Good grief, bose-x, have you been at the E numbers again?

MP: Thank you for relaying your tale of woe, it takes a brave man who admits his faults so publicly. Seems to me the tone of your original post wasn't at all "sorrowful" as Bose-X describes, but honest and forthright.

As for the fine and court costs, I agree with EnglishAl, I think it would have been far more productive for them to have mandated further training and possibly revoked your FI rating or reduced privileges until this had been done.

Other than short term financial hardship, I don't think the fine serves any purpose. Given that you admitted fault/guilt unconditionally to the CAA at first interview they could have avoided the costs of preparing and prosecuting the case; and arguably improved safety as well.

Safe flying.

I reckon that since getting a PPL at High Wycombe (and thus my 'licence to learn') I have, in one form or another experienced most of the elephant traps that there are out there for private pilots. We're all human and, after all "to err is human".

However, I was just a PPL, as opposed to a CPL FI employed by a flying school, and therein lies the rub; However much of a numpty the chap being checked out was, I think that it is reasonable to expect that a qualified flying instructor, based at a flying school on the edge of the London TMA, shouldn't allow him or herself to end up at Heathrow. Sad to say, but I think the contention by MP that it's all a bit unfair that the book got thrown at him, rather than the pupil (or bloke he was checking out), indicates that a state of denial still exists here, as to whose fault this bust actually was.

If you are P1, you are in charge - end of story. If you are an instructor and P1, there really is no discussion to be had. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, because I'm not, but events like these need to go through a 'truth and reconcilliation' process.

I think that there are also other peripheral elements to this tale which merit further discussion (such as why a training establishment would send out a new instructor with a paying customer, when he was not sufficiently familiar with the local area, to prevent him from ending up over Heathrow?) and maybe someone from Wycombe Air Centre or Cabair would like to comment?

To agree with heathrow director - you can obtain UK airspace KMZ files for Google Earth and it's a great way of relating permanent ground features to airspace (including ATZ,MATZ,etc)

While no replacement for a current map and NOTAMs, I found it very useful in the preparation of my navigation exercise. Be warned, the "true picture" from the air can vary greatly!

4 years ago on my first morning as an instructor at White Waltham the CFI (a top bloke :D ) took me for a familiarisation flight in the local area. It was very useful, as whilst I had flown through the area I had never operated out of it. All the local reporting points and landmarks were identified which gave me confidence for my first local lesson that afternoon. Granted I was not a new FI, as I'd been doing it part time for almost 2 years in deepest Essex and Kent, but it was very useful nonetheless.

New instructors need mentoring and guidance which a good school should provide, especially one located near the Heathrow zone or LTMA.

Having said all this, an instructor is a commercial pilot and must know his/her job, privileges and responsibilities. This unfortunate incident was probably caused by weak training of the instructor and/or a lack of assertiveness on his part.

You are the aircraft commander, take control!

At the risk of pedantry perhaps you might want to refresh your grasp of the English language.

Does not mean that the tone of the post was sorrowful, just the story itself.

If you want to quote people, don't do it out of context unless your intent was just malicious?

A salutory tale. I've flown with that guy, or one of his many cousins. Bummer the CAA was so tough on you.

When I got my first job the CFI warned the one that gets you isn't the keen but inaccurate student but the high hour PPL who seems to know what they are doing but then at some point later doesn't. He hads proven himself right again and again.

On the other side of the coin the level of training imposed in this country does mean that of the hundreds of people I have flown with theres only two I recall that I would not get in a plane with and I managed to spot them before I got in. One got a darwin award shortly afterwards. Now compare that to how many people you would prefer not get in a car with and you could conclude someone is doing a pretty job somewhere.

A risky tack that, for someone who doesn't know when to use "there" or "their"! :}

It is interesting those who dismiss the responsibilities of a PPL and laud the responsibilities of a CPL. If you are in command you are responsible, I don’t see the category of your licence has anything to do with it.

Following through that theme there are inexperienced PPLs and CPLs. It is more than possible a CPL will not have the breath of experience to consistently avoid making bad calls.

The law allows little discretion of interpretation. As much as there might seem merit in chastising the other pilot, the ANO does not recognise the other pilot as having any authority or responsibility in this scenario. The CAA would therefore be over stepping the mark were they to meat out any penalty on the other pilot. Perhaps there is more of a responsibility on the school to recommend that he avail himself of further training. I wonder if they did so.

