Reading that it comes across a lot better than the TV clip.

Even the Biggles statement doesnt sound so bad.

The guy obviously thought he was in a mess and what would his childhood hero have done.

Often films or books read or viewed as kids sow the seeds for future passions and Biggles must have been a big inspiration to many pilots flying today.

I hope he doesnt give up flying but does take stock and learns from this experience. I also hope that he gets some coaching in flight planning and management especially regarding checking his fuel and reserves before taking to the air again

Pace

Anyway, some good news for all those "he is not a good pilot because he flys a plane that is lighter than a tin can" (just in case you think i am biased, I fly a 200mph tin can and have not owned /flown a microlight for years) He has recently ordered an brand new absolutely beatifull twin lycoming I0360 pusher powered air Taxi to provide comercial flights around the UK. so really he is one of us, not just a microlight pilot!! :eek:

I still love him to bits though!!

C42 intrigued ? who makes a brand new piston pusher powered twin suitable for AOC work? I know there was one built for rough strips?

Pace

OK, just to summarise and make sure I've followed this: He was flying from Barrow, and during this flight he caused some issues round EDI - did he infringe CAS? Then later he noticed he was low on fuel, and while attempting to divert the donk quit and he ended up doing a forced landing onto a golf course and the best place he could find to land was on top of a tree as recommended by Biggles? Which he approached at 70kts?

Looks like some dodgy journos from a certain Weegie rag of questionable quality have cottoned onto this thread...

Golf course crash pilot blasted as 'complete idiot' by internet pilots - The Daily Record

Careful what you are all saying folks...

Smithy :suspect:

Captain Smithy

A good lesson to us to beware about what we do say without knowing the facts.

Only the pilot knows really what happened and there is no saying that he has disclosed all those facts.

ie why take to a tree? was he trying to glide to a clearing beyond?
Was the tree density too great to get enough landing distance on the ground below? We dont know but we mock what we percieve.

Strangely his Biggles technique for landing in dense forest is correct and based on water landing apart from the gear.

His 70kts I guessed was his glide speed not his impact speed into the trees

Again I stress that I hope he continues in aviation but does really consider the mistakes which are fact and gets those gaps filled in preferably with an instructor.

Finally from this press report is the last line which should be the approach we all use with the so called press in any situations we get in ourselves and which he should have used earlier.

Pace

As i understand it, he did recognise he was low on fuel and landed at a small airfield to get fuel but none was available so he took off again heading to a bigger airfield to get fuel, which i also understand he did a go around for reasons only he will know. after that is when the fan stopped

i have seen the pictures of this twin, its new and looks superb with a sort of loading bay at the back. cant remember its name though

Unsurprisingly, the brain-dead journalist who 'wrote' the piece managed to attribute at least one quote that was about a totally different pilot as being about the guy in the tree. They never cease to amaze me - can't even get a copy and paste job right. Yes, journalist sponging stories off the board, I mean you!

Kat,
THANK YOU.
That was my post that was totally misquoted and said it was about the incident pilot when it wasnt. I have deleted it now in case any other 'journalistically challenged' junior reporters also misquote me.
I saw the light with the Daily Record in 2001 when they ran a centre spread about how MS Flight Sim 2000 (then) was a threat to security and showed their reporter 'flying' into skyscrapers on his pc. They regarded it as a training aid for terrorists.
Makes the Daily Star seem like a good read.

CRX.

Pace,

A well balanced view which I think is fair in the circumstances. It is far too easy to leap to conclusions based on snippets of hearsay information. The Biggle story was perhaps the best way to explain to laymen (journalists).

All said and done, regardless of how and why he ended up making a forced landing he did walk away unscathed with no loss of life or damage to property. For this he must receive some credit. We will never know whether this was an ill judged mistake - that worked out well. Or a well reasoned and skilful approach into a tree where the pilot quickly assessed all the risks before using his expert handling skill to bring the aircraft to rest.

If you are ever going to hit a tree it is better to do so in the canopy then atthe base - Some years ago, I had the misfortune to witness a performance sports car disintegrate on colliding with tree. There was nothing recognisable after the accident and the tree - largely unscathed is still there! The gretest risk is perhaps that having landed 40ft up the aircraft then slips out of the tree - its not the fall that kills you but the sudden stop at the bottom. Ouch.

