I agree with you 912ul, and my comment about FL's post stems from what you are describing. In a court room I would obviously have full respect for who he is and his vast experience, but on an anonymous rumour network my respect for him is the same as for anyone else. In my opinion, FL's comment about Stewemaths post was one step to far, but of course I should have known who FL was and kept quiet.

There's no such thing as Cambridge County Council. There is a Cambridgeshire County Council, but it's (mostly) not a planning authority.

As ever, if you don't like your council you can always vote for someone else.

When it is known that posts made on this forum are sometimes quoted in the wider media claiming to represent the GA community at large, then those making those posts need to take care with what they say.

What concerns me about this is that Joe Bloggs who has nothing whatsoever to do with GA may now think that it is normal practice for pilots to go looking for the nearest 'wide and long' road when their engine goes.

Pilot DAR:

Stewmath doesn't hold a pilots licence of any sort and never has.
He hopes to obtain a PPL some time in the future if/when he can afford to do so.


H.

Whether Stewmath has a licence or not is completely irrelevant. This Site does not require you to validate your credentials as having anything other than an interest in aviation.
This Site is a typical example of the stereotypical attitudes that exist in aviation in the UK. Too many people have an over inflated opinion as to their own value, the value and relevence of their postings and what it really means in the wider world.
Anyone on this Site can have an opinion about anything because the rules allow that. No one who is a normal member of this Site has a right to stifle or moderate postings by other Members and Members stay Members as long as they abide by the T&Cs of the Site.
Once again - credentials are NOT required and have NEVER been required and anyone is entitled to speculate about anything because this is a Rumour Network. If any Jouno quotes from this Site then they are just stupid and at the end of the day - so what?

Well said 912.

Anyone who has flown an aircraft will know that a domestic road never looks wide enough to land on! In an emergency, any hole that you can put the fuselage into is fair game however, pilots instinctively try to avoid buildings because they are big and hard, and all to often the aircraft takes charge leaving them no choice! Airspeed is everything until impact.

I can see where FL is coming from but I think his post is much over-simplified.

The press has a duty to not only blindly report what they read elsewhere but to do due diligence on the source.

To quote a pilot forum is no better than to run a piece on the level of teenage drug addiction by quoting threads from Mumsnet. Or by trawling Faceb00k where kids open their innermost souls to the whole world, especially the dumb ones which don't know how to secure their profile.

The press is for the most part of poor quality. In cases where one happens to be familiar with the background, the reporting is usually found to be so far off it is laughable. In the 1980s I did a few slightly dodgy but highly provocative things with an XR3i (wheelspins, etc) and the resulting court case (in which a policeman should have been jailed for perjury, but hey those were the good olde dayz before the CPS came along, when you could "teach a lesson" or three and generally take the p*ss, where the chairman of the bench has been picked up for speeding in front of the Beechams factory entrance but let off when he openly told the copper who he was) was misreported in the local rags so badly I considered suing them but a solicitor told me I would only get a few k and an apology - IF I had a transcript of the case which obviously I did not. I still have the full-page article here :) I have seen this crap reporting over and over. Local-rag journos are the lowest of the low (for the most part they don't give a damn what they write) but some of the big ones like the Daily Mail are not much better.

Then you get the people who write on this and the other pilot forums. If you read the place regularly, and you are pilot yourself, you get an idea of who knows what they are talking about, but journos are not going to do that. Most just dive in when there has been a crash, to see what copy they can harvest. As any university lecturer will tell you (my GF is one) plagiarism off internet sources is the absolute norm these days.

Then you get people on here who write apparently good stuff but actually they make it up as they go along. They can be very hard to spot. A really keen simmer can talk very convincingly - for quite a while.

Then you get people on here who do walk the walk allright but they have an axe to grind. Most people who work in aviation have an axe to grind in certain issues e.g. instructors, airline pilots, ATCOs, maintenance company owners, etc. Most of these have a lot to contribute on specific issues within their expertise but when something goes badly wrong and the direction of blame is fairly apparent, a lot of rank-closing takes place. All the regulatory/enforcement/control/military types tend to close ranks faster than you can type a sentence; it is a centuries-old tradition.

Everybody is learning continuously in this game and we have to be patient with novices. PPL training is mostly still steeped in WW1 and does not prepare anybody for seriously flying from A to B in the modern context. All pilots I know who fly seriously have learnt most of what they know from other pilots, and in the last decade or so off the internet. Pilot forums are not what they were 10 years ago (a general decline across the board on quality internet participation) but they are still the #1 information resource for pilots hoping to progress. Just because somebody doesn't have a PPL yet should not disqualify them from posting here. There are people on here with much bigger qualifications who don't have those qualifications, or don't have them until years later.

