Blackpool 3/2/07
 

My name is David Walker, I am the father of Andrew Walker, who was killed in the air accident in Blackpool, on 3rd February 2007.

The Coroners Court will re open on the 3rd June 2008, at the Town Hall Blackpool.

Good luck with it. I've heard some of the details of the case and I really hope that you and your family receive the justice you are entitled to. I'll be keeping everything crossed for you.

Likewise, David. The very, very, best of luck to you. Don't stop pushing towards your goal. I'm most impressed by what I've heard of your actions so far.

Any internet links to "actions so far?"

Probably not and I would say it is something not best dicussed in detail on here, although you can read the AAIB report regarding the tragic accident of G-BBBK on their website.

Mr Walker I truly hope you get the closure/justice you seek, good luck.

Mr Walker

I understand your grief and sympathise completely. I also knew Roy, who died with your son.

I'm not so sure this public site is somewhere you may want to attempt to try and highlight your mission.

The AAIB report is quite codemning in regards to some poor judgements and operations outside of the priviledges of the licenses held by those involved.

I hope you are able to accept some realities and mourn successfully rather than become some Al Fayed character.

Both Andy and Roy are sadly missed. There is not one father who does not understand your loss.

Respectfully, silverhawk, there is a galaxy of difference between Al Fayed and this grieving father.

Mr David Walker has certainly achieved a degree of progress in the right directions, sometimes by being very public. I think his judgement in this regard is well above average. Without doubt, it compares extremely favourably with the judgement displayed by certain other parties.

There is quite a lot not being said here.

The AAIB claim is that Mr Walker was the commander of the aircraft, thus full responsibility for the conduct of the flight would lie with him. Is the 'campaign' to change this role to the other person on board ??

The question i guess is whether in a chain of faults the first one (asking a non current pilot to..... etc) should always be the major one and the secondary being only secondary in the true gist only....

If we steer away from the assumption of P1 being P1 we will all end up in grey mist..... It is a bitterly hard lesson for all of us.

This has nothing to do with the liability of people pressing/suggesting other people to do things they should not do.... That is in my view horrible and seems to have happened here. Those people too should learn a lesson but has nothing to do with P1 being P1

The bitterly hard lesson is of course in your role as P1 (in taking P1 seat you suggest you are taking the p1 role) you always have to assume you ARE p1 and therefore the buck stops with you, even if you get yourself a safety pilot.

The only exception in my view is a training flight with an instructor which commences with a briefing depicting the object of the training flight and ending with a debrief.

Any other flight P1 is P1

Loosing a family member or a good friend is (too) hard, and my condoleances to those involved. I hope those involved will be able to live with the outcome of the coroners court, however it ends up and will be able to pick up their lives.

I would have thought that the most experienced and qualified pilot would always be P1 assuming they are both sitting at the controls.

huh?

surely you must be joking!

On a private flight, absolutely not. Leaving out the special case of instruction, at any point in time there is one commander and everyone else is a passenger, whether or not they have a pilots licence, regardless of any flying experience they might have and regardless of whether their seat happens to be fitted with flying controls.

Mark

having control is taught from lesson 1. Even under instruction, the student will have control unless the instructor TAKES control after saying : I have control!

All pilots are taught to be clear about who has control at any time during the flight.

Any sensible pilot would also do the same towards who is P1 prior to the flight. It is called human resources management and is as important as choosing the correct runway. Any pilot (in any control seat) participating in any flight whilst leaving the P1 issue unclear is actively encouraging a dangerous situation.

Even when pilots "share activities of a flight (one the controls, the other navigation or radio), the fact that P1 relinquished radio or nav to a secondary pilot does not relieve him from total responsibility as P1

Pprune Radar

Pure speculation on my part: I think it unlikely the "campaign", as you put it is in the direction you suggest. My guess would be that it is directed at the flying school and at the person at the flying school who, according to the AAIB report, persuaded the pilot, who initially refused the flight, to fly the route, in spite of being outside of the 90 day currency requirement. He did so with passengers, on the outbound flight, and one passenger on the fatal return leg. Used as part of this persuasion was the suggestion to fly with a more experienced NPPL holder in the right seat, according to the report. However the report does not go as far as to suggest that the rules were intended to be ignored, or that anyone suggested that they should be, merely that the facts are that they were ingnored, and that during the communication about the flight that it was something which was overlooked. This is not the only fact of course discussed in the report, but it is clear that without the involvement of the person from the school, the pilot had refused the flight.