As the pilots wife explianed " my husband is an adveturer - planes, cars and motorbikes. He loves them all...." and no doubt his insurance premiums have just gone up.

We need characters like this to remind the rest of us how to do things properly - otherwise nobody would believe that it mattered.

Wow, reading through this thread, I am beginning to believe that Biggles was't real, perhaps even just a fictional character.

Looks like I may have to review my flying emergency procedures. Help!

As I said, I was feeling more charitable until I read the posts of what people heard of him on Scottish, which appear to be less hearsay and more fact.

Hence my earlier comments that I fully stand by.

Having re-read the journos story - some things just don't add up.

If G - VINH left Walney " in the morning" a direct routing to Kinloss would give a distance of around 220nm. Lets allow an average speed of say 80kts ( I don't have the weather for that day but, allowing for climb and headwind etc. (This is against a stated cruise speed of 120Kts) and positioning to land this would give a total flight time of around 3 hours.

So if , sometime "in the morning" was even midday. he should have been arriving over the Moray coast at around 3 or 4pm. The a/c is listed as having a range of 1000nm ( 30 reserve) at 97kts so Kinloss was easily in range.

The track would have taken him either over the lake district towards Edinburgh ( my track was through the overhead of EDI which was perhaps the best optional the height he was reporting , via Perth ( just to the west of the airfield) up over the Angus glens toward royal Deeside keeping the Cairngorms to the west and continuing North until the Moray coast was in sight. If we allow for an initial leg to avoid the peaks around the lake district and a weather diversion that took him further east then this might account for his positioning well to the east of his original ( obvious) track. But, the accident was logged at 4.50pm.

Now, Caird Park is only 145nm or so from Walney island and even allowing for a half hour or so of mucking around trying to get back to Dundee airport (which is only 3nm or so to the south west of the crash site) I am puzzled as to where the time has gone? He could have got to where he did in a little over 2hours from Walney and still have enough fuel to fly to Kinloss and back again - if he started the day with full tanks.

If he did leave walney " in the morning " ( i.e before midday) is it small wonder that he was not only fatigued but running low on fuel 5 hours later when he still had 80 - 90nm to go ( without weather diversion etc.)

Where has he been? He is logged as stumbling through the Edinburgh Zone and we know he came to rest in a tree at teatime but what of the earlier part of the flight? When did he leave and would simple , very simple arithmetic not have alerted any pilot that the donkey was getting hungry?

I'm also a little bit fuzzy as to why he chose to aim at the golf course when, if you look at the location to the N of Dundee you will see acres of fields. All a bit of a mystery as to why you should rely on a childhood memory of a fictional character when there were a list of other options that had been available - before the fuel state became critical. No doubt, this man is oft to be seen at the side of a road with a little green can when he is out adventuring in his classic cars and motorbikes.

C42 - I'm intrigued. You say he is about to start an air taxi company with an unidentified pusher twin. Can you give more details. It is a business I think I might avoid!

As my golfing mates will attest, I have real trouble hitting a fairway off a tee - but I'd like to think I could hit one in a light aircraft!

I guess his climb to FL 100 in a busy bit of controlled airspace didnt help his fuel burn!!!!!!!!!:(:(:(

It was with a mixture of sadness and irritation that I read about Mr Hagedorn’s apparently highly avoidable accident.

People who simply refuse to accept responsibility for their mistakes, people who refuse to listen and to learn will forever remain a danger to themselves, and more importantly, to the wider public. Choosing as he does, to bask in the limelight with stories of heroically ‘saving the day’, he shows no sign of taking even the first vital steps to becoming a safer pilot.

For some on here to blame his instructor or examiner is not fair. Many people present themselves for both flying instruction and indeed for examination for grant of PPL (or NPPL) who are of marginal ability. However, an examiner can only judge what is demonstrated on the day. Neither the instructor nor the examiner have any control over any possible degradation of performance, or their growing propensity for risk taking after the grant of a licence.

Possibly there is an over ‘inclusive’ attitude in some flying schools, demonstrated by a ‘we can teach anyone to fly’ attitude, which can give false expectation to some. A more realistic assessment at an early stage of flight training might well help to minimise later accidents by over ambitious pilots of marginally ability. By contrast, it was refreshing to hear in a Safety training lecture at a very early stage of my commercial helicopter fight training that “helicopters are not for everybody”.