Lack of anonymity is no solution. It just makes for a banal shoe-licking site where matters like flight in icing conditions, effects of icing, weather strategies, you name it, cannot be discussed, which drastically reduces the value of any such site. Making it a "private forum" is pointless since anybody can pay up and join and read all past posts, and then threaten to sue, etc. I've seen that too. When the owner of one such forum asked me to change my ID to a full name I said OK but only if he deletes all my postings to date. He backed off. And anyway nothing stops somebody making up a name; I know of people posting on the Socata owners site who I know personally, whose name is unusual enough, and who just call themselves Smith or whatever. The most educational posts cannot be posted under a real name.

I have deleted my original post, my apologies if i caused any problems

Is it any wonder UK General Aviation gets shafted by every conceivable regulatory body imaginable - I mean we virtually, lie down, roll over and ask for it.

Here we are on an unregulated, rumour inspired, forum and people who should know better are doing their damnest to stifle others, moderate posts because of "perceived issues" and generally add their perception of forum "regulation" where there is none wanted or needed.

This is why GA is so much in the doldrums in this country - we virtually ask to be regulated to death and those in heirarchy do their utmost to make sure those of lesser aptitudes suffer even greater regulation - for our own good of course.

Stewmath has now deleted his perfectly acceptable post. It did not infringe any part of the T & C's of this Site yet the senior posters have cyber bullied him into retraction. The fault was not his - it was the lunatic journo. Stewmath had every right to post what he did and no one on this Site had a right to bully him. Just who is out of order? Certainly NOT Stewmath - is cyber bullying under the guise of thinly disguised criticism allowed in the T&C's of this Site?

As 912ul says:
They are still going to make up the usual "hero pilot struggled with the controls to miss the school" cr@p without any encouragement - or knowledge.

Perhaps the site should also contain a warning to journalists about the potential inaccuracy in quoting from it - but then, they probably don't care.

stewmath - take no notice, nobody will remember what was written in that rag by the day after.

2 s

Was going to comment, but the following
applies to anybody with plenty left to learn, like me.

So best I keep quiet :oh:
Damn, was that an opinion............................. ?

@9ul and 2 sheds

Its ok guys :)

Cheers for your support

Can anyone confirm the reg of the Tomahawk involved in this tragedy?

Was it this:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...6NK/G-BGEL.jpg

Later registered G-RVRF?

I feel badly for stewmeth that he/she is the poster child for a quote run amok, but stuff happens. Fortunately for stewmeth, the passage itself, was (as has been pointed out) very benign, and as such stewmeth has nothing to feel badly about. It's the journalist who bears responsibility on this one.

When I first started participating here, I took very seriously the words in red at the bottom of the page. PPRuNe was my first (and so far only) participation in such forums, so I really did not know the etiquette. Those words remain very wise.

Regulation:

I am told it was Douglas Bader (a fellow who knew lots about flying) who said:

"Regulation is for the guidance of wise men, and obedience of fools."

Now I'm now calling anyone here a fool, but I have come to learn that the "common masses" seem to expect everything that they think is potentially unsafe, or difficult to understand, to be regulated by somebody. I believe that this is entirely reactive, as regulation seems to suddenly be needed after something has gone wrong.

If we prevent things going wrong without regulation, there will be less regulation, or at least less enforcement....

There is two schools of thought on that. One of which is that he would have still had his legs attached if it were true.

To be honest stewmeths comment could have very well be true if there was nothing else going.

Stew dinna worry. It was an opnion that an experenced pilot could have held if they saw what you did. The unfortunate thing is the more experence you have the more you realise to not voice those opnions because as soon as you stick you head up and do, then everyone else takes great joy about shooting them down.

I believe that's absolutely ok and makes the discussion a bit more dynamic and fun, but I have identified two different type of contributors.

One type that use facts and good reasoning to prove their point and another type that spend an awful lot of time to describe to others how extremely experienced they are and use this perceived experience in an attempt to stifle others.

So true.....

Any news from the hospital?

Sir George Cayley

I doudt it with 60% burns they are touch and go for about a month until they can get some skin grafts on.

At any point they can get an infection and thats it in the space of a couple of hours.