In handing down penalties I think there is an argument for weighing up the causes of the incident. In my book a pilot with no instrument training who has read the TAFs and sets off in conditions where instrument flying is likely is negligent and should be dealt with severely. He has knowingly endangered himself and more importantly others. In the alternative, a pilot who properly briefs himself for a flight but becomes lost and is quick to take appropriate action has, in my view, committed a less heinous offence, because he has made a mistake that was not deliberate or caused by avoidable negligence.

It may be the case in this instance that the pre-flight brief fell below acceptable standards. If this were so inevitably you only have yourself to blame. On the other hand, if the pre-flight brief had been adequate and every effort had been made to maintain situational awareness but due to inexperience and inadequate training awareness was lost during the flight the offence in itself would seem less heinous along the lines erst while referred by others that to err is to be human.

The corollary is RTA. If you drive into the back of another car while on your mobile or drunk the penalty will be severe because you knowingly compromised your ability to safely drive the car. If, on the other hand, you were neither drunk or on the ‘phone and for no other reason than an inexplicable lapse in concentration allowed yourself to run into the other car the incident will be treated as an unfortunate accident.

Bose, I think for the reasons I have tried to set out your assessment may be too sweeping. Yes, we should expect a higher standard of flying from the average CPL if only because he has had to pass a more stringent flight test and endured further training. However, if the mistake arose because of a lack of experience and or training perhaps the instructor is less negligent that if he knowingly set off without an adequate pre-flight brief and without making every effort to maintain situational awareness throughout the flight.

Into which camp he fell I am not making any judgement, but I felt it was worth distinguishing between the two camps because whether we be ATPLs, CPLs or mere PPLs each is more than capable of screwing it up, it is just more difficult to excuse screwing it up in consequence of your failing to conduct the flight in a manner than could reasonably be expected of a qualified pilot.

Fuji, by his own admission he let the 'experienced' PPL get on with it. By this very admission he did not take his duty as commander seriously. I made no differentiation between PPL,CPL or ATPL that was other posters. What I did say is that as an Instructor, logging the hours as commander he had a responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight. His standard was below that required of an Instructor and a commander and as such he got into trouble.

I have sympathy with his lack of experience but do not feel that he was treated unjustly. I would however question the chain of command that allowed a naive and inexperienced instructor to get into such a situation.

Regardless of the level of licence that an Instructor rating is attached to that Instructor has to operate to the highest professional standard and understand that being in command is not just about getting hours in the log book it is about ensuring the flight is conducted safely and legally. The Instructor has an obligation to ensure that THEY are competent, qualified and experienced enough to undertake any flight they take on as commander. It is an Instructors duty to set the highest examples of professionalism and airmanship at all times. If they are not experienced enough then they must make this clear to the command chain and gain more experience before they attempt to put themselves into such a situation.

Bose

I support your comments 100%.

You get straight to the heart of the matter, but that is fair in the circumstances.

Like you, I was concerned at a tone of injustice in the OPs post, command is absolute and so is the accountability that goes with it.

What he said.

Although perhaps with a little sugar on top.

Bose

I was of course very careful to point out that I was not making a judgement into which camp this gentleman fell. On the basis of your assessment then clearly his preparation as commander fell well short of the mark. Given the various views expressed on this thread it is a matter for the poster to reflect on the cause of the infrigement, whether the punishment was just and whether any action might have been taken against the PPL.

Examples such as this illustrate some of the potential pitfalls I pointed out of mentoring. One can easily imagine a very similiar situation where an apparently experienced PPL asks his mentor to accompany him to a field in an ATZ with which he is not familiar. Under the mentoring scheme the PPL is Commander but, and this is the rub, legally or otherwise the probability is the PPL will derogate to the experienced mentor because in his mind that is why the mentor is in the right seat. Indeed the mentor may well have said - worry not, I am pretty familiar with that area leave the navigation to me!

Of course the CAA will prosecute the PPL in the left seat and the mentor will shrug his shoulders, but who is at fault?

Not a very good mentor then ;)

Fuji. This is not the appropriate place to discuss the mentoring scheme especially as you know so very little about it.

We are still setting up the scheme and both the MWG and IC are working together to make sure that Mentors know the limitations of the scheme and how to make sure no such confusion arises.

Bose - you can ignore AOPA's scheme as you wish as this is still work in progress but the point is generally valid whether the mentor is an AOPA appointee or just another PPL who reckons he knows what he is doing.

The point is whenever you place yourself in a position of being an instructor or a mentor in its most general context whether or not you are strictly in command there is a good chance the pilot in the left seat has already derogated some responsibility to you - you may not like it, or even be aware of it, but it doesnt make any difference.