Mr Hagendorn’s woeful tale and his manner on TV remind me of two particular students that I have at one time tried to instruct. They shared distinct similarities; being ‘older’, ‘intelligent’, of a somewhat ‘bumptious’ manner, having a distinct preference for talking rather than listening, and being apparently incapable of accepting any responsibility for their mistakes. Indeed the two in question never, to my recollection, ever felt they had made a mistake. It was always “because of this, that or the other factor” beyond their control.

The fact that they are intelligent sadly does nothing to help these people to learn, and thereby to become safer pilots. Quite the opposite. Their intelligence has allowed them to cruise through life being the ‘instructor’ not the ‘student’, and changing roles in later life is not something that comes easily to them. They will typically spend more time in pre-flight briefings talking rather than listening to the instructor. They will usually be trying to correct the instructor, based on their long-held and invariably erroneous ‘knowledge’ gained from dubious sources such as MS Flight Sim (or in Mr H’s case, Biggles books). Blind faith in these false props rather than the wise words from an expert instructor is a poor substitute for the day to day task of flying safely, and especially so in an emergency.

Both of the students that Mr H reminds me of went on to have serious accidents. Thankfully, like Mr H, the one who did eventually manage to get a PPL survived to tell the tale. Not so the other one.

Lets hope that Mr H takes this opportunity to have a real hard look at himself, to review his attitude to airmanship and his need to listen and learn from both his mistakes and from others who are wiser. This would give him his best chance to become a better pilot before it is too late. As an airline pilot who regularly flies a jet full of passengers in the EDI airspace that Mr H apparently violated, I am appalled to know that my passengers and I are being put at such serious risk by fools like him. The saddest part is that he seems to be completely unaware of the danger he is putting so many people in.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to listen.

Presumably during the approach and time in controlled airspace he was warned by Scottish and given instructions to leave by the safest and quickest route.

Did he simply ignore same, or did he have difficulty understanding his predicament and the instructions given?

Too many examples of things not adding up for this one to be as straight forward as is made out.

Unless he was thought he was flying a jet, climbing straight out of the CTR/CTA was never going to be the quickest option - nor the most economical on fuel. Although, it may have been safest to climb as he was routing away from trouble if he then had to cross the Forth at a wider point than the bridges.

Looks like this was one of these flights where an accident was the only likely outcome. I think PilotMike has summed up very well - Poor Mr H - it wasn't his fault that the the machine conked out and what a great job he has done saving the day. I guess he must just be wired differently.

Had he chosen to land with fuel or made a precautionary landing on farmland he would not have endangered so many other people and would perhaps have been of a lesser risk to himself.

I still dn't understand how you can spend 5 hrs getting from Barrow in Furness to Dundee! F**k I can drive there and halfway back in that time! What was he doing - looking for an accident?

BabyBear - Look at the comments by FishBangWallop and CRX who seem remarkably well informed on the additional workload caused to (the excellent) Scottish Information.

Good comments, pilotmike - I'm glad someone agrees with me (in a manner more eloquent than I managed)!

In the credit where credit is due department, he did avoid built-up areas when he became concerned about fuel -- and when the engine quit, he quickly made a plan that fit his perceived circumstances, stuck to it and walked away from the final result.

Now in the what to do if you are short of fuel department, one can point out several poor decisions. It seems he landed somewhere in a low fuel state to get gas but there was none. I would be most reluctant to take off again without precisely measuring my remaining fuel and having a precise route worked out to a fuel stop that allowed me an hour's reserve.

In the event that my hour's reserve was about to be used, I would most certainly climb and begin working my route from one landable field to the next. Of course once high enough, you can usually head off in the general direction as I do in a glider until low enough that I want to have a good field in my pocket.

As a private owner, I would become highly cognisant of the fuel burn plus stick the tanks against the fuel gauge readings so that I would know what they were really telling me.

In a machine with a 1000nm range, mixture can have a large effect on consumption. You can't achieve book figures or often anything near that without optimal mixture. I would definitely log expected against actual fuel consumption for at least my first flights until I knew what I could expect.

One watch I had had a countdown timer. That was set to how much time was in the tanks of the C-172's I was flying.

Getting short of fuel can happen because of diversions, unexpected headwinds, or leaks. When you are down to that know last 30 minutes or so of fuel (depending on how well you know the a/c and the gauges), a precautionary landing gives you the opportunity to check out a field before committing yourself to it.

