immersion suit? - I fly with one at times.

Had the pilot received competent training in underwater egress?

Aviation Egress Training Systems

I, and another dissenting poster here, have taken this course. It's a wake up call for being in these situations at all - let alone putting yourself there for little benefit!

Someone mentions flying across the channel on here, where there is a statistically small risk that you'll have to do a planned ditching into unwelcoming water, and posters will discuss lifejackets, immersion suits, and rafts. Yet someone deliberately flirts with sudden ditching, and posters defend it, without ever asking if the pilot was prepared.

And, it's just a bad example and public display - it temps others into the foolish behaviour:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ing-strip.html

Or lure them into wanting to try it,

Any chance of a spare seat?

[Flyingmac]

I knew the pilot who put the Robin into the Derwent. He was a pleasant guy but sadly his demise didn't come as a big surprise to many of us.


To tar the Maule pilot with the same brush is a huge leap of assumption.

[9 lives]

leap of assumption

I make no assumptions about the Maule pilot. I saw a video of an aircraft doing something un-necessary, which is high risk. Some posts have been made, which downplay those risks, those posts are deceptive. I have reason to believe the Maule pilot is quite skilled. It's the display of judgement which concerns me.

I've known some pretty skilled pilots who were "bit" by something that their judgement did not anticipate nor prepare for....

[Proteus9]

Someone mentions flying across the channel on here, where there is a statistically small risk that you'll have to do a planned ditching into unwelcoming water, and posters will discuss lifejackets, immersion suits, and rafts. Yet someone deliberately flirts with sudden ditching, and posters defend it, without ever asking if the pilot was prepared.

Discussion is useful but I wouldn't want to specifically tell other people what they must do, everyone should be able to make their own decisions on what risks they are comfortable with as pilots. The pilot may well have been kitted up in full gear for ditching. I'm not defending his choice of clothing I'm making the point that what was being done there is practiced frequently abroad, he looks to have large bushwheels on which give a large footprint and may be vasty experienced in this. It looks like the 500ft rule was obvserved with a good margin and other than personal risk no one else was in danger.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The tragic 'Derwent incident' (I won't say 'accident') was way different to the Ullswater event. Please don't use it to castigate the 'Ullswater' pilot.