Managing GA Risk
 

As a GA pilot YOU are responsible for all aspects of safe flight. If the airfield location is in your mind "unsafe" you go fly somewhere else. Lets not blame anyone for this accident. GA carries risks and the PIC is the person responsible for mangaing these risks. Full stop.

Safety Improvements are Urgent
 

I and many other pilots based at Barton have taken this incident very hard, it is just so sad. Whilst we await the AAIB investigation results it is of no consolation to the family of the pilot who has died or for the young guy who is still on the critical list.

I was at Barton yesterday talking to a number of pilots who are based there and to some of the staff who help to run the airport, together with a few instructors. All of us agreed that taking off from runways 09R or 09L presents an almost impossible situation if one encounters engine problems on take-off. I understand that the media have been positive pests in approaching various personnel at Ravenair and Barton. They have been desperate to get hold of the names of the two people involved so that they can probably pester their family's.

The airport was certainly there before the houses, in fact long before. It does appear to be stupid to build houses so close to an airport. I see that the airport is closed today and that a crane is operating 650m from the airport - I pressume this is related to recovering wreckage, but gives a clear idea of just how far the aircraft had travelled before the crash.

Whatever the AAIB results show, there will be questions raised as to how safety can be improved. Taking off from runways 27R or 27L creates far less of a problem should one encounter an engine failure on take-off as there is very little by way of property to avoid. There are some electricity pylons at 273 ft across the flight path but one can probably avoid these.

Those familiar with Barton know that all runways are grass, bumpy and not that long. This means that a decision to abort a take-off can be a dilema. (I do not generally take passengers out of Barton preferring to use another aircraft at John Lennon Airport Liverpool.) Many pilots have been pressing for improvements to the runways for several years and asked for at least one tarmac runway. The airport is operated by Peel Holdings and hopefully they will now come forward with some positive solutions.

Ironically Ravenair Flight Training School at Barton was to close last Friday and relocate to Liverpool. Their remaining Tomahawk was transferred to Liverpool yesterday.

Jim.

Firstly thanks for the factual information. I also fly from a compromised strip ( HT lines, housing etc) and I sympathise with the pilots involved. If im flying family / friends, I won't use the dangerous departure. Solo or light...for sure I will.

I'm sure both pilots knew the risks inherent and I am sorry that on this occasion they were unlucky.

Im convinced that GA is as safe as you want it to be and I'm sure both pilots were aware of the risks involved regarding this particular departure.

RIP fellow aviator and get well soon to the surviving pilot.

Best,

SSS

goldeneaglepilot

Yes indeed, it certainly is.

The "expert on a respected professional pilot's website" isn't a pilot but hopes to get a PPL one day.


H.

I learned to fly at Barton in 1978, flew a based Chipmunk and many other types from then until a few years ago when the group moved to John Lennon, and have probably made hundreds of take offs from 09, later 09s north and south, still later 09s left and right.

About 10 years ago I got a partial engine failure on take off from 09L. But I was luckier than the guys on Friday; the engine kept going but at much reduced power and we made it back in. Had it stopped, or developed even a tad less power than it did, we'd have had absolutely nowhere to go.

Have the pilots been named yet? I've a horrible dread that the older one may have been someone I knew.

Vince, The pilot has now been named..

BBC News - Tributes to Salford death crash pilot Ian Daglish

Sad day indeed.. :(

I am deeply shocked - my worst fears confirmed.

Safeguarding is a red herring. It is divided into two distinct parts; officially safeguarded aerodromes and those that have tacit arrangements with the Local Authority Planners.

If you study the official list, it comprises mainly of previously government owned civil airports. It's quite a short list and so the majority of current licensed aerodromes aren't officially safeguarded. Add to this that safeguarding came in around the time of the second world war then the 'tween war semis of Peel Green fall out side this arrangement.

The flats, maisonettes and bungalows right on the 27 threshold step down only because the aeroclub made representations in the 60s about approaches and takeoffs.

I think the 'we were here first' argument will be self defeating. Better the 100s of thousands of safe takeoffs and landings over more than 50 years.

Sir George Cayley

Regardless of which was there first (the airport or the housing), general aviation is, generally speaking, regulated more to protect non-participants than participants. Rule 5 provides for this, but repeatedly (Barton, Biggin Hill, Southampton, most recently) does not work because pilots do not comply with it. The Authority doesn't prosecute, though, so that bit of the Rule is derelict and needs attention, either by way of prosecutions to make people comply, or by an acceptance that an aircraft which has suffered a power failure has some sort of 'right' to come to earth on someone's home...