Then there's navigation. The pilot does seem able to get from A to B and manage a diversion. But the question arises about his ability to identify airspace, work effectively with ATC and adhere to a clearance. But we do have to give him credit for contacting ATC and being honest:ok:

Somehow I suspect whichever insurer that is persuaded to take him on will be insisting on a safety pilot with specified credentials:E

Weird clouds, apparently
 

Also saying that "“The criticism is inevitable. These people are responding to news reports and they don’t know what actually happened — I did not run out of fuel.....I had just enough fuel to get to Kinloss but what happened was that I burned my margin [which means he did run out of fuel, surely?]........he believed the engine cut-out was caused by a problem with that particular type of aircraft when one of the tanks is empty, and that the incident would lead to all models being grounded for further investigation to prevent a repeat."

Anyone with experience of this model care to comment? Has the BMAA issued a statement/advisory?

Since Mr H is clearly reading this (judging from news articles):

Please take onboard the valid comments on here, and stop blaming everyone but yourself. Sure, there may be mitigating circumstances, but we all know that accidents often have more than one single cause, some of which appear exacerbated by airmanship.

We're all here to keep each other safe; we are not here to pander to PR and the media who will subjectively quote without understanding the larger picture. Comments here will help improve everyone's safety if they are taken onboard.

If, for example, you knew the aircraft to have fuel feed issues, particularly if advised by maufacturers, it is your responsibility to add sufficient margin.

Neither are "weird clouds" an excuse: unforecast winds and their effect on fuel consumption would be spotted if flight planning contained ETAs, and late ETAs resulted in recalculation of ground speed and fuel remaining.

All these are complex, but within the syllabus of the PPL; there is no shame in asking if you forget certain aspects of the syllabus post-PPL at your local flying club, indeed you should be doing so in the post-PPL stage.

While clearly we don't know all the facts, there is a large body of factual evidence of airmanship from fellow users of Scottish, and an abandonment of reason in going down the "Biggle landing" route, contrary to all PPL training.

Take note, Mr H, and good luck for the recovery. And stop talking to the media. It is that which irks people most in this case.


Read: GASIL 2009/07: General Aviation Safety Information Leaflet. The CAA Accident Prevention Leaflet. | Publications | CAA

Aviation safety and skills are not to be taken lightly, whether you are a 1 hr a month or 80 hr a month pilot.

What an excellent thread this has been. Very enjoyable and thought provoking. It's waht I like about pprune and long may it continue.
Coming to it late in life (ditto flying), I can understand how a professional person can bring their "baggage" into a new realm and suspect the pilot in this case may well have done. Competency in one field sadly isn't always transferable to another.
Being a trainer, I suspect the person involved may well not have taken on board "the music in the words". Instructors may well have multiple agendas. I'm (paid) to give the course - I got good feedback - hence that's it. In an ideal world it's "when this person leaves the course, I am satisfied that they can cope without me" (a perennial problem where I work - the management believe they are paid on delivery whereas you actually get paid on acceptance of the product by the client). I suspect also that judgment by the person involved in particular circumstances may be lacking. Was there sufficient understanding by them of the principle of the "superior pilot"?

Running out of fuel (viewed from the ground) is poor planning (assuming that the fuel system hasn't sprung a leak). Discovering it in the air is different and shows us a great deal about people's judgment and motivations.

Lastly, let's address the challenge of getting someone who's been in a crash back flying again.
From conversations with insurance principals, my view would be to get the insurance people to state their conditions for issue of insurance (e.g spend 25 hours flying with an instructor, do 6 diversions, plan 10 cross country flights etc.).
Basically, instill some practice to turn someone who has a bit of paper declaring their competence into someone who has met the subtle challenges that flying throws up over at least one season.

My own log book (spread over 25+ years) has many learning examples in its bland entries.

As I wrote in my earlier post:
As well as:
How prophetic!

“Mr Hagedorn… insisted today he had ‘done nothing wrong’, and had been following the instructions of air traffic controllers throughout.” That’s the first box ticked – ‘done nothing wrong’ – and of course ATC are to blame, not him.

“it was ‘weird clouds’ which had resulted in him burning more fuel than expected” Now we can add the clouds to the list of culprits, but not our hero Mr H.