I recall being in the middle of Germany with a mate who had done very little touring. When he got lost he was very quick to give me the stick and with a grin - its over to you now. I am sure you have been there.

If there is even a modicum of a chance that the pilot in command is relying on your skills it is well worth doing the job of the commander even if strictly it is not your responsibility.

Agreed Fuji. But this discussion is not about mentors.

Must be great to be perfect boys :}
Takes more balls to admit you have made a mistake than to moan at the person concerned :=
The OP referred to a mistake HE made, took it on the knuckles and learned, was BRAVE enough to tell us about it.......... we reward him with our excellent advice, what he SHOULD have done WHERE he should have done it, the reason WHY it should not have happened .... facts
it did, he got reprimanded, learned from the episode, informed us the great unwashed.....
what does he get?
A pile of !!!!e from folk with time on their hands to live on pPrune and offer great fireside advice.
He doesn't need it, the fact he has spoken about it reinforces that, maybe glass houses and stones should be reflected upon.......
"but for the grace of God go I"

jonkil :ok:

Ah right, now I understand, PPRuNe is just a confessional. It allows those who have done wrong to clear their souls and not have to expect any comment in return. Just a few hail mary's and job done!

Thanks for clearing that up Jonkil!!

bose-x, if the original post has served to help MagpiePedro explain his situation such that it will be a warning to others, then so much the better.

Not the first time you've waded in to rip the ears off someone who has had the honesty to report his less-than-ideal experiences to a wider audience......:(

Truly professional pilots encourage such candour and honesty.

Not arguing with that at all Beagle. Merely responding to the view that PPRuNe is some sort of confessional where you post your sins and do not expect a comment from others......................... If you only want a response that makes you feel better than perhaps the local church would be a better 'forum' for a confession.

I'd go with Jonkil on this one, Pedro was not asking foregiveness, nor a pat on the back.
I don't think he deserves quite so much of a kicking as he has had from the Utterly Infallible Sky God Supermen on here.
He got a kicking from CAA. He accepted it like a man. He had the balls to tell us about it in some form of warning, not that Utterly Infallible Sky God Superman needed a warning of course. It must be bloody wonderful knowing that your life has been & is going to be, so perfect, that you will never ever cock anything up, never make any mistake however small for the duration of your life.
If I have made any spelling or grammatical errors, please keep it to yourself because I couldn't give a flying :mad:.

Well i think there would be a lot more of this kind of thing if people had the balls to confess to something they had done and forget there pride, im only just about to do my ppl skills test and im sure I will be making mistakes over the next few years/many years. We are not robots!
You never make the same mistake twice!

And the person who articulated that view was... YOU!

Excellent debating skills, bose - take a Cabinet post.


MagpiePedro, thank you - publicly this time - on your honesty and self-awareness. Thanks also for posting this in PF rather than the Instructors forum, as this way you get the widest relevant audience.

I also think that your acceptance of blame is far more mature than some posters credit you for, and that your consideration of what your student did (or didn't) take away from the experience is not only valid, but shows a commendable long term view of how such experiences may give best benefit to everyone concerned rather than just the prime suspect. (Which in this case was quite rightly you, as you say.)

If, Magpie, you had ever attempted in this thread to duck your own responsibility as PIC, or minimise it, I'd have some sympathy with the criticisms, but you self-evidently didn't - as can be seen by those who read your posts properly.

Why is this important?

Because honesty like Magpie's must be encouraged, which will not happen if SkyGods leap in to hammer someone who has ALREADY confessed openly to their errors by telling them they were an idiot. They KNOW that already - they confess to others to minimise errors being repeated, as they always will be. Why else would they?

Those who don't confess (because, as a relevant example, they believe that bose will publicly ridicule them) will prevent others learning from their mistakes, and so those others may end up making those mistakes themselves before they can learn. With the obvious real world risks.

I'm still with Bose.

Yep, the OP did post here, but if you look at posts 8 and 12, there is tendency to gripe about the treatment handed to the PPL.

Reality is that this new instructor wasn't prepared and got caught out.

He was unlucky in the sense that his faux pas was pretty much as high profile as it gets and I really sympathise with that, for many of us have got away with things that were lower profile.

However, griping at the treatment of the PPL did sound like a little like transference to me as well and I thought Bose's original comments were fair, if direct.

If this is payback time for Bose, then he does stick his head over the parapet and he's big enough to fight his own corner, but in this instance he has made astute observations.