I did a 4-day first aid course some years back, and the man giving it was from WYMAS. When we were discussing burns he said that for adults, if the sum of the age and percentage burnt is 100% or more the outlook is very grim - it also depends where the burns are, and if the airway and lungs are affected. So, sadly, it was no surprise when the older man died. The younger man is 20 with 60% so his chances are much better, but it will be a long haul and will affect him for the rest of his life. :(

@Shaggy Sheep Driver

I don't think so, I'm sure I heard "romeo mike". So it would be G-RVRM.

Airbus38

Calling for restraint?
Asking folks not to make reckless statements which can lead others to believe something which isn't true?
You're a brave man to do that in this thread.

You might get away with just being accused of cyber bullying and trying to stifle discussion but if Intercepted sees your post you'll probably be treated to a load of abuse as well. :rolleyes:
I saw his posts before the Mods took action.


912ul
It's not an unregulated forum. It's moderated.

Airbus38,

I appreciate what you are saying but I most certainly did not get this information from any random photo being released with a news report.

As I mentioned earlier, I recall somebody coming into the office where I was getting my exam marked, and telling my instructor that Romeo Mike had gone down in smoke near the runway.

As the only Ravenair operated Tomahawk that I am aware of with a registration ending in RM is G-RVRM, my assumption was a reasonable one.

Of course, it may well be the case that I am mistaken in what I remember, due to the shock of seeing what I did. But I'm pretty sure it was Romeo Mike.

A key aspect of this accident is whether the plane really was on fire when airborne.

There are really only a few things which can cause that.

There is clearly a balance here; on the one hand no one should feel 'cyber bullied' or flamed or whatever for posting something that while one may not agree with is not ostensibly offensive and/or potentially damaging if the press report it. Certainly all stewmath's post may have prompted from me would have been a chuckle if the incident it referred to wasn't so serious and tragic. The debate about whose fault it was for appearing in the press seems largely academic since as we all know we should aways expect poor editorial standards from newspapers in general in this regard.

However we should still be CONSCIOUS of what we are posting and how it could be read or reported...for example the suggestion that 'so and so aircraft may have been involved' and that 'so and so aircraft had an expired CofA'...what if the press reported that?

How do you think someone from Ravenair or whoever was responsible for the aircraft would feel if they saw that suggestion reported in the press and it wasn't true? People just need to think a bit more before posting sometimes.

I've been thinking the same thing. The electric fuel pump would likely have been 'ON' for takeoff & the consequences of a major fuel leak are obvious.

The prospect of being in a cockpit filled with burning fuel is truly horrendous. Though not involved in any way, reading about this accident has disturbed me more than any other I've heard of and I'm struggling to find words which do justice to the emotions I'm feeling. Heartfelt condolences to anyone directly affected.

Have to agree. This one also got me thinking more than most we read about. Probably because it appears to involve the worst nightmare we all have - fire on board.

Sincerely hope the chap makes a full recovery.

Thats not going to happen with 60% burns

Simon Weston was less than that.

I have reread my posts on the burns subject an I seem to be quite harsh.

I have come to the conclusion that if I do start flying avgas machines again in any amount of hours I will be getting some fire retardant clothes for the purpose. The old Instructors uniform of a pair of primark chinos and cheap white shirt really does absouletly nothing for you and in the case of the cheap white shirt will proberly make matters worse when it melts into your skin. Something which I have experence with when I brushed up against a pitot tube while doing a first flight while it was on, resulting in a 2" by 3" second degree burn on my shoulder which all the skin got ripped off removing my shirt.

You would be better off being slightly proactive on the maintenance of the next spamcan you get into, perhaps asking when they last changed the fuel hoses ;)

I have read some accident reports involving fires and IMHO all were totally preventable.

One horrible one occured on a homebuilt, of a type well known for using rigid ally fuel plumbing under conditions of vibration, and the tube eventually cracks. Certified planes are a lot better built in this respect but if the rubber hoses are 30 years old, or been removed and refitted several times...

Funny that that attitude really doesn't prevail in GA despite the rare but nonetheless obvious fire risk in light aircraft, in fact I've read comments on here ridiculing the wearing of flight suits for example in non-aerobatic aircraft.

What sort of fire retardant clothes would you get? Something made from leather or Nomex?

Just good quality cotton will be way ahead than most.


If you google aero-ist clothing they have some good stuff

If I was working full time in avagas machine I would wear nomex. But its not cheap.

And another note my flight bag now has a pair of proper fire gloves ack the same ones that we have in the cockpit commercially in it.