“As a pilot, I did everything I should have done.” Still squarely not to blame; re-tick box 1.

“My route was chosen in conjunction with the Dundee control tower, but nobody expected the engine to stop when I still had half an hour worth of fuel.” Still not Mr H to blame for anything, but the net is cast wider to include both Dundee Control Tower and his idiosyncratic engine to blame!

“I had just enough fuel to get to Kinloss but what happened was that I burned my margin.” So apparently there is still absolutely no way it could possibly be Mr H’s fault…

“I was flying above the clouds, which were broken so there was good visibility of the ground.” So presumably he feels that this demonstrates perfectly good airmanship for an inexperienced pilot? But again, presumably still somehow not Mr H’s fault that he found himself above the clouds…

“But there were weird clouds, patches at different heights, and I got permission to fly at 9000 ft while I was going through Edinburgh airspace.” I somehow doubt very much that he gained permission to fly in controlled airspace – rather that ATC felt it better to at least be talking to him once they discovered him there…

“The higher the altitude, the more fuel you burn” Not so, but probably Mr H with his expert knowledge of all things aviation and physics will somehow once again not be mistaken, and most definitely not to blame. I wonder, did he revise his fuel consumption figures and endurance before choosing to climb higher? Possibly Biggles ought to be consulted for definitive fuel consumption figures…

“He said he believed the engine cut-out was caused by a problem with that particular type of aircraft” Absolutely true to form for characters of his sort; there is still absolutely no blame laid at his feet – it is now the fault of the aircraft!

“… [he believed] that the incident would lead to all models being grounded for further investigation to prevent a repeat.” In the vain hope that once again, it will turn out to be absolutely no fault of his whatsoever!

“I said it wasn’t a crash, it was a landing.” Oh, silly me! There I was believing that it was his crash that was being reported. I achieve well over 1,000 landings every year; thankfully they are not newsworthy and the plane or helicopter can be flown again. Other competent pilots do exactly the same. That is what tends to distinguish the difference between a landing and a crash, Mr H.

Never before have I seen such a comprehensive catalogue of deluded self-belief, where everyone and everything is to blame, but not the idiot pilot. Clearly my hopes that Mr H might just reflect on his bad airmanship and his good fortune, then start to realise his mistakes in order to become a better pilot are dashed by this defiant defence of his blameless flying.

My view is becoming loss tolerant. What a complete idiot! PLEASE Mr H, don’t even think of flying again until you can accept that you made serious mistakes, and that you need re-training. And if you do ever find yourself airboune again, please, oh please, not in the same airspace as me.

I wouldn't normally comment on an accident until the facts are established, media reports being notoriously unreliable. However, Mr H has already said enough in interviews his various interviews. He seems to enjoy the attention but he really isn't doing himself any favours. A few thoughts:

Running yourself out of fuel is almost unforgiveable.
Not diverting or making a precautionary landing when you still could shows poor decision making.
Putting yourself in a situation where you have no options to deal with contingencies is bad airmanship especially when you have very limited experience.
Weather, air traffic, higher burn rate, etc does not justify the accident. It's your responsibility to be prepared for unforeseen events.
Running a tank to empty on aircraft with multiple tanks is best avoided where possible.
Choosing to fly into a tree at double your stall speed based on a tale in a children's book rather than carrying out a forced landing to a suitable area (a golf course for instance) is absolutely barking mad!

There used to be an accident cause category for RAF Boards of Inquiry back when blame culture was strong, entitled 'Aircrew Error (Negligence)' I have a sneaking feeling that despite Mr H's many excuses and justifications, such a category might have some relevance to his 'accident'.

The CT does suffer from a known fuel situation, in that, should the a/c be flown out of balance, or indeed be parked on sloping ground, the fuel gravitates to the lower tank, when flying in this condition, the a/c does tend to drop the heavier wing, that condition will remain I guess unless the wing is raised higher to compensate and equalise the fuel. It may well be that Mr H had fuel in the lower wing which failed to reach the carb. I would imagine that this would only occur when very low on fuel.

I doubt very much that there would be any mixture control on this aircraft.

It is a very nice aircraft to fly, relatively fast and very slippery, with as previously mentioned a very low stall speed, with when required a very short landing. Probably much less than 100metres in skilled hands.

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/ou...WBIGGLESN.jpeg

Yes Mr H, of course it was. That'll polish out just fine.