I don't fly single-engined aircraft any more, but respect the opinion of a close friend who refuses to operate an SEP aircraft into or out of a number of aerodromes, including Barton, which he views as simply unsafe and, in respect of Rule 5, impossible to operate to or from lawfully.

What goes up must come down. Lockerbie, London Heathrow and the Hudson River involved multi engine aircraft.

Robin, Lockerbie was terrorism for heaven's sake! Heathrow was non fatal on an airport and extremely rare compared to engine failures in SEPs and the Hudson would just as easily have brought down a single or four-holer...

Dialogue by all means, but idiocy, no.

Nevertheless it is true that the last non aviation related ground fatality from a plane coming down is believed to be Lockerbie.

How do you work that one out?

There was this in New York in 2001:

American Airlines Flight 587 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think IO540 meant in the UK.

There was also that man struck and killed by a SEP attempting a forced landing on a beach in the US a couple of years ago IIRC, and of course the several Antonov that that have come down on crowded African townships in recent years.

There are some truly shocking posts on this thread. At best some are misinformed/dillusional at worst totally inappropriate. It worries me that I may have to share the sky with some of you - frankly it scares the cr@p out of me... My thoughts go to the survivor's recovery and comfort for the pilots wife, children and friends.. P

One last point.. How often do you "experts" practice efato and pfl's? In my experience the vast majority don't do it enough.. Next time it may be YOUR donker that goes quiet - not someone else's...

Ive had a major engine problem on climb out and got back in.. A truly frightening experience..

negligible threat to third parties
 

The truth is that, though light aircraft do pose a risk to those of us who fly them as the death of Mr Dalglish very sadly illustrates, they pose almost no risk at all to people on the ground and I can't remember a single case in the UK when someone on the ground not at an airfield was killed by a light aircraft.

By contrast cars, buses and trucks kill pedestrians in their hundreds every year. Unfortunately, the public perceive the virtually non-existent risk from light aircraft as far more serious than the all too real risk from road transport hence the the news coverage of the Barton accident banging on about what a " miracle" it was that nobody on the ground was hurt while almost ignoring the fact that the two people aboard the aircraft were at that time both in a critical state from which one of them has since succumbed.

This seems to be unique to the reporting of light aircraft accidents. I've never seen a report on a road traffic accident that said that someone was killed when their car left the road but miraculously no pedestrians were hurt so it seems that we are considered to be engaged in a rather dodgy activity that the public needs to be protected from. What we probably need are spokespeople who can make this point whenever a light aircraft accident "miraculously" misses every school, playground, hospital and care home within a three mile radius. Something that AOPA or the LAA should be considering perhaps?

My deepest sympahty to Mr Dalglish's family and my sincerest thoughts with the young passengar and his family.

May I humbly suggest starting a seperate thread for finger-pointing.

camlobe

Exactly.

This has been a tragic accident, but an accident nonetheless.

I've said it before, but I was always told that if the engine fails off 09 put it in the ship canal. A terrifying prospect, but an option.

BBC now saying the aircraft was on fire when airborne.

If true (and we all know about the "quality" of journos in the "must have a headline today" department) this is very worrying particularly in light of the latest regs from the cynical money grabbing Euro gravy train known as EASA (the "S" stands of "screw") which makes it difficult on a European registered (e.g. G-reg) aircraft to replace originally specified rubber hoses with like-for-like modern teflon replacements.

On an N-reg you can fit teflon hoses and most N-reg owners have done that. A Piper will be all-American and won't have any expensive ISO (metric) fittings which cause hoses to cost a few hundred quid. Most American-pattern Teflon fuel hoses, fireproof and tested to 1500psi) are about £70 and they have no degradation mechanism (in this application), have no inherent life limit, and on some aircraft types (e.g. my TB20) they are not life limited even in situ.

It will be interesting what comes out of this sad and pointless accident...

One last point.. How often do you "experts" practice EFATO (Engine Failure After Take-Off) and pfl's? In my experience the vast majority don't do it enough.. Next time it may be YOUR donker that goes quiet - not someone else's...

A very important part of remaining current, unfortunately the airfield operator prohibits such practice on some runways.....

2.33.3 Practice Engine Failures on climbout from Runway 09L, 09R and 14 are not
permitted.
http://www.cityairportltd.com/downlo...othandbook.pdf

Couldn't agree more. Another triumph of bureaucracy over safety.