MJ I'm pleased you mentioned the wearing of cotton clothing which should be pure cotton rather than polycotton as the polyester melts. Pure wool is also good as wool is not easy to ignite. How many people bother to make any mention of suitable clothing to their passengers? About a year ago I took a friend on her first flight in a light aircraft. When she asked me if there was anything she needed to do I suggested that she wear the sort of items I have just mentioned but let her know that it was a purely precautionary measure in case of the unlikely event of a fire. She saw the sense of this and had a great time - her words.

One material not to wear in an aviation environment is nylon.

In a fire it can cause major skin damage, as known and advised by the RAF. Even our aircrew watches which originally had a nylon strap, were suppiled with a leather "under strap" to protect the skin.

At least one major UK supplier of so called "flying clothing" (they provide free catalogues in aviation related magazines) sells 100% nylon copies of US military style nomex flying jackets. These are fashion items only and should be banned in aircraft, imho. In a previous job (helicopter SAR) I was provided with a similar one in blue, but I refused to wear it on safety grounds.

I was later justified after one of our crewman was burned whilst wearing one on a rescue job. Basically, it melted on him and began to shrink wrap him in scalding hot plastic. We got proper Nomex jackets after that.

@Shaggy Sheep Driver

I don't think so, I'm sure I heard "romeo mike". So it would be G-RVRM.

This website is reporting it as RF

ASN Aircraft accident 29-JUL-2011 Piper PA-38-112 Tomahawk G-RVRF

Pity if it was RM as I always found that the nicest one of the fleet to fly, not that that matters a jot compared to the tragedy affecting the crew and those close to them.

And the same goes for hi-viz vests :eek: !!

Some very good points here about the wearing of suitable fire retardent clothing in light aircraft, in contrast to some of the shameful rubbish that this thread contains

My view is that if you really expect your plane to burst into flames at any time, you should stay on the ground.

Wearing fireproof clothing will do you sod-all good when the cockpit fills with fumes, which will prob99 happen long before you get any flames. Are you going to wear a hood with an air bottle on the back of it as well?

Planes don't just catch fire in the air on a routine basis. On the extremely rare occassions they do that, it is normally the result of shameful maintenance practices (assisted by the equally shameful European regulatory regime which for the most part sells job creation under a "safety" wrapper), and occassionally (on non-CofA planes) the result of stupid design.

No, they don't. But if this discussion serves to send at least some of the 'nylon pilot shirt plus hi-viz vest' brigade thinking and realizing that they are effectively wearing a shrink-wrap, then this is a good thing.

I don't know if you've ever seen a serious burn victim close-up. I have - trust me, it's not a pretty sight.

IO540, no need to be patronising or sarcastic. Nomex isn't fireproof, it's flame resistant; it doesn't melt in a flash fire. Nylon and other synthetics can do so.

No, I've never felt the need to wear a smoke hood. I would carry out the fumes in the cockpit drill, jettison my cockpit door if necessary then land after a sideslip descent, asap. In any case, a smoke hood is no good if you cannot see out of it, blinded by smoke.

My employer provides polyester based uniform items. I usually wear my own, more expensive woollen based trousers instead, and a pure wool jumper of my own choice over my shirt.

One further thing I would feel more comfortable with is a protective helmet with a double visor. Unfortunately it would possibly make the passengers feel insecure, so we don't wear them in our specific line of work.

These are personal choices based on risk assessment of the environment I fly in and referring back to previous accident reports and from my own personal experiences.

No such intention; it's just my rapid writing style :)

But I stand by the words of what I say. I wouldn't climb into some old heap like that. On my plane, I know the hoses are tight, are Teflon, firesleeved, 1500 PSI tested. Actually I sourced them myself from Saywells and assembled the flow totaliser plumbing myself (prior to inspection by an IA obviously) with the correct sealants and correctly torqued. The whole lot is inspected with a torch on every preflight; one can just see the fuel hoses through a gap underneath.

OK, I realise that instructors, not to mention PPL students, have little choice but to fly in all kinds of junk which they cannot visually inspect under the cowling, but data shows it is still very very rare to get an in-flight fire, especially one which penetrates the firewall and extends into the cockpit.

You are more likely to get a mid-air collision. A couple of those a year...

A good point about "commercial pilot" clothing. I had a look at this recently (because one of the non-UK JAA IR options I looked at mandates the wearing of the full Col Gaddafi uniform despite the temperatures down there; they even suggested I wear four bars because I already have a CPL, hey ho) so cotton is desirable, but seems hard to find. I thought that buying a white shirt and black trousers from a normal shop might be the easiest way to get cotton.

If I do pursue that IR option I will delight in setting fire to the nylon when I am done so I will be able to report on how well it went. Might even put it on Youtube :)