Nurse, get the straitjacket.

Mr H

We've all done stupid things in the air; nobody is perfect. Learn from those errors and admit to them, as the most dangerous person is one who does not learn. We will all freely admit to doing dumb things in the clubhouse, as that is how the temprement of the pilot should be.

As someone once said, you are continually learning in aviation. If you think you have nothing more to learn, quit before you kill yourself.

The electronic fuel guage on the FDCT is set by the pilot prior to flight on the basis of the physical quantity of fuel in the tanks, established by dipping. The electronics will then calculate fuel remaining on the basis of fuel burn.

If the electronic guage is set incorrectly to start with then it is quite possible that the it could show more fuel available then there actually is - hence the reason sight guages are available in the cockpit.

From a CTSW Pilot
 

2C worth from a CTSW Pilot.

I am similar in circumstances to the accident pilot; in ownership, age, experience, hours logged technical background etc; having bought my rather delightful CTSW six months ago and put 60 hours up on it so far.

Mainly I want to concentrate here on the report of engine stopping in what appears to be the final turn.

The two wing tanks are 65 litres each. This puts the plane pretty much top of the class AFAIK regarding endurance. Flogging the 912 is 5.4 hrs to zero, double that if flown at the factory’s economic cruise. I have mooched around on as little as 9 l/hr.

This aircraft is sold as a microlight, VLA, S-LSA with perhaps 1800 produced to date all variants, but essentially the same plane except for:

1. The earlier CT2K had fuel changeover valve, later changed to simple tee piece feed from the two wing tanks. This was the decision of the manufacturer, as the lesser risk, following in the field accident experience.
   
2. The CTSW has these two tanks, with inboard feeds to the unvalved tee.
   
3. The CTLS has additional slosh tanks, small inboard compartments with restricting flapvalves that trap a quantity of fuel over that feed pipe.

All versions have in the wing root sight gauges, but the very flat tanks, and the CTLS slosh tank can lead to some counterintuitive readings. A detailed discussion of this is here:

Flight Design CTsw Forum.... :: View topic - CTLS Fuel Balance

In particular the words of Russ and Xrayspecs are relevant to this event.

Bottom line: fly true or else your engine will starve before all the fuel is gone.
It takes me more attention than I want to give, to achieve this result, but I have done it to within a few litres on a long trip.

Others here may know of similar characteristic in flat tanked aircraft. Is this a fault or a quirk? It may take a fatality and a court case before this question gets answered. There needs to be total clarity when specifying what “usable fuel” means here. The ongoing improvements suggest the manufacturers are responsive to the problem. I wonder what the position is in relation to older craft without the slosh tanks?

Finally don’t be hard on the dude, at least on this point. IMHO (amateur shrink) and to give him the benefit of the doubt, he was in some sort of shock elation (the joys of survival) and at that moment WAS Biggles. Ever been Biggles?

Here you go, from the horses mouth as it were,

There was fuel in the plane, 10 litres equates to about 45mins in that plane

Take this in the spirit it was written, Vince IS a character!! :ok:


Yes guys it IS "your" vince.

In answer to questions:

"RUNWAYTREE" was selected after MAYDAY - engine cut out unexpectedly with between 5 and 10 litres in the port tank. The AAIB will concentrate on this.

Under instruction from Dundee Tower I was where I was, doing what I was doing.

"Mayday Mayday Mayday November Hotel engine out" - River Tay too far across with hard looking dunes (with grass) and a road in the way.

Too low to consider engine restart - might have worked as 5+ litres fuel back in sightglass but if not????.

0 deg flap for best glide angle "November Hotel Heading for Crop field due North of Tay Bridge"

Did 180deg turn toward a handy crop field (noted as part of ******* safety training), but that was up a slight hill and the other side of a small group of houses. "November Hotel Negative crop field."

Discarded playing fields off to the East nice and flat but full of kids and goalposts (Oliver would have landed past the lot, he does sheep!, but I didn't fancy a scottish kid on my conscience)

All that was left was a golf course. "November Hotel - Will try golf course to Left" Looked at fairways but riddled with bunkers, trees, shrubs and dozens of golfers (later found it was their annual competition day!)

"Negative fairway."

That left terminal tree!