IIRC though some of the Ravenair PA-38's are close to their wing life limit and I can't imagine the owners would want to spend more than was absolutely necessary to maintain them at this point in their life cycle. I'm not suggesting anyone's been cutting corners, but the incentive to invest in such upgrades on an aircraft that's close to the end of its structural life simply isn't going to be as great as it would otherwise be.

I think damage to houses generally is always newsworthy for some reason, especially local news - if a lorry, an aircraft, a flood or even a tornado damages a house, you always get an item showing the images. I think there's something deep down that terrifies people about the chance of being killed while being at home as against when they are out and about.

oh dear cant believe my post was quoted in the news. Yes im no expert, i was mearly mentioning what i thought when i saw the first images on that day.

To me it just appeared the pilot was attempted to find somewhere safe to land due to maybe aircraft failure, but at the time there was not alot of info on the disaster.

A sad event, I feel for the pilots. A crash is bad, burns are so much worse...

Stewmath,

Your being quoted would seem to be the action of over zealous, wreckless reporting. Perhaps in the context of "news" publications in England turning over a new leaf after phone tapping scandals, you should contact the offending publication, and ask for a retraction of your quote, citing the error they have made. I'm not suggesting this to put you on the spot, but rather to have that publication put on the spot. You were quoted, you're entitled to do that.

To have a news publication quote a "rumour network", without independently checking the authenticity of the information being reported, is totally irresponsible! If editors can loose jobs over phone tapping, should they not loose jobs for allowing un checked quotes from a rumour network on the internet?

See: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/Annual...s2010-2011.pdf

It was my understanding that pilots were essentially exempt from rule 5 (ie 500ft) when on climb out and approach as long as any published approach information and guidance is being followed. Nobody wants to come down on anyone's house and despite the best intentions of the pilot it is not always possible to comply with this rule in reality.

Whopity,

It depends upon your interpretation of when a takeoff ends and a landing begins... This would be down to the court.

Jez, I'm not aware that the CAA has prosecuted in case of takeoff and landing without ability to alight clear...

...and why would you need Teflon hoses if you are going to touch down gently in a suitable field..?

Your post implies that pilots at Barton are not complying with Rule 5.
You are exempt from Rule 5 during take off and landing.
I would always instruct students to turn into the circuit at a safe height, not to high that you are over Eccles, and not to low that you compromise safety.

Barton in itself is not unsafe, what is unsafe is pilots, visiting or based, ignorance of its' surroundings and short runways.
As for Barton being in breach of Rule 5, no more so than at it's big sister down the road.
As you approach 23R at Manchester you pass within within 500ft of some houses. Is this a breach of Rule 5 or am I landing?

As for practice Efato's at Barton, they have never been allowed off 09/14.
For very obvious reasons. But you used to see a string of Fanstops on a summers evening from 27.

On a final note, I did not know Mr Dalglish other than in passing, but my thoughts go out to you your family and the other gentleman still in hospital.

Sincere condolences to Mr Dalglish's family - my thoughts are also with the other passenger and his family.

'Other' passenger?

Anyone know how the passenger is? I heard on the grapevine that his burns were not as bad as the 60% reported, so hopefully he'll recover.

Don't worry about it Stewmath. But one has to be aware of the fact that the press are all over this forum like a 'nasty rash'. I have had two serious incidents in the past and the reporting was so inacurate that it was a farce. I have flown the press many times on long overseas tours and they are generally great guys. And, golly can they drink :ok:

Pilot DAR I take a completely different view.

The press have a responsibility to quote accurately - which they did.
They reported that the comment was made on this site - which it was.
They referred to this site as "a respected professional pilots website" - which it is.
The error they made was assuming that Stewmath is an "expert" - which he is most certainly not. In other threads in various forums, he has said he'd love to get a PPL one day, but that's a long way off because of the cost involved so he's looking into the possibility of gliding.

It was Stewmath who chose to post that comment on a public aviation website despite the fact that he has no aviation expertise whatsoever. Some might regard that as "over zealous, reckless" and perhaps even "totally irresponsible!" Others might just regard it as a silly thing to do.

Stewmath
I agree with Exascot. One has to be aware of the fact that the press monitor PPRuNe - because it is the leading aviation website. It's happened in other forums. Posters who've never flown an airliner in their lives, or no aircraft of any sort, sometimes see fit to post their opinions in R&N, PPRuNe's 'flagship forum. Unfortunately, such comments are occasionally quoted in the press.