Ominously the flying school representative is very careful how he described his role in the incident to the AAIB, which is perhaps where the family feel they need to pursue justice.

I make no comment or speculation on the rights or wrongs of what went ultimately wrong, as that is for the court and the AAIB with full knowledge of all facts available. However I would reiterate condolences to the family of those involved in this tragedy.

Maybe this should be on a new thread.
I think it would be rather difficult to persuade the CAA and the court that my 500hrs and private ticket allowed the ATPL with 10k hrs sitting next to me to walk free because he was a "passenger"

Then you don't understand what being designated as Commander of an aircraft actually means. The CAA are very clear what it means, and that is that there is only one Commander of the aircraft at any given time.

It is not based on any seniority or experience gradient, it is based on who accepted responsibility before the flight to be the Commander. It is of course possible to share a flight and be Commander for a portion of it, but you would need to agree this between the pilots involved beforehand, and also complete any pre flight documentation to show this to be the case. In the abscence of that, whoever signed for the aircraft is the legal Commander. (This is in a flying club environment with a PPL flying the aircraft). The legal Commander has responsibilities placed upon him or her for the safe conduct of the flight, which can include refusing to fly if unhappy with anything.

Of course, whether this is actually explained to everyone who gets their licence is another thing, but alas ignorance of the law is never seen as a defence.

As I stated before, the decision as to who IS P1, is a critical one, and all of us PPLs should make it an item on our pre flight check list.

I for one have experienced in a mild way the complications of this when many moons ago i flew (P1) with a friend (P2) who wanted to check out his new handheld GPS and took on the "responsibility" for the navigation, getting us into Luton airpsace without clearance..... I was P1 and got (rightly) the flack from the controller over the phone (no prosecution).

I knew i was P1 and didn t check P2's actions... My fault.

Then you don't understand what being designated as Commander of an aircraft actually means.

Actually I do.

Yes there can be only one commander at any one time. However I suspect the more senior might find themselves culpable if they did not assume control when faced with a breach of the law.

Rubbish. The commander is the commander full stop. Any passenger is just a passenger pure and simple. Christ, I would never be able to fly as a passenger with another pilot for fear of being prosecuted for their mistakes. When I am teaching I am responsible, when I am a passenger I am there to look out the window.

Reminds me of the Instructor who tried to convince everyone he flew with that he must be P1 because he is an Instructor. God complex......

You suspect wrongly. Indeed, I would suggest that anyone 'assuming control' of an aeroplane, taking control away from its commander without permission, would be in quite serious trouble with the law...

Haven't we have been here before with the P1 thing in relation to the 28 day check etc?

It's not for me to speak for Mr Walker.

I fear that the debate above about 'command' is unhelpful. Perhaps Mr Walker might comment, if he is visiting here.

My perspective is that there is much more to be gained for the public good from an examination of the activities of an individual who was not on board the aircraft, but who was already 'known to' various organisations, and whose reputation precedes him.

I trust that HM Coroner will be adequately briefed. I also hope that he exercises his considerable powers to their full.

I have followed this case with interest since the day of the accident,mainly because I spent most of my youth messing around Blackpool airport, indeed it is because of a famous old SATCO, JK that I find myself in the job I am now in.

I feel rather than debate the whys or why not's Andrew took command on that day we should rather be exploring the errors that lead to the accident!.....with all the help available from ATC service's enroute, why at no stage of the flight did he try to obtain any updated weather information from the London FIR sector???? thats what the guys are there to do, if that had happened an early diversion may have been the course of action and we would not be here today debating the rights or wrongs!

To be fair to Mr Walker, it was not he who introduced any of the hints and talks of missions, etc. He merely advised us of the date of the coroner's court, which I sincerely hope is something which will help him cope with his own personal tragedy, understanding more about his son's tragic passing.

It was the subsequent posters with their talk of 'justice', 'goals' and 'progress in the right directions', but not actually stating what these things actually meant in respect of this accident, that have set hares running.

If you don't clearly state what you are talking about, then people on here will debate what they think you might be talking about. Lack of clarity helps no one and might indeed cause distress to those who lost loved ones in the accident.

Are you sure you've got a "ticket"?

The plain and simple fact is that when you assume command you do just that. It is not a command that may be relinquished at a convenient moment just because the guy sitting next to you happens to hold qualifications equal to or superior to your own, unless you ask him to do so and he agrees.:ugh:
You must accept the responsibility that goes with that command, full stop.
Apologies for digressing from the original posters topic, you have my utmost sympathy Sir.

I personally think that the debate about command is very relevant with regards to this incident. I am PPL holder with no additional ratings, would I take off and fly into IMC? No I wouldn't, regardless of who was sat next to me, if I am P1, then I am P1, there should be NO confusion, I will exercise the privelages of my licence, no one else's. There is also the issue of currency which I'm sure we all know about, so lets not go there, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Finally, if someone had 'attempted' to 'pressurise' me into going, the answer would have been a short and sweet Foxtrot Oscar.

Basically, what I am trying to say is we are all, or should all be aware of our ability and what our licences & ratings entitle us to do, it is our awareness of this fact that should be the main factor when we are deciding to fly in less than favourable conditions. I am sorry to say this, but I cannot see why the 'activities' and 'reputation' of this 'individual' who is 'known to various organisations' has any relevance whatsoever to the tragic incident that unfolded in Blackpool 03/02/2007.

In my opinion it would be much more 'constructive' for those organisations to which this individual is known to, to call for enquiry independent from the accident at Blackpool.

Are you sure you've got a "ticket"?

Yes

However having a "ticket" will not predict what a court may do.

There are always contributory factors to such an accident, and I hope for Mr Walker that those people on the ground who confused the P1 in taking the decisions which were solely his will be pointed at in no unclear terms so that if need be the right prosecutions can follow. But let it be for the confusion not the go/no go decision taking because this was the P1's only task.

However, the question is what would the P1 think of all this were he here? Perhaps he would not wish anyone else to be blamed? Perhaps he was a true pilot like many of us who would never wish anyone else to be blamed for his own mistakes, and exchange these strong views constantly when on the ground due to bad weather?

I dont know those "people on the ground" with their history, nor do i know the pilot.

But i am aware of those concerned in another fatal air accident who, at the instigation of no cure no pay lawyers, have sued others where those that knew him simply know he would have never wished this to happen as the ultimate mistake on the flight was clearly his own.

So let us be clear... Whichever pilot rents a plane (and is checked out on it) is the P1 unless explicitly agreed otherwise on beforehand and noted down) and that person alone is ultimately responsible for all actions regarding the flight, all actions from others can only be considered contributory factors.

The drama meanwhile remains the same... Many people have lost a loved one, due to our hobby/passion and that remains such a sad thing.... But both pilots were part of our community, dying doing what they loved so much

Radar,

I think that Mr Walker has a very accurate understanding of all the factors behind the accident.

I hope that the Coroner will be in a similar position, and will investigate, thoroughly, the circumstances of the flight.

In my opinion, there is little benefit in examining who was 'in command' (whether on paper or de facto). Of greater interest are the background to the flight (the reason why the aircraft would fly to its destination and back), the development of the plan for the flight to take place, the motivation both felt by and placed upon those involved, and the promise and delivery of favour then and in the future.

Supersport, if you are as immune to normal human response to motivation as you claim, then you are unique indeed...

I have not read the accident report deliberately so this reply is not biased by that - Yes the pilot in command is at the end of the day the person in charge - even if he is a new PPL and the passenger is a 20,000 hour Instructor/ATPL, but I would not go along with the above quote - any pilot who is flying as a passenger and sees something not right must make his concerns known, this can even be as an airline passenger alerting the flight deck via the cabin crew that there is for example a build up of ice on the wings. In the case of sitting next to a PPL in a deteriorating situation I would be raising questions such as "are you sure you are happy with this situation" or a statement of " I am not happy with what is happening - are you sure you would not like me to take control", As the situation gets worse I may eventually get to the stage where I would try to take control - but that would only be when I reached the stage where I was convinced the pilot flying was going to kill me if I did not! At the end of the day though, it is the designated pilot in command who is responsible for what happens.

No no, not unique, I just have the ability to say no. Infallible however, no.

Its going to be interesting the result. It might have some far reaching effects on some of the old school CFI's. Similar to the BAe Prestwick's instructors case.

I think most instructors have seen certain flights be launched in conditions which they wouldn't go themselves. Or have launched when they would have prefered not to.

Most have also seen unacceptable peer pressure bordering on bullying occuring and the blackmail which also sometimes occurs.

I wish Mr Walker all the best for the next few weeks it isn't going to be pleasant as no doudt certain parties are going to be very critical of his sons actions some of which will be valid.