Recalling Biggles crashing his SE5a deadstick into a forest I threw a viscious side slip Right (to add a downwards component to velocity) and at the last moment yanked back the stick to "stall" into the tree. Biggles calls it a "pancake" and that is a good description. Going mad might suit better!

Went into tree bottom first, wings fuselage etc took the strain - the CT behaved impeccably in the air and in breaking my arrival cushioned the impact.

result - bruised ribcage - getting better with hot baths, sprained ankle - (as that and my shoulder was all that kept me from falling out through the RH door) and a few light scratches on face - makes me look rugged I'm told.

A Senior RAF instructor has told me since that this was in the manual for flying over Burma - which is 99% forest, and that Biggles had described it perfectly!

I am up and about and fine - playing Bridge tonight.

There will be a full description of the manoeuvre with pictures in the Chronicle next edition and there are a couple of film crews coming - might have to get my hair tinted!!!

If you want to try it yourself, please tell me so I can be 10000000 miles away!

I came to Damyn's to get my car this morning but apart from ******* who was at least pleased to see me and ******* who definitely wasn't there was no-one there.

I am lucky my parents gave me Biggles books when young!

Incidentally that was not a "crash" which is uncontrolled but an "Emergency Landing" I am told by the AAIB. And there were NO bounces!

All the best to you all,

May drop in tomorrow if time.

Vince

i don't know what to say..... He must be related to Sully OR the Flying Vet...

This thread has given me a certain amount of amusement....:):)as I know a fair ammount of the history of this flight but certainally would not post on this public forum the only real conclusion I will at this time come to is this guy is a total "muppet" and one that can only do those that take some thought and care into how they operate their flying machines a very bad name!! :eek::eek:

More great press for GA.
 

What a deluded old fool. Rather than feeling humble after escaping with his life, he still chooses to try and justify his actions within the professional flying fraternity. I myself am a low hours PPL holder, but I promise you chaps, I will never do anything as stupid as this. And, should it happen, I wouldn’t try and explain it as a perfectly normal procedure. It would make me look even more of a tit.

Words fail me. :rolleyes:

Vince,

I am a professional gliding instructor at the Scottish Gliding Centre (based at Portmoak, near Kinross) and this week had the pleasure of flying with Derek and Mo Jones, well known in the helicopter world, having a holiday gliding. As is my usual practice I have an earpiece and listen out on the Scottish frequency, the glider radio is set to the local gliding site frequency and I have a hand-set as back-up, usually monitoring the standard glider cross-country frequency.

During your “Triumphal” progress across the Scottish TMA, I heard the whole transgression, but did not make the connection with your arrival near Dundee.

This is not Biggles, but Flashman, bravado is no substitute for skill or experience.
So far the CAA has not promoted capital punishment for digressions; in this case I wonder how few would say nay?

If you want to fly agian, what we need to addess is what is go on in your head.


Their are lots of instuctors who can help, just because you have the money and the "CHAT" dosn't mean you cam fly.


My advice, get a good instrcutor, put your lip (ego) in a vice for a while, go gliding (no engine) open your ears; do it soon, because, very soon you will no longer be a problem to the rest of us; because you will be dead.

The tree stuff, "Biggles" may have fooled the press, but not us, just go way.

Chris

p.p.s. Or very soon you shall be dead, no BS, just dead.

Regardless of his questionable ideas and practices, fair play to VH for not rising to the name calling, judgement and spiteful remarks you lot have happily posted on here.

pilotmike. Most eloquent.

Mr H, please read and learn for your own skin's sake if not for our remaining, somewhat tattered,reputations as pilots thanks to you and others like you. Our exasperation is because this nonsense was quite unnecessary, and was easily avoided with the smallest smidgeon of that sadly rare commodity, common sense. We all get it wrong sometimes, but most of us manage a bit of sensible humility and LEARN from others, and from our mistakes. Come on man, you are old enough to know better.

What the devil do you mean 'weird' clouds? If you don't understand met, buy a book. If those were,for example, wave clouds, go talk to some glider pilots. They will soon put you right. Wave can ruin your day if you don't understand it, even in quite big aeroplanes.

C18 and hhobbit - that seems a very probable scenario. Not the first or only type to have that issue, as anyong who listens and reads about aeroplanes would be aware. I bet that occurred to several readers here. Dissapointing, but not at all surprising that it was news to this gentleman.

Vince, if you mentor, you should also know how to listen and learn. Yes?