PA28 down Switzerland
 

PA-28 down in France
 

BBC News - UK pilot reported dead in Switzerland plane crash

UK Aircraft

This evenings local Blackpool paper states that the aircraft was returning to
Bagby where it had been hired from.
It was operated by Flybpl.com who have a base there.

ALLEGEDLY, if the rumours of the the PIC are correct, it will come as no surprise to the regular consumers of the AAIB bulletins.
ALLEGEDLY:sad:

Quite a good swimmer by all accounts.........

Let's leave the personal speculation until some reputable facts are established. It's tempting but would be morally incorrect to draw any parallels between this incident and a previous fatal incident involving a Blackpool based aircraft - totally different circumstances.

Do you mean the Breighton swimmer who recently had a small part on Helicopter Heros?

sorry old chap. Nothing was meant in respect to another BPL related fatal accident.
Some other posters appear to know the score though.

You would in all likelihood be correct John, although for the record madlandy, no link known of or inferred to any previous fatal accident- just previous swimming prowess..

River Derwent.

Appears the CofA ran out at the end of August according to G-INFO.

Okay, I'm intrigued, and simply nosy.

I recall that there was an accident which was reported to have been a "forced landing" on a river, beside an area of ground that looked really good for a forced landing.

Is there a suggestion that the PA 28 acciden of this thread, and that "force landing" are related to each other (same pilot)?

Just me trying to stay with the program here....

Utterly unbelievable.

From a local newspaper :
Le brouillard aurait-il causé le crash mortel d
An inn-keeper, a few hundred metres from the accident, heard an aircraft noise which appeared to be close, then a noise of broken branches and trees... He went out but could not find anything due to a solid fog ....

Pilot DAR,

See G-SACK on the AAIB site.

Same individual.

Lessons to be learned?:ooh:

Bagby, below Sutton Bank ?

One lesson that might be learned is that this is an indictment of the AAIB methodology.

Clearly AAIB isn't a court of law, and the intention is not to ascribe blame, but if they are nearly certain (if not absolutely certain) that G-SACK was being flown dangerously low along the Derwent when it either had an engine failure, or maybe just hit the water, then maybe saying so rather than just parroting the pilot's version of events might have cast enough of a question mark over the pilot to have prevented him flying again, and thereby saved his and his pax' life.

I am not criticising the AAIB inspectors, they are working to brief. I am questioning the brief they are given, which does not seem to be geared towards dangerous flying.

G-SACK
 

To be fair to the AAIB, they didn't just parrot the pilot's version; they also added a comment exposing the contradiction between his story and the available evidence.

Whether behind those contradictions there are rules being broken is a decision best left to the Authority, and there was nothing back then stopping the CAA from digging deeper and possibly prosecuting the pilot.

No worries, I'm glad to see that no-one has drawn any parallels to the one a couple of years ago. This particular incident sounds rather like CFIT in unsuitable conditions...

I know only what I read here (and the other thread) so only jump down my throat that far....

From what I see here, and from my experience with different pilot types, I will watch with interest for a future report to draw parallels between these two events.

For the purpose of this discussion, "flight", in the CFIT context, is presumed to be under the pilot's control (pilot had the ability to fly it differently (less risk) if they chose...). The "CF" part. Sounds to me from what I read here, both circumstances involved flight which was controlled to the point of contact with the earth (but I do not have "facts")

The "IT"part for into terrain = did the pilot hit the surface of the earth? Seems so in both cases...

That is a big parallel in both events (if it is indeed the case in both events)

Unsuitable conditions (and yes, I know what the writer of this phrase intended) do extend beyond just atmospheric conditions though - extends to pilot attitude, knowledge/choice of landing surface, or flying without a safe "out".

Poor pilot attitude could be an example of a poor condition, as would be flying an aircraft in a manner so as to make an adequately safe gliding landing not possible. (As I remember, that field looked really nice, beside the river Derwent in the photo!).

As I write this, I think further than just the two events associated here, there are so many others.... Anyone recall that recording of the communication between the Piper pilot and New York ATC, when that pilot decided to execute a beach landing not too long ago? Same theme in my mind....

In my past, I have encountered the pilot type which commonly gets labeled "cowboy". I have to admit to having some of those traits earlier on (now I have a job to do safely, including setting a good example!). Some cowboys are more so than others. I grounded one once, and have spoken sharply to a few others along the way. It's not often well received, but perhaps it adds one small observation to their "should I not be doing this? mindset".

For those pilots who can learn here (all of us I hope), Pilot attitude, and simply allowing your inner "scared" nerve to have a say, can save your and your pax life.

Unfortunately the AAIB rarely if ever link an accident with the pilot's history of previous fruitcake-type behaviour.

It's a pity because yet another trusting passenger has paid the price for this policy of silence.

And cowboy behaviour is rarely going to be a very isolated thing, in a particular individual.