Magpie knows that without a doubt - as is scourgingly obvious from his original post.

His later point is that HE has had the lesson branded into him - but has his student? A perfectly relevant question to ask, I'd have thought we should all agree.

It takes ba**s for many people to admit their mistakes. It may be a bit easier when the post is anonymous, be it on here or CHIRP.

So he made a mistake. In my earlier post I was expressing my opinion on how we as a society assess the seriousness of mistakes. I gave the example of the guy running into the back of a car due to inattention, contrasted with the same accident caused by the driver being on his mobile or even drunk. Most of us would happily slate the second driver in the way some are suggesting Bose is doing, but would be far more forgiving in the first instance.

The poster has had the courage to admit his mistake. The general lesson that if there is any chance the other pilot has derogated responsibility to us we had better measure up to that responsibility is a good lesson and one terribly easy to overlook in many circumstances.

I think in this case Bose is suggesting that an instructor has less excuse than most for making this mistake. I think Bose is suggesting that an instructor who is being paid for his services should reasonably be expected to ensure the flight does not infringe CAS. A mistake it is, but if Bose’s assessment is correct, however harsh, I think he is simply making the point that it was a reasonably serious mistake and one which was difficult to excuse – a view which doubtless the Court also took.

This thread, like any other, is a debate about the issues. I don’t think it is a matter of slating this pilot, nor I would hope is it about any of us being holier than thou, but there would seem to be some merit in discussing how you can end up being totally responsible for the flight when you thought it was down to the other guy and when this happens whether the precursor were mistakes that were serious enough to be on a scale with the driver on his mobile, or were due to momentary inattention, or somewhere in between.

In short lets not polarise the debate into another thread in which we slate each other but have a more interesting discussion about how the command process works in a single pilot aircraft where there are two pilots in the front and if you wish an assessment of whether the mistakes made by this instructor were more or less excusable.

I'm not sure that I would have posted the initial thread as, if my understanding is correct, whilst the courts have rendered a fine, the CAA have not finished with magpiepedro yet.:bored:

MP, you should have told the CAA that you were not P1 and quoted the PPrune posts last year were quite a lot of the self appointed experts on here were adamant that if you were engaged on a check ride as an instructor with a qualified pilot you could not be P1, funny how none of them have picked up on this!

Also not mentioned is that you could have brought down a public transport flight with disasterous consequences, I wonder how the 'experts' would have viewed your incursion then?

Your conviction will shew on a CRC check, so I would be very suprised if any major airline would employ you and I speak as a retired ex management pilot. If you were involved in an incident with an airline and your prosecution came to light it would not look very good for that company would it?

The commader is decided before flight but the role of commander needs to be understood at a much earlier stage as this incident proves.

My 2 Cents....
 

This doesn't sit with me well - but Bose has it here.

Yep - MP screwed up and yes, he knows it. But he also has commented on the fact that he feels the CAA should come down his 'student'. Nope....sorry, but that is MP's responsibility.

As has been pointed out many times this was, I believe, single crew - there is no P2 function and even if there was it would be entirely at the behest of the aircraft commander (MP) or 'company' (the school) to insist on whatever corrective action (punishment) they felt necessary.

As commander, MP is responsible for the safe and propper conduct of the flight and from a commercial point of view he has a responsibility to his customer (the other pilot) to ensure that learning points are, well, exactly that. Sad fact, but the customer has paid to be 'watched' to ensure he could conduct a flight safely. MP failed in this respect.

PPP,PPP

Sad, yes.
Ballsy to admit the original error, yes.
Naive to expect anyone to share the blame? very much so!

Need to read the thread a bit more careful next time. I picked upon this in post #5 and the OP responded that he was P1 as per club rules (post #8), and had signed the aircraft out as such (post #1).

In general, on a club mandated club check with a pilot who is otherwise legally current (including the 90-day rule), both the "student" and the "instructor" could legally claim P1, but not simultaneously. So you've got to decide before the flight who is (and gets to log) PIC/P1. At least, that's what I remember from the discussion here a while ago.

In this particular case, the decision seems to have been preempted by club rules. Fair enough. Case closed.

"If my understanding is correct, whilst the courts have rendered a fine, the CAA have not finished with magpiepedro yet.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wbored.gif"

How so?

SB

Definitely a 'beam me up, scotty' moment.

On the path of life we all have lessons to learn.

If we are lucky we get away with a close shave.

In this case you bought the ticket. Worse things happen; bag the experience and move on, ignore the detractors.