Lesson hopefully learnt. ;)
On reflection, you may think that, at your stage, it would be wiser to read, learn and ask questions rather than post opinions.


FL

Respected Professional website is a bit strong. If it does what it says on the tin it's a "rumour" network. The forum a lot of "professional pilots" are using is in fact Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA as was Stewmath when he made his remark.

I would suggest that any Journo quoting this site is wrong to state professional.

The Press monitor places such as this because they are lazy plagarists and although Stewmath may have jumped the gun a bit I would hope he continues to contribute as opposed to being driven away by his "betters"

Not exactly. From my planning policy officers:
So, nothing tacit about this at all, it's all quite explicit. But you do have to ask to get that level of detail, not surprisingly.

The sad fact is that more often than not when incidents such as the one in question happen, the press do quote directly from Pprune, and more often than not they are quoting someone who has very little idea of what they are posting about - because those who are in possession of the facts generally know well enough to keep their opinions to themselves in the aftermath of the incident.

I'm all for personal freedom of expression, but in cases like this people should think long and hard, and then think again, before clicking that 'Submit reply' button.

I quite agree, but in accordance with normal aviation practice, Exercise 12 (Take-off) ends when established on the downwind leg and Exercise 13 (Landing) commences on the downwind leg!
In an emergency, anything goes, you do the best you can and land where you can, nobody is bothered about rules at that stage.

G the W

There are licensed aerodromes not officially safeguarded who choose not to enter into any discussions with their LPA as they think that keeping heads down and being nice is the way forward. And in some cases it might well be.

There are others that enter into formal agreements with their (willing) LPA and lodge a safeguarding map. This won't be signed by the CAA as Official ones are.

Circular 01/03 saw the demise of CAA involvement in day to day safeguarding and it was transferred to the licence holders of the OS aerodromes. A missed opportunity was to have persuaded John Prescott to make all licensed aerodromes safeguarded and then there would have been a level playing field.

On the semantics lets replace tacit with unofficial or mutually agreed, friendly, cooperative or formal basis. What ever you call it the call in process that applies to OS aerodromes could be difficult to follow if an LPA Committee went against a non safeguarded objection to an application on the grounds of air safety, which in effect is the end game of being OS.

If you glance out of Barton's VCR you can't help noticing the Salford City Reds new stadium. Its size and location are directly linked to the Aero Clubs reticence to object on safety grounds due to who there landlord was.

Two ps esses. Marshalls of Cambridge and Cambridge City Council. Little Gransden and Cambridge County Council. Is there a conclusion to be drawn in terms of scale?

Also, Public Safety Zones are not the same as safeguarding but is in the process of reverting from whence it came.

This Site is called the Rumour Network. There is no requirement for anyone to prove themselves on this Site to be anything other than interested in aviation. The obsequieous attitudes that exist in the UK in aviation in this country are archaic and foster an entirely false perspective about what general aviation flying is about - it is simply a hobby, no more than that. You are not required to wear hours like epaullettes and only hold an opinion if you have more hours than the person you are speaking to.
If a Journo quotes from this Site then he/she is a Nob and there is no reason for anyone - Lawyer, Airbus Pilot or gazillion hours PPL to get on their high horse about it because this is an open web site.
Best the high and mighty create a Site where they need to submit evidenciary proof of their manliness and rights to exist over and above those that may just harbour an interest in aviation. Perhaps you could call it the professional pilots network as opposed to rumour network?

I agree, that the press quoted accurately, and yes, it was on this site. "Respected professional pilot's website"? A stretch... but if "rumour" is included in there, okay.

However, I opine that it is not an "error" to (apparently to me) latch onto a statement, and quote it in a news publication (thereby bolstering it's apparent validity), when it would appear that there was no effective due dilligence in verifying and qualifying the source of the quoted statement for "expertise". An "error" would be mistaking "stewmath" for the well known and well respected senior pilot "stewman" (okay, I made that up, but you get the point). My experience is that errors in newspapers are retracted. This "more than just an error" should be.

Wreckless, and over zealous are not errors in the news reporting business, they are just what they are called. You can see an error, in that the person obviously made an effort to get it right, and still got it wrong. I think that a person of stewmath's modest (or unknown, 'cause I have no idea) knowledge being quoted as an "expert" goes beyond an "error".

Sorry you're the focal point on this one stewmath, no slam against you personally! You're in the middle of your 15 minutes of fame by circumstance, don't let it put you off PPRuNe. I think there is an expert professional around here somewhere, but most of us are just trying to do our bit to contribute, and spread good will in general aviation....