It underlines the need for some care before just flying off with somebody. But thankfully this kind of thing is very rare in GA. Just as well, since there isn't much one can do if the said pilot moves around when renting, and nothing at all can be done if he is an owner.

What is less rare is crap maintenance...

Timothy

I am rather surprised at this comment coming from you.


I think their intention could be better described as "to not ascribe blame". The purpose of accident investigations is clearly set out in Annex 13 t the Chicago Convention 1948, which in Chapter 3 Section 1 says:

Blame and liability is for the courts to eventually determine (as I believe you well know!), while administrative action might be taken by the local civil aviation authority. If the pilot was careful enough to eliminate all the usable evidence, neither the courts nor the CAA would have had anything to go on, and the only available remedy would have been for plane owners and renters to be aware of this man's qualities before allowing him to fly their hardware. This is all moot now as he appears to have met his fate.

But in any event, I do not think I understand your point re. the AAIB.

Well, no. I think it's fair to say that intentionally putting oneself at risk (dangerous flying) might well end up in tears, so there is not much to learn from it, is it?

At the rodeo, cowboys ride solo. Inexcusable to cause another's death by lack of proper demeanor. If such is the case.

In a literal sense, yes, but in reality, to the pubic, the guy on the horse is a hero, or a villain/idiot, based on what they were seeming to do, and the outcome. Pilots flying recklessly, solo, or with pax, are still our responsibility as a community. We all get the black mark (and insurance impact) when something like this happens. It's up to all of us to deem it to be unacceptable at the early states, and demonstrate, and mentor better behaviour.

Insurance impact? In this case, I don't think so. If you don't have a CofA isn’t your insurance null and void?

Usually. It's just possible though that the ARC is in date but hasn't been updated on the GINFO database - rare but does happen. 1.5 months is a little long though!!

That's true, but the legal implications might depend on who was responsible for the lapse of the CofA.

I am not a lawyer but let's say that a renter (or the lawyer representing his estate) is able to convince a court that the renter could not have reasonably known that the CofA had lapsed. Then the owner/operator (the school?) will go down for the passenger liability.

In my renting days, no renter ever checked any of the aircraft paperwork.

This accident took place outside the UK, but in the UK there is no passenger liability unless pilot negligence is proved. In this case that would perhaps not be so hard...

Please do not infer anything from the CofA validity date on G-INFO, lest the press go off on one.

That date information on G-INFO is simply not reliable; a few years ago my own aircraft's permit renewal was not updated at all, and I know of several other similar instances just with regard to other aircraft of the same type, so I have no doubt it is not uncommon.

An EASA C of A is non expiring. In any event it must be carried on all flights together with a copy of the ARC so there is no excuse for not being aware!

Pilot named

BBC News - Switzerland plane crash pilot from West Yorkshire

It seems that Mr Osman was the pilot who in October 2010 ditched and sank in the River Derwent in North Yorkshire. I saw him interviewed on "Helicopter Heros" and remarked to my wife that I would never want to fly with him. I recall that he mentioned on that show a desire to be an airline pilot.

google him and there are lots of you tube home flying videos

A fine one

Feel free to flame me, but every flying school/club has an Ops manual (copy lodged with CAA??) and an authorisation process.

The Ops Manual at the school I worked at had a pre flight document checklist, which included all the airworthiness and insurance documents (as well as many others). When the PIC signed the auth slips/sheets he/she signed a statement to the effect that they are fully conversant with the Ops Manual (signature sheet and amendments up to date) and have carried out all the relevant checks and pre flight requirements.

PIC carries the responsibility into the air. If the school/club is operating correctly case closed.

I worked for a school which sent an aircraft up without a C of A and the school got done not the PIC.

But as it was up in scotland, the fine was less than the profit on the flights until it got picked up.

By virtue of Part 21 an EASA aircraft is obliged to carry its C of A or permit on every flight.

Under the provisions of Article 86 of the ANO a non-EASA private aircraft is required to carry its national certificate/permit on any international flight (Schedule 10(2)).

Article 52(c) of the ANO requires the commander of an aircraft to take all reasonable steps before flight to satisfy himself that the aircraft is in every way fit for flight.

It would be hard to imagine a scenario where you could convince a court that a renter could not have reasonably known that the C of A had expired because it would beg the question what reasonable steps had been taken to satisfy himself that the aircraft was fit for flight? If the paperwork is not available/the pilot failed to look at it how could it be said that all reasonable steps were taken and he/she was properly satisfied?

Renting in the US last autumn, the relevant documents were in pockets, to be checked.
I wonder if I've rented/flown the "No C of A" aircraft MJ refers to. I think I've usually taken them on trust in Scotland.

I still don't understand this concept of carrying the paperwork in the aircraft so that in the event that it crashes and burns the paperwork is lost.

I agree, but some court rulings (in the UK) have been rather perverse.

Taking the ANO literally, a PIC is strictly responsible for a long list of stuff, but people have still got off where the school (or the operator, if self fly hire) was poor at record keeping.

Graham Hill will inevitably be mentioned at this point....