MagpiePedro , everyone has a 'brain in neutral' moment when flying , some get killed , some get a scare , some get fined and some get away scott free and keep it to themselves.

There will always be 'Sky Gods' who have never done wrong (never admit to it) who will put the boot in.

Keep critcising yourself and sharing , that's how we all learn.

I'll bet you will never be a sit back and relax PIC again , good lesson learned.

Not wanting to bring the thread into a wannbies type bitch fest.

I noticed that the poster said they were integrated trained.

How much experience did you have prior to this event in planning and executing your own flights outside the training environment of your course?.

Its not intended as a derogatory remark I know that you guys are trained from the outset with RHS something sexy in mind. I presume every flight you do is in the course syllabus with no latitude for spur of the moment. I also presume as well every flight will have been checked by an instructor and signed off as you don't get a license until you have finished the whole lot.

Would it be fair to say that this is one of the few flights you have been PIC on that nobody has doubled checked what you have planned, exam flights excluded.

Maggie did well to post that. What an experience!

Obviously one lesson to be learnt is that the impression one might get of a pilot's experience (from conversation) might be bull!!!!!, and in this GA business which is full of Walter Mitty characters, a lot of what one hears is indeed just that. Quite a bit of it not a million miles away from these forums, either. I used to rent out my TB20 and was astonished at some of the types I came across then, and more since, and oddly enough the worst happened to be certain instructors.

The other lesson is that one has to avoid the "experienced pilot" syndrome. In GA, single pilot, there will always be some ambiguity as regards who is really PIC - even if legally the situation may be clear. I've got vastly more touring experience that almost any PPL instructor I have ever met and I am sure I could go up for some check or renewal flight with any local instructor and sail straight into CAS while the instructor would be pretty relaxed, and if this was in a G-reg then he would be PIC by default and would get busted for it.

I am N-reg and under FAA rules the "student" is PIC (in US airspace on the privileges of the FAA Student Pilot Certificate) and in general terms this remains the case in UK airspace too, so the scenario is more ambiguous there because in most N-reg flying instruction done outside the USA the "student" is actually legally capable of being PIC.

Reading many accident reports, sometimes between the lines (the AAIB has to be careful what they write) it is obvious that a lot of bad decisions are made in this way. I have never had a scary flight myself but my only spectacularly bad weather decision to date (which resulted in having to fly an ILS into Biggin through the bottom part of a very dark CB) was made when I was flying as a PU/T with a supposedly highly experienced instructor. One well publicised recent 2x fatal in the USA had both pilots with tens of thousands of hours between them and they still did a CFIT - equipment failure excepted, it is likely that each assumed the other knew what they were doing.

Finally, I am suprised the CAA prosecuted in this case. Maybe they wanted to make an example of it? Who knows. They are a bunch of ex policemen and thus sometimes work in mysterious ways. Normally, if you have the "correct attitude" (grovel like hell at the interview) you get away with a CAS bust. They tend to prosecute high-media-profile TRA busts, and most of all they love prosecuting alleged illegal public transport (usually reported to them by a nearby AOC holder ;) ).

Next time, fly with a GPS ;) The student doesn't need to see it, of course. I would never fly anywhere without a GPS - I prefer to sleep at night and life is too short.

I'm with bose. Writing about the experience here is great, trying to transfer some blame to the student - plain wrong. Read the first page posts again if you doesn't see this.

Firstly, I'll state I'm NOT a pilot, Sim-er (well, crashing RC heli's doesn't count? :} ) nor am I a walt.

Were I in a position to be under instruction....even for a "check-ride"....I would like to think that my "instructor" started from the absolute basics.

As Duchess Driver referenced, PPP PPP.

I'd like to think my planning, preparation (including a PROPER walk-round) and ensuing performance were ALL included in the appraisal for which I was paying.

Some years back, I was Hon Boatswain at a local sailing-club. I maintained inboard and outboard fast and slow rescue-boats which all members did a duty-rota maintaining.

ALL persons "driving" had recurring assessments, from launching the rowing-dinghy, to padlocking the Rescue-Boat back on it's moorings.

I always picked up some pearl of wisdom from these training exercises and would have felt cheated, if the instructor/examiner had taken a passive role and just signed my log.

Re, the" inexplicable" motor-accident scenario......you would be prosecuted for DRIVING WITHOUT DUE CARE AND ATTENTION. in all probability.

Hitting another vehicle is always due to a mistake. if the grim reaper doesn't punish you, the Law or insurance company will.

Magpie- hope you are now more assertive!