I think some forget what it was like being twenty odd. The pressure that someone significantly older, more experenced and more qualified than you can apply is immense. I have also been told in the past that qualified pax don't count for the 90 day rule. So it is quite a common bull**** by individuals who should and do know better.

If not an instructor then certainly does not count!Also interesting that the CFI says he was not in post at the time apart from as de facto CFI - if so, why did he make the phone calls arranging the trip - seems he certainly has questions to answer!

It doesn't matter if its an instructor or not.

You cannot be PIC with anyone else onboard if outside 90 days unless you are an instructor yourself (and there are a heap of technical issues you need to make sure about before thats even legal) It basically has to be a training flight with all the restrictions that they have. And the other person is counted as Flight crew not pax. And you can't have anyone else onboard eg 2 pax in the back on a trial flight.

If the instructor is PIC and legal and you are DUAL everything is fine.

Sincere condolences to Mr Walker.

I am selfishly concerned to learn how I can prevent such a tragic end to one of my flights.

Landing count currency per se does not seem to be an explicit issue on this occasion.
Weight and balance did not directly contribute.
Fuel planning does seem to be contributory.
Met awareness does.
Get-home-itis does.
Cockpit drill does (altimeter setting)
Reliance on P2 and GPS for Nav does.

So confronted with low cloud base, no fuel for an alternate with better weather, neither nav kit nor rating for IMC, and P2+GPS not performing, is there an RVA service available? Having flown one as part of the instrument hours in my PPL course, it would be my ultimate safety net. I need a compass, a gyro and an altimeter setting. And whilst they are currently unlicensed, I need to keep my PPL instrument skills current.

I thank pprune for an opportunity to think this all through in the safety of my home.

But I have read through a lot of extraneous 'who is to blame?' stuff. We are all human, we all make mistakes. Working out whose mistake was the one that matters, or what the legal situation is, is fascinating but for me, much less important. We don't need to work out whose fault it was if we can avoid an accident.

My PPL course also told me about skill, knowledge, wisdom, judgement and experience. Looking at what went wrong is not just hindsight, it is potential foresight. Speculating about what could have gone wrong (but didn't, or might not have) is also potential foresight. These second hand real and imagined experiences are where I get most value from pprune.

And where, sadly, we are looking at a fatal accident, the sincerity of our condolences is demonstrated by a determination to do everything possible to prevent the same thing happening again. Working out who is to blame for what doesn't help.

I think even as an instructor you still have to be inside the 90 day currency


I think this is another of those that has been done to death on other threads and never properly resolved!

Know what you mean by done to death. I don't think this is thread thread to be debating the issue. :ok:

Which is still my point, the PIC is the PIC. A more experienced passenger may provide an opinion but unless the PIC relinquishes control or is relieved of control forcibly they are still PIC. Simple.

As it stand the PIC on this flight appears to have remained PIC. He may well have succumbed to peer pressure due to the presence of a more experienced pilot but that did not relieve him of the ability to say NO.

I suspect the bending of the rules that went on to facilitate the flight require scrutiny, but at the end of the day it was still down to the PIC to make the go no go decision. It is called freedom of choice.

The same freedom of choice that drive them to continue on when it was known the weather was deteriorating and not to refuel. All mistakes made that spiraled into the incident pit that cost the crew there lives.

Hindsight always gives us 20/20 vision......

I couldn't agree more.

The way I see it is that the CFI (or 'de facto' CFI) shouldn't have asked for the flight to go ahead in those conditions. BUT, at the end of the day he only asked, as bose-x said it us freedom of choice, the old saying springs to mind, 'Would you jump into the fire if I asked you too?'
I cannot understand why delving into the working practice's of this 'certain individual' regardless of their nature, which has be insinuated on here, bares any relevance as to why this accident happened.

Maybe I blind or naive, but to me, from reading the report, the chain of events that occurred that day make it obvious why it happened and I think that an awful lot of Students and existing Private Pilots can learn from what happened.

No, BUT - If three or four 'leaders' (i.e. older, more qualified, louder, more authoritative, cooler, etc.) convince someone to jump into a fire, they are frequently held to account for contributing to the incident.

The AAIB report has the aviation facts but is a bit thin on the human interactions that may have lead to the decisions taken. Hopefully, the Coroner will establish these broader facts.

I think the lessons from this incident are much more general life skills than specifically related to aviation. Group think/peer pressure/ etc. can lead to catastrophically bad decisions in sport, driving, drinking, life in general - not just